Not signed in (Sign In)

Category Filter

Welcome, Guest

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorBAUMANN
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2010
     
    heh, nope, this was shot with an 85mm PRIME lens (a clue!), no zoomin allowed.RIDE METAL
  1.  
    really big trees?i mean that looks like a 10 cat bag, easy
    • CommentAuthorBAUMANN
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2010
     
    haha, no, but ill give you a cookie just for guessing that.

    ok, so its called the "brenizer method," which i will attempt to explain now. basically its a way of creating wide-angle dramatic depth of field, which is very hard to do with 35mm cameras. it is an attempt to replicate the look of large format (4x5, 8x10) film cameras, which i consider to be very visually appealing but they are also a pain in the ass to use.

    the way you do it is through stitching in photoshop. the image above is made up of about 20 different photos, all taken with the same settings on the camera, with the same lens, at the same focus range. its similar to creating a panoramic photo in Ps, but you must never change your focus point...you are essentially just extending the frame beyond what would ordinarily be capable with the focal length you are using.

    does that make sense at all?RIDE METAL
  2.  
    You basically just said that you take the exact same photograph 20 times. I don't quite get how that would make a composite different, except for slight movement blur?i mean that looks like a 10 cat bag, easy
    •  
      CommentAuthortinyhonkshus
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2010 edited
     
    oh and also

    i mean that looks like a 10 cat bag, easy
    • CommentAuthorBAUMANN
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2010
     
    tinyhonkshus:You basically just said that you take the exact same photograph 20 times. I don't quite get how that would make a composite different, except for slight movement blur?
    ok, how can i explain better. so, one of the photos is of the entire bike. the bike FILLS THE ENTIRE FRAME of one of the photos. then i shoot everything else AROUND the bike and stick it all together to create a much wider field of view. make more sense? maybe?RIDE METAL
  3.  
    yes. that is a way better explanation.i mean that looks like a 10 cat bag, easy
  4.  
    That is awesome.Naaaah, too uncool for the #messlyfe. I just like to hang out in loading docks and pretend to talk on my radio so that people will like me. - Mfratt
    • CommentAuthorBAUMANN
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2010
     
    Speaking of awesome, check this guy out...the most epic Bachez I know.
    RIDE METAL
    •  
      CommentAuthorlenny
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2010
     
    ^ nice photo. the red in the bike and on the sign/wall make the whole photo pop.
    • CommentAuthorBAUMANN
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2010
     
    thank lenny! that's specifically why i chose that spot, i shot a bike of mine there once and really liked the reds.RIDE METAL
    •  
      CommentAuthorBach~ez
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2010
     
    I hate that assholemrotown: U lock them by the neck to a street sign!
    •  
      CommentAuthorseanile mick
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2010 edited
     
    jerksomebody turn the lights off on this place already.
  5.  
    that clear, amazing somerville air really holds it all together
    • CommentAuthorben
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2010
     
    Bach~ez:I hate that asshole

    That's what he saidI have DTF pants. They're crotchless. -surprisefries
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2011
     
    dunes & snow & sky (& ocean)
  6.  
    daaaaaaaaaaaaayum!

    also, I am outrageously happy with this picture I took about an hour and a half ago. I can't wait to get photoshop back online so I can fix it up!
    North pole (Raw)
    11.5 minute exposure. I froze my ass off to get this but it was worth it. I know, it's not centered, but for some reason I like it.

    Also, anyone wanna tell me how to get rid of those little flares in the corners? they seem to show up whenever I take a longer than 5 minute exposure. Camera's a Nikon D60, format RAW, Lens 50mm prime aperture f/5.Naaaah, too uncool for the #messlyfe. I just like to hang out in loading docks and pretend to talk on my radio so that people will like me. - Mfratt
    • CommentAuthorBAUMANN
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2011
     
    probably light pollution of some sort. streetlights? are you using a lens hood? its weirdly symmetrical...RIDE METAL
  7.  
    can't be, I was in the darkest place I can imagine. A car did drive by while the exposure was going on, maybe that's what did it.Naaaah, too uncool for the #messlyfe. I just like to hang out in loading docks and pretend to talk on my radio so that people will like me. - Mfratt
  8.  
    do you have any red lights that glow on the front of your camera?somebody turn the lights off on this place already.
  9.  
    Nope.Naaaah, too uncool for the #messlyfe. I just like to hang out in loading docks and pretend to talk on my radio so that people will like me. - Mfratt
    • CommentAuthorben
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2011
     
    Well with all other possibilities eliminated, I'm gonna have to say that it probably was aliens, then.I have DTF pants. They're crotchless. -surprisefries
  10.  
    Hahah. I'm gonna bet it was just the car that drove by.Naaaah, too uncool for the #messlyfe. I just like to hang out in loading docks and pretend to talk on my radio so that people will like me. - Mfratt
    •  
      CommentAuthorZevsInSF
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2011
     
    nope. aliens.EPIC! Stratton: ^fwiw he did in fact have a map out.... ...while riding.... ...with no hands.... ..on fire*...
  11.  
    Has anyone seen or heard of this yet?
    http://photorumors.com/2011/01/07/polaroid-went-gaga/
    polaroid's new stuff with Lady Gag.
    I'm disgusted. I think it's clear Polaroid is not going to ever go back to film.
    I'm happy the Impossible Project is picking up where they f*cked up.
  12.  
    love it.

