[magic.pill]

Who knows how this kind of pictures are taken?

I found this picture on the web and tried to reproduce the same effect, but I did not manage to do so.

Here the person is shown very sharply infront of a huge blurred horisontal background. Obvioiusly the lens has to be quite wide (at least 50mm or less) to capture a person in that proportion. But the wider the lens I use, the more the blurr factor of the background dissolves.

At first I thought that this example is actually a crop from an even bigger one. But now I rather believe that this was done by some technique, that combines two pictutes in some way. Further more, if you look at the edges of the person, it looks like it organicaly belongs there, it does not look like it was cut out of some other picture and pasted into that background.

Cheers
MP

Attached Images

 

[08amczb]

It's taken in a studio with a gray background at F8 on a 85mm lens for example and the background was changed in post process. (Another image with a wide lens, wide open, everything out of focus)

---------- Post added 11-06-18 at 04:43 PM ----------

Search for "Brenizer method": making a panorama with a tele lens wide open to mimic bigger format. This image doesn't look like a Brenzier method image, but I think you are looking for that solution.[COLOR="Silver"]

[magic.pill]

Thanks for the quick reply 08amczb. Your answer totally makes sense.

You write it is taken on a grey background. Does it actually make any difference which color the background has? I mean would not it be rather more convenient to use a green background to be able to separate the object from the background more easily? What about a completly white background?

[biz-engineer]

I don't think that image had the background replaced , simply because there is a number of hair detail that is very hard to be completely invisible with a background replacement. That image was likely shot horizontally with a full frame camera and a 85 f1.4 lens or 70-200 2.8 @ 200mm wide open and a side stitch of an extra piece of background. The subject within DoF and background completely blurred is due to subject separation without progressive blur thank to the shot not including the floor or any element near the subject.

[magic.pill]

@biz-engineer: I absolutly agree with your accessment. The hair details is so smootly integrated into the background, that it looks like it is a one shot picutre. I also went out and tried out a 70-200 2.8 lens on my Pentax K5-II trying to reproduce that result. I did not succed.


The distance to the subject at 200/2.8 has to be really far AND the distance from the subject to the background the has to be EVEN farther. If this shot is supposed to be taken in such a condition, then the hall that they are standing in must be 200 meters long, which I consider unlikely. This was the exact riddle I started with.

[magic.pill]

biz-engineer,

when I try your method, this is (roughly) what I get (first pic). A nicely separated portrait. BUT: the background does not look like a huge room. It is not wide. I actually need the huge wise space on the right, because I want to use that photo on a website. The space on the right will be filled with text.

The second pic shows how far the background has to be to achieve blurr. (dont know if this is 200mm though).

[spinno]

two images stitched together? Manually focusing on the right hand side to give the blurred effect on that side, using the setting on the left hand side? Just how I see it

[magic.pill]

@spinno: sorry I did not understand which version you advocate - the one of two images stiched togeather or the version that it is just one image. If you think that it is one image, how do would you achieve the wide angle in the background, despice the subject in the fore-ground. Also see my last responce.

[wibbly]

Magic you can't shoot it at 200mm on your k5 as it won't be the same field of view. You should have shot at ~140mm

[magic.pill]

@Wibbly, haha. I totally agree. But the argument still stays the same even at 140mm

[biz-engineer]

I also went out and tried out a 70-200 2.8 lens on my Pentax K5-II trying to reproduce that result. I did not succed.

You'd get more effect with a full frame camera. You can always stitch a bokeh pano with an apsc camera but there is a limit of how much equivalent sensor size you can emulate when photographing people because people move (even slightly between frames) and that limits how close and how tight you can frame the subject without running into problems at stitching. That's what I learned with experiencing the brenizer method. A couple of years ago, as I was explaining the limitation of stitching people portraits with crop sensors, my point of view was rejected, there was an intense debate about 3D effects achievable with lager sensors which was totally denied by a person here, but the same person later upgraded to Nikon full frame... :-)

[spinno]

@spinno: sorry I did not understand which version you advocate - the one of two images stiched togeather or the version that it is just one image. If you think that it is one image, how do would you achieve the wide angle in the background, despice the subject in the fore-ground. Also see my last responce.

The original image in the first post looks like two images stitched together, one focusing on the man and the second out of focus on the background.
Some bridge/compact cameras allow panorama shooting where this effect could be achieved

[pres589]

Are you sure this wasn't a two or three shot stitch taken with something a bit more commonly used for portraits, like an 85 f1.something? Seems like a tripod and an empty airport terminal are required to replicate the original picture.

[magic.pill]

You'd get more effect with a full frame camera.

Agree. Though the results are so far appart. I dont think a full frame will have THAT big of a difference.

[spinno]

Are you sure this wasn't a two or three shot stitch taken with something a bit more commonly used for portraits, like an 85 f1.something? Seems like a tripod and an empty airport terminal are required to replicate the original picture.

I believe that's what I said (in so many words)