AMUBAL wrote:
I wonder if you could achieve a similar result with only 3 photos. 1 with the subject in focus, 1 with the subject OOF using MF in front as much as possible, and the same in back.
I don't think you even need one with the subject OOF. You want the subject to be sharp with OOF throughout the rest of the frame. I would set it up as 3 or 6 shots, most likely.
I have seen some truly stunning examples of this technique, and enjoyed the ones posted here.
For those of you who say you can get the same look with a 135mm, you simply cannot. You DEFINITELY do not need to 30 images...that is quite excessive. I will do this now and again with anywhere from 3-9 photos, and it yields great results even with those few.
One thing to add, though...the results and difference it makes depends largely on the foreground/background items in the shot. If you do not setup the shot the right way, it will not make much difference. If you do set it up right, it makes a massive difference.
AMUBAL wrote:
I wonder if you could achieve a similar result with only 3 photos. 1 with the subject in focus, 1 with the subject OOF using MF in front as much as possible, and the same in back.
No, it would be a different look, plus more post production work trying to mask the foreground from the mid-ground and the background. Not saying it wouldn't be cool, just different, thats all.
This might help understand this technique a little more. I was planning on having this photo be much wider angle than I had originally posted. But because my pano had holes (voids) I had to crop it.
Here is the image in its entirety uncropped. This is the same photo but now appears to be much wider. A 135mm could never do this with just one photo. Rachel Bokeh pano uncropped by Matt Randolph, on Flickr
Again, it is a very nice photo, but I have been shooting with my 135L for years on a FF body and this doesn't strike me as any different than a shot with that combo wide open from a bit of a distance (I specialize in outdoors family portraits).
gheller wrote:
Again, it is a very nice photo, but I have been shooting with my 135L for years on a FF body and this doesn't strike me as any different than a shot with that combo wide open from a bit of a distance (I specialize in outdoors family portraits).
greg
It's a nit I'm picking, but using a 135 and backing up will give you greater depth of field compared to using, say, an 85 or a 50 and being closer in.
joelconner wrote:
For those of you who say you can get the same look with a 135mm, you simply cannot. You DEFINITELY do not need to 30 images...that is quite excessive. I will do this now and again with anywhere from 3-9 photos, and it yields great results even with those few.
My point is that the effect isn't as dramatic/striking in the first shot. While its a nice shot, it looks like a more conventional, shallow DOF shot. Hence people are saying you could get an approximation of it using a 135 on FF.
The second is a more striking example of the technique and looks more "impossible" using a single frame approach.
Yes, that first shot appears to have about the same (or even a bit more) DOF than my 135L would have wide open at that distance.
On the other hand, that linked picture (the couple in a row of trees) would be a really tough shot without a wide, fast prime, T/S, or, perhaps this stitching technique
I went back out tonight and shot the exact same location (same framed crop) with my 85mm @ 1.8 as one picture and my Canon F/4 70-200mm to shot a 135mm @ f/4 to compare the FOV and DOF. Here are the results compared to my bokeh pano:
Here are the locations I had to stand to capture the same size bridge in each shot:
mattr762 wrote:
The strategy is to create a panorama with an emphasis on low depth of field. These panoramas simulate using wide angle lenses with a very large aperture, resulting in a large field of view with limited depth of field. Using this technique allows unlimited field of view because you can just grow your pano to 360 degrees if desired.
This photo kind of looks like a 24mm f/1.4, but it's really an 85mm f/1.8.
Here is another example I did using the bokeh panoramic using my 85mm (this give the illusion of shooting at f/0.5):
Do you have an example of what ONE of the shots looked like with the subject in it? I am always curious how this one frame is composed and how the others fill around it.
I was really intrigued by this technique by Ryan Brenizer as well who does it pretty often (as mentioned). One of FM's own, Brett Maxwell, has a calculator that estimates the equivalent lens using this method:
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, but is rather obvious, is how this technique essentially emulates a larger sensor. We all know that larger sensors with the same/equivalent FOV produce shallower DOF at a given aperture. That's really what's happening here.
One of the better threads on this board. I look forward to trying this with my 85mm.
Peter, if you click one of the early links there is a video of a photographer using this method and the camera is handheld. Not sure what Matt (OP) did to create it, but I am betting handheld also.