    fuck you.You're purposefully attempting to sabotage my degree project. Thanks.
    •  
      CommentAuthorZevsInSF
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2011
     
    WHy go back to film and chemicals when you have modern tech that can do the same job? The glasses are stupid and funky. But the printer is pretty great. Just plug it into your camera and you've got a photo. right there. And the one w/ a camera attached is pretty great too, but unnecessary if you already have a digi'cam.

    Why do you want to go back to film? what's the point. Not to mention the cameras of the same quality (e.g. not plastic lenses) are going to cost twice as much cause they're "vintage and rare".EPIC! Stratton: ^fwiw he did in fact have a map out.... ...while riding.... ...with no hands.... ..on fire*...
    • CommentAuthorBAUMANN
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2011 edited
     
    1 - "film and chemicals" are capable of producing something that digital cameras can't, it's called a NEGATIVE. a physical thing that holds an immense amount of information that, when stored properly, can last for DECADES if not CENTURIES. a digital image file...gone with one hard drive crash. yes there are ways of preventing loss (backups, internet storage, etc) but the vast majority of people taking digital photos don't do that.

    2 - a crappy printer printing out crappy prints will never been as fun or charming as polaroid film was (and still is).

    3 - i guarantee you that after a week of carrying that stupid printer around in their bag people will get tired of it and onto the shelf it will go to collect some dust.

    4 - there are many reasons to go back to film (see #1). also the cameras are smaller, lighter, you shoot differently when you use them (better), and they are infinitely more FUN TO USE. my top 3 favorite cameras (that i own) are all film cameras.RIDE METAL
  13.  
    PhotobucketWARNING: RESIDUAL SIMULATON MAY OCCUR
  14.  
    eBAUMANN:1 - "film and chemicals" are capable of producing something that digital cameras can't, it's called a NEGATIVE. a physical thing that holds an immense amount of information that, when stored properly, can last for DECADES if not CENTURIES. a digital image file...gone with one hard drive crash. yes there are ways of preventing loss (backups, internet storage, etc) but the vast majority of people taking digital photos don't do that.

    2 - a crappy printer printing out crappy prints will never been as fun or charming as polaroid film was (and still is).

    3 - i guarantee you that after a week of carrying that stupid printer around in their bag people will get tired of it and onto the shelf it will go to collect some dust.

    4 - there are many reasons to go back to film (see #1). also the cameras are smaller, lighter, you shoot differently when you use them (better), and they are infinitely more FUN TO USE. my top 3 favorite cameras (that i own) are all film cameras.


    win.

    also for your previous shots with the brenizer method do you use a tripod or hand hold? I really want to give this a shot. Large format DOF is beautiful.
    • CommentAuthorBAUMANN
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2011
     
    all handheld, a tripod would take too long to complete all the shots, and your subject would likely have shifted pose slightly (which will confuse photoshop later when you merge them all together). there are a few tricks to it and location selection is important. i have done about 7 or 8 portraits and each time I ran into a different problem and learned a different trick to make it work better the next time. it just takes a little practice. oh and make sure you use at least an 85mm lens. good luck!RIDE METAL
  15.  
    i'm reading more about it here http://blog.buiphotography.com/2009/07/the-brenizer-method-explained-with-directions/
    i have an 18-105 f/3.5 and a 50mm 1.8 prime so I'm thinking the prime would work better over the flattening the zoom would do.
    i thought you had a large format for all those superb shots and I was jealous haha but this is awesome. thanks for the tips!
  16.  
    That reminds me, what is everyone's favorite lens(es)? I rarely ever use anything but my 50mm f/1.8.Naaaah, too uncool for the #messlyfe. I just like to hang out in loading docks and pretend to talk on my radio so that people will like me. - Mfratt
  17.  
    50 1.8 as well
    • CommentAuthorBAUMANN
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2011
     
    Hmm, that's tough, I'd need to break that down by camera:

    5DII - either 85/1.2 or 35/1.4, both are like children to me
    GF1 - Panasonic 20/1.7
    M6/Bessa R3a - VC 40/1.4 Nokton
    RZ67 - 110/2.8

    The 50/1.8 is great for the money but you have to baby them, I have broken 2 of em haha.RIDE METAL
  18.  
    My 50/1.8 is a series E lens, it seems pretty solid. definitely more solid than my 35-70, 70-300 and 18-55 lenses.Naaaah, too uncool for the #messlyfe. I just like to hang out in loading docks and pretend to talk on my radio so that people will like me. - Mfratt
    • CommentAuthorben
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2011
     
    eBAUMANN:1 - "film and chemicals" are capable of producing something that digital cameras can't, it's called a NEGATIVE. a physical thing that holds an immense amount of information that, when stored properly, can last for DECADES if not CENTURIES. a digital image file...gone with one hard drive crash. yes there are ways of preventing loss (backups, internet storage, etc) but the vast majority of people taking digital photos don't do that.

