Wedding Photographer, Ryan Brenizer: How'd They Do That?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 гру 2011
- Adorama Photography TV presents "How'd They Do That?" featuring wedding photographer and visual storyteller, Ryan Brenizer. In this episode of "How'd They Do That" Mark talks to Ryan Brenizer in Central Park about Ryan's photography style and his unique "Brenizer method". Enjoy learning about Scott's technique and how he creates his special "Brenizer method" images.
Find out more about Ryan Brenizer here:
www.ryanbrenizer.com/
Post your "Brenizer Technique" photos on the AdoramaTV Flickr group: flickr.com/groups/adoramatv
For related articles and videos, and to order books and other products to help you create great wedding photos, go here: www.adorama.com/alc/article/We...
Visit www.adorama.com/learn for more photography videos!
Send your questions to: AskMark@Adorama.com
I don't think I have ever been so impressed by another photographer let alone a wedding photographer.
That's awesome, Ryan, and thank you for sharing - you too Mark!
the couple under the umbrella in the rain, that photo just blew my mind.
i hope someday i'm able to shoot anything like that
Interesting interview. Seems like we need a part two for the post process… please!
10:50 the people walking into the frame with their smartphones to take pictures. Priceless. :)
What I find funny is, I did the same thing when I first starting photography. Just goofing around, playing with my 50 1.4 & PhotoShop. I was just wanting to test out the panorama function in photoshop. I thought it was cool. I showed some people and they "corrected" me on photography. Now I know, I'm just gonna do what I like and I'm not going to care so much what other people think.
Wow i love it!!
comment of the day: "you imagine wedding photography to be the old guy shooting at F16"
hahaha epic.
Love this technique and the results are not to be believed. You gotta try it to see it.... seeing is believing. Just looking at this one shot of Mark without a comparable "flat" shot doesn't help those who can't see. Thanks for another terrific episode.
Amazing Photographer..
Really, Hes Done Much, Love It..
I just tried this in my bedroom, its so easy and looks amazing.
is that a Sigma 85 1.4 lens? i thought it was nikon at first but the 1.4g doesnt have a flower petal hood like that does it?
@Nogert Not necessarily...the reason for shooting with a longer lens is because a longer lens renders more shallow DOF.
falling asleep after 6 minutes of non-video related talk...zzzz oh wait, they are going to talk about the subject now!
What a fantastic guy.
This is looking good
He is soo good woos
I'm impressed he doesn't need a tripod to get this to work. Practice makes perfect I guess.
Why would he need a tripod? he is using wide apertures.
Yes but if he moves around much while shooting it can throw off how the final image will look. I had some issues with some of my shots not quite lining up as well as they could have.
The software does all the heavy lifting. It's not like the old manual way of making all the image edges match perfectly. Personally I don't care for the effect. It looks like a filthy lens was used for the photos.
3:00 Tilt Shift (added in PS or lens), Light painting or studio lights? Wonder how they did the rim lighting. Amazing picture
Wait so the distorted bokeh at the sides is added in PS? I see the blur ends right over the couples' umbrella.
Good video, thanks you guys. A little slow to get started but in an interview style it's kind of expected.
How would you stich it all?
yes
SUPER
@theiPhone4Videos Not a stupid question. And, yes, he digitally stitches all of the shots together to make one huge photo. There is software you can get that will use visual markers in images to accurately line-up overlapping portions of photos so all the photos appear together as one, seamless large photo. If done right, this has the effect of simulating a shot taken with a digital camera that has a HUGE sensor.
Thanks.
Why does the description say "Enjoy learning about Scott's technique and how he creates his special "Brenizer method" images."
Who's Scott?
Did anybody catch what size of lens he used here. I just can't figure out what he said.
85 1.4 is what he uses I have seen other videos of him doing it
You are a legend Joe" Thanks for getting back to me - people are awesome!
+Tonicwine999 Sigma 85mm 1.4
@garym5 the difference is the depth of field.. check out ryan's blog, those photos will show it better.
@Nogert The subject,(Speaking here of the person being the subject) doesn't appear in every one of the shots. Depending on how many shots you take, the subject only appears in 1, 2, or maybe 3 of the shots. The rest of the shots are of the surrounding area to the subject. And, yes, a moving subject can be a danger that will mess up the shot. You need to tell your subject to remain as still as possible. And, that's why he says he "wants to shoot the parts that move first."
