Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Brenizer Method
- Thread starter VI
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You need to train your vision. That image does not look like the brenizer method or MF at all!
It's obvious that you just blurred parts of the image in photoshop.
I find that a little insulting... I have no wish to get nasty, but just participate in a discussion.
I'll say it again and then be done... I personally do not like the Brenizer Method. I think it does a poor job emulating MF, and often turns out unpleasant faux depth of field. My photo was an exaggeration simply to say that I don't think it looks any better than blurring parts of an image in photoshop. That's one man's opinion.
VI™;19980044 said:
I think these are the best I've seen. Love the processing:
https://www.samhurdphotography.com/category/epic-portrait/
To me three shots makes all the sense in the world. Your 58mm f1.2 feels like a 30mm f0.6 or something, which gives a bit of an 8x10 feel. Beyond that it's a little silly.
I think your shot on the swing is lovely, but the fake vigenetting in the sky looks totally fake, as I said. The sky would still blow out even with real optical fall-off so it looks like a bad post effect.
The faux T/S image above with the car looks bizarre and confused to me, a random subject with random post effects. The incoherent focal plane hurts my eyes; I can't even look at it.
Stick with what you're doing, it's cool, don't let others tell you what style to pursue if you like what you're getting.
That said, fix the vignetting.
No insult intended!
I agree that the brenizer method sometimes looks like ****, but the image you posted is not comparable. Ps can't adequatly immitate focus fall off. You can't just quickly blur some parts of a photo. The brenizer method does a better job at that if applied properly.
That's true! And my hat's off to those who make it work. It's just not for me. Those last two examples from
EDIT: My apologies if I ever came across sounding like a pretentious d**k.. that certainly wasn't my intention at all.
Last edited:
The problem with 24mm is perspective issues when you get close.
I don't know why it's such a controversy. Photography can be art - interpreted by both artist and audience. (this is not directed to you, treuttray)
I think part of the reason for debate is this shallow DOF kick everyone is on. It's being used as a crutch to try and make average snapshots more impressive.
Shallow DOF has always been desireable, it's just not always acheiveable without special equipment and techniques other than lenses in certain circumstances. The Brenizer can help step in at certain times if used right.
While I do enjoy quite a few of the posted examples where the shallow DOF is used, I think the fact that it has been historically hard to achieve with simple and cheap tools is a major reason why many find it so appealing. Moreover, shallow DOF is often only desirable in select areas, such as portrait or product photography. It's not something to look forward to when shooting, for example, landscapes or macro (where the close distance makes even very small apertures look shallow).
The smaller the sensor, the harder it is to achieve a shallow DOF, so it was out of reach for most amateurs until the DSLRs became more affordable. Now it's like a rite of passage for any new owner of a DSLR to purchase a nifty-fifty and begin photographing ordinary things wide-open to try and make them appear all magical and movie-like.
So I agree with some others here that sometimes the Brenizer method gets used to create uninteresting photos, which the photographer thinks are good only because they employed this fancy pants technique. After all, the best photos done with this method are those where all the other elements of a good photo are there, and everything comes together. There is simply no other way
i am not sure what you mean.
Historically shallow DOF was a common problem. That's why constructions were used to keep ones head in place. (Also for long exposures that were necessary.)
By "historically" I mean since the popularization of consumer cameras, which is the last few decades, not the last century+. The first inexpensive mass market digital cameras (and current point and shoots) had rather small sensors, which could not get shallow DOF. Even with full frame DSLR the effect cannot be as pronounced as with a MF/LF cameras.
Today everyone has a camera and almost everyone is an avid photographer (term used very loosely, even if their camera is their phone and their output media is Instagram). Still, high quality shallow DOF photographs of the kind that can be obtained with a LF camera are out of reach for the average person and the challenge of getting such results is part of its appeal to some people.
Similar things happen when you look at any niche photography type that requires special (i.e. expensive) equipment or a complicated technique. Examples close to me are infrared and underwater photos. I'll admit to saving quite a few IR photos that would not have been terribly interesting had they not been in IR, and tolerating some underwater shots that were way off in terms of focus and composition, just because it was such a struggle to get them at all as a noobie diver. The fact that you have to work hard to get certain results can very much cloud your judgement of the objective value of those results.