    Not to nitpick, but someone has to point out that a SINGLE negative is gone with one fire/flood/scratch/dog/accidental throw-away. It's not like they're some super-secure, indestructible medium.I have DTF pants. They're crotchless. -surprisefries
    • CommentAuthorBAUMANN
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2011 edited
     
    ^ "when stored properly" - i trust my negatives way more than i trust my hard drives, and i have a drobo (google it). not to mention that I SCAN every negative that I want to protect. the negative serves as a protected archive, not a singular image source.RIDE METAL
    •  
      CommentAuthorcparx
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2011
     
    PICT0002
    this is on a rental bike down the street from my hotel, i got a good laugh out of it
  19.  
    eBAUMANN:all handheld, a tripod would take too long to complete all the shots, and your subject would likely have shifted pose slightly (which will confuse photoshop later when you merge them all together). there are a few tricks to it and location selection is important. i have done about 7 or 8 portraits and each time I ran into a different problem and learned a different trick to make it work better the next time. it just takes a little practice. oh and make sure you use at least an 85mm lens. good luck!



    alright I need advice from you. I've shot about 5 of these so far and it's not that dramatic. I tried with my 50mm 1.8 and an 18-105 set a 85mm @ f/5.6? I know I won't get the full effect because I'm not using an 85 1.4 but I've seen some people do it with these. How do you shoot? Like distance from subject/how much they fill up the from. I did it starting standing so 1/3rd the subject fills up the frame. Do you think moving close so maybe just the head fills up the whole frame would be better?
  20.  
    the focal depth at f/5.8 isn't going to be as dramatic as at f/1.4. There's a reason the 85mm f/1.4 is called the "bokeh king" lens. I haven't tried this yet since my photoshop is offline indefinitely, but I'm going to.Naaaah, too uncool for the #messlyfe. I just like to hang out in loading docks and pretend to talk on my radio so that people will like me. - Mfratt
  21.  
    the 50 1.8 shots worked it's just not dramatic. I'm starting to think if I move too close then when I stitch it together there will be too much distortion. Why does the 85 1.4 have to be so expensive :(
  22.  
    you can ebay em for like 150. I know several people who've done that. just look for "just listed" and "buy it now" or "ending soonest" and "auction only". you can get great deals that way. I got my 50 1.8 for 26 bucks, in NOS condition.Naaaah, too uncool for the #messlyfe. I just like to hang out in loading docks and pretend to talk on my radio so that people will like me. - Mfratt
    • CommentAuthorBAUMANN
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2011
     
    james_emile:the 50 1.8 shots worked it's just not dramatic. I'm starting to think if I move too close then when I stitch it together there will be too much distortion. Why does the 85 1.4 have to be so expensive :(
    try a longer focal length (over 100) as it will flatten things a bit and create more separation between your subject and the background. also make sure there is a good amount of distance between your subject and the background to begin with. i usually shoot vertically, usually just 1 or 2 shots of the subject then circling outward around them. its takes some practice so keep tryin!RIDE METAL
  23.  
    eBAUMANN:
    james_emile:the 50 1.8 shots worked it's just not dramatic. I'm starting to think if I move too close then when I stitch it together there will be too much distortion. Why does the 85 1.4 have to be so expensive :(
    try a longer focal length (over 100) as it will flatten things a bit and create more separation between your subject and the background. also make sure there is a good amount of distance between your subject and the background to begin with. i usually shoot vertically, usually just 1 or 2 shots of the subject then circling outward around them. its takes some practice so keep tryin!



    thanks for the tips!
    • CommentAuthormauspad
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2011
     


    unfortunate framing, toy camera forever
    •  
      CommentAuthorZevsInSF
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2011
     
    BAUMANN:[long ebaumann list of why film ROX]

    I'm not against film. I love film.

    I'm against people charging more for a camera with mechanical gears and shitty glass... than they charge for a high tech digital camera.

    Im ONLY referring to Impossible-project's Polaroid vs the new digital Polaroid.EPIC! Stratton: ^fwiw he did in fact have a map out.... ...while riding.... ...with no hands.... ..on fire*...
    • CommentAuthorBAUMANN
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2011
     
    i dont even know what this impossible project jazz is about. ive been shooting with the new fujifilm instax cameras and they are more than enough polaroid for me...RIDE METAL
  24.  
    the impossible is some people in the UK? that used to work for polaroid and they bought some machines and are making film again. I'm not crying about not having any for a 600 series or sx-70 polaroid but it's cool that they're starting to do 8x10 and 4x5 films.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeJan 14th 2011 edited
     
    from the larz anderson bridge on the ride home this evening:

    larz anderson bridge