What strap is Ryan using? Looking for something simple like that.
Thats the Nikon strap. it comes with every camera.
+Juan D Estrada it's not a Nikon strap where's the logo?
8:44. there. lol
I follow him so long in 500px there and I did not know its him until 1:46 that photo
What’s the best focal length?
600mm
@BloatedSensations wouldn't this technique make more sense to shoot with a 50mm prime at 1.4f and then Create a panoramic with that.
@theiPhone4Videos
Yes.
I don't understand if the image is basically being overlapped for the purpose of creating a shallow depth of field why does he move the camera position after every shot? surely you could just fire off about 15 stationary pictures right?
Also surely after about 10 shots the subject has moved slightly and ruins it.
Afternoon! Have you had any luck with photo sfxart tricks (do a google search)? My buddy Becky made some mind blowing photos with their photography tutorials.
It is a multi-raw panorama.
I would like to add that yes, 14 is wide and 2.8 is shallow. But you won't be able to produce a photo to exact composition like the one in the video with that lens.
I actually do stubby and very good at it.
Reminds me of how my vision was prior to cataract surgery.
The people walking by with the point and shoot cameras at the end had no idea who they were walking by
@garym5 The shot he achieves is not possible with a single shot using a wide-angle lens. If the image was framed the same way, you'd end up with a very wide DOF. If you went for the same DOF, you'd end up with heavy barrel distortion in a smaller frame. The only way you could replicate the image he gets with a single shot would be to use a large format camera - of course, you'd have to shoot film, as digital cameras with a sensor size equal to large format film don't yet exist.
huh?!!! what did i miss??
i think it is
It would be easier if u show us photos taken by Ryan :)
cause I didn't get it :/
Actual Technique begins at 6:00. You're welcome.
@theiPhone4Videos, I was thinking the same thing, like whats so special about that? I don't see the big deal...
7:20 for when they actually take the photo.
over9000713 thx man
@garym5 What an ignorant comment. You totally missed the point. There is no way you can get shallow depth of field with a wide angle lens. Not unless you are right in the subjects face (and then you get extreme deformation). It's not about the wide angle but the depth of field.
Hmmm, pity they didn't show how he stitches all the images together.
I feel like we saw half the video... what just happened?
this is good but its not a technique that's to be named after him. many photographers have been doing this. many years ago even during the 35mm film era.
bismarckimages wow, how do you stitch photographs during the film days?
bismarckimages Also, others may have used this technique before him, but have probably kept it as a trade secret. Ryan shared it openly, and deserves it being named after him...
First of all all Everybody wants to see which camera and lenses he use. that's all gonna effect everyone's mind LOLz no body gonna think about panorama longer then 12:27 minutes lolz.
I'd love to tell you what I though of this video but I need to keep it a secret.
CS6 photomerge
seems pretty easy...
Hey! Actually, Jason is right man. You won't be able to achieve a Brenzier method (Panoramic/Wide Angle with max shallow DOF) depth of field with any one lens. The shorter the focal length, the greater your DOF is. Also, the farther your subject is from your lens, your depth of field increases. ie. f/2.8 at 14mm isn't the same DOF at 300mm. You could probably achieve a similar DOF with the same composition as his if you were using a 600mm f/4 standing quite a distance from your subject...
I dont get it :D
I read an interesting story about the brenizer method. This technique was used and known for years by other photographers. In 2007 a photographer named daniel buck described this technique in the well known fred miranda forum. One year later ryan brenizer 'invented' this technique. He also suggested to use the name 'brenizer method'. Many photographers at this time dont liked him because of that not very gentleman like behaviour. I think that the credit of ryan brenizer is just that he made this old technique popular
"Bake-in" your white balance lol
skip to 6:30, save time
we can do this with wide lens + photoshop.(blur). why waste time to get lots of photos?
i'm confused :(
Lol you must take horrible photos
+Standardchannel01 can i see what you made?
No I want to see what YOU made
Standardchannel01 hahaha poor you. you didn't read it well or you didn't understand what i commented.LOL
i said i was confused!!! and that means i asked a question RIGHT!!!! don't be a damn shit here. you're not a pro hahahah
Talk to me again when you graduate ESL.
