I've done it a couple times. My friend introduced it to me. It's a really neat method honestly. I heard it called bokeh pano before Brenizer. I shoot them in all RAW photos, process, export to JPG, then stitch.
Here is one I can pull up right now I did of my car. i think it was 200mm f/2.8...but it might have been a bit less than that.
The concept is called bokeh panorama, but became more popularized by Ryan Brenizer several years ago and somehow got the name brenizer method. It can be used with a multitude of lenses and yes 200mm could work depending on what you want to acheive. 400/2.8 might be a little overkill, but is definitely more than possible to use. You could probably frame at the same distance of lets say a 200mm lens and get a equivalent f stop thinner than even f/1.8.
Stitching can be done through multiple ways such as PS, other specific stitching software, etc. I think the last time I did it was a wedding I shot this past summer and I believe it was a 5 shot bokeh panorama with my 35L on FF wide open. I've done with my 85 1.8 on FF a few times. I probably messed around this techinque the most a few years ago when I was shooting on crop with my 85 1.8. In general it's not that difficult unless you have a very busy environment and doing a very very large stitch. Then you may have to be really careful on the way you conduct your panorama. I'll see if I can find an example I've done in the past.
Apparently I've been using this method for years, but don't know about the Brenzier. There are numerous threads in the Post-processing and Printing forum about stitching.
Although not the best attempt, here is one I did over 2 years ago. 21 shots stiched in Microsoft Ice I believe. Effective FL/apeture was 37mm f/0.78. Usually the goal is to create a DOF you could not otherwise acheive with your equipment, often times getting that MF, LF look to it.
From what I've seen, the longer the lens and the 'tighter' your images are the more pronounced the effect is.
If you try it with a 50mm and stitch 9 shots (standing fairly far back), it won't look that special. If you shoot a 400 2.8 close enough that you have to stitch 20 images, it's going to look awesome and surreal.
So it seems that you preferably stitch the subject as well, requiring that it/she/he hold still for a long period of time. I'll test it on a 200/2.8 later this month and report back with some shots
The subject only really needs to hold still for the time they are in the frame. Obviously one tries to avoid stitching the face. I've used it for other sedentary animals as well.
RobertLynn wrote:
wtf are you guys talking about?>
, Robert, I assume you;re not kidding so check this out. I
had to google it a couple of years ago and I couldn't find the article I was looking for but this one is ok.
kabraxcis wrote:
So it seems that you preferably stitch the subject as well, requiring that it/she/he hold still for a long period of time. I'll test it on a 200/2.8 later this month and report back with some shots
Correct, but as noted, subject only needs to "perform" for a few frames.
, Robert, I assume you;re not kidding so check this out. I