His analogy with having a huge sensor with a shallow depth of field (DOF) is totally wrong. First of all, DOF has nothing to do with sensor size. DOF is defined by the lens and distance to subject. It's a purely optical effect and the sensor plays no direct role. Second, he merges several pictures in one using the same aperture, so this has nothing to do with sensor size.
"First of all, DOF has nothing to do with sensor size." - That's simply not true, so please inform yourself before correcting others.
Harald Brandner I am waiting for your enlightening explanation. I am all ears.
Johnny Indeed Johnny, Harald is right. Check the internet, thousands of tutorials and explanations online. +Harald Bradner
Kurt Bogaert Thanks Kurt. But I never found one that explains it well. Can you please send me a link? There is a lot of wrong information out there.
Johnny As you said, DOF relies on the lens (focal length and aperture to be more precise) and the distance. And as the sensor size changes so does the frame of coverage. To get the same frame on smaller sensor, you'll have to go further away, thus decreasing the depth of field. You multiply your aperture with the sensor crop factor to get the equivalent depth of field you'll get on a full frame. Look up Tony Northrup on UA-cam, he explains these things in great detail.
I'm dying here to find out the "Brenizer method". DYING! Watched the entire damn thing, holding my breath .... Almost passed out! One word to the geniuses at Adorama -- NEVER AGAIN WILL I EVER BUY ANYTHING FROM YOU FOLKS unless you pay me for exactly 12 minutes and 27 seconds I will never get back. Please contact me for me for my ongoing hourly rate. This is simply one BIG, unreal bullshit of epic proportions!
Folks simply do not listen, he said he uses autopano or cs 3!!!
When I look at that photo all I can see is the chromatic aberration in purple all around their faces.
No way near as soft as if you used a 85/1.4
You can take the image with a wide angle then add the bokeh in photos shop.
Wait what? They play Lady Gaga at weddings? Is her music appropriate for the occasion? LOL
Well, it's cooler than the weddings I've been to where they played the same old cheesy 80's songs like Dirty Dancing's I've had the time of my life and Titanic's My heart will go on (I cringe on that one LOL)
start at 6:15 thats the real meat, the rest is BS
I don't get it. Cool final photo, but what are we looking at? He stitched a bunch of pix together to make what photo? Didn't see any of the process or what makes this different. Please spend a bit more time explaining what's going on and less time talking about how many weddings he does every year? Weirdest Adorama vid ever, and I'm a fan. *furrows brow*
basically, the technique allows you to get a wide photo and so more in the frame, but still maintaining a shallow depth of field, since the equivalent lens needed to get this much in the frame would have nowhere near the amount of background blur. Not a great place to properly show it but with lights in the background, it looks beautiful. Take a look at some of his work, the one with the bus is crazy ryanbrenizer.500px.com/
Yeah I had a look at some more of his pix after watching the vid. I just didn't see anything overly new about stitching photos together get get more in frame at higher resolution (people have been doing that for years), but I do see with his that the style is a little different. So yeah, I get it. Thanks for commenting :)
Yeah panoramas have been around for ages but he popularised the technique of using it to create wide angle shallow depth of field
I'm with you Mark...weddings...major turn off.
Where on earth do you have a shallow depth pic with a wide lens? Even if you have a 10-22mm 1.8, you'll never notice as shallow depth as in a 50mm or as shallow as a 70-200 on 2.8. Study some photography techniques before going dumb over other people.
Presenter references himself too often, taking away the focus of the interview. He's a little awkward too :/
its not.
Always one hater
useless, this is a panorama? easily done in 1 shot with a 90mm tilt shift. straight out of camera.
check out some of his other pics. when he does it in a field. I agree to a point for this shot that a tilt shift would get you close to this with now work.
you sure have no idea what you just watched
is not new
+Necrodh ndh You're commenting on a 4 year old video pal.
+Julian Apostate still not new
what's wrong with his mouth?>
@CampFireFilmsInc I hope you don't do this for a living.
Most over rated photographer ever, and the most over rated "technique" - his images are bog standard. Shooting famous people does not make you great, you got to shoot them because you were way over hyped online over ONE crappy, time consuming technique.
Goodness what an awful picture.