Are You Serious Jo Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I finally found the name of this technique, I'm currently a tad obsessed with bokeh so want to get the hang of this style. Google Brenizer method to see some examples. This is my first attempt, I'd like much better bokeh and will work on that. Does this image capture the feel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 maybe this would be better observed in a photo with less distracting things like slopes ? Nice colours :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted June 8, 2012 Author Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) This was basically just a test of the lens, had to make do with what I had today, but I agree, the hills can make you a bit sea sick :laugh: I have a few planned shoots which will be very well planned but still not sure the lens can cut it in terms of bokeh. What I really need is a new $10,000 superfast tele ETA forgot to mention this is 10 images stitched together, you take a lot of shots with most OOF so you get a wide angle shot with the focus of a tele, it's called bokehrama. Edited June 8, 2012 by Reverend Jo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 the hills can make you a bit sea sick :laugh: My eyes were a bit too busy, what with slope correction, and focus :p Looking forward to seeing more though . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda K Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 sorry, not my cup of tea, and really makes the dog look like it was photoshopped on as an afterthought. Proper bokeh does not look like this, it looks more like a Monet, this just looks OOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted June 9, 2012 Author Share Posted June 9, 2012 It is proper bokeh, I haven't altered it at all. Bokeh is by definition out of focus, so anything out of focus is bokeh :laugh: It's applied in a different way for sure and not to everyone's taste, but when done well it is spectacular (to my eyes). Have you seen any other photos using this method? If you do some googling you'll see that it is a valid technique and not just poor photography and not being able to focus :laugh: I did lighten up the dog because light was low and I'm not doing anything else with this picture, it's just practise. But I'm not upset you don't like it, just not sure you understand what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted June 9, 2012 Author Share Posted June 9, 2012 Yep, you really need to not have hills and have objects around the scene that recede into the distance. I only did the above to see what the bokeh quality was like rather than end up with a shot worth keeping, the hills aren't suitable at all for this technique. I'm going to set up a bunch of markers at 1m intervals and see what my lenses give me. Once I work out my best lens I've got some shots planned that will be awesome if they work out. Involves props and a human child (which I never shoot :laugh: ) so should be a real challenge. But I love the effect enough to practise and get it right. Next up will be tilt shift Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted June 9, 2012 Author Share Posted June 9, 2012 It will be for competition so won't go up unless it's good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda K Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Bokeh is described as the way the lens renders out of focus points of light - if there is no light in the area, then it is just blur so totally disagree. Here is an example of what I am talking about as out of focus points of light, Snooks example above also shows the style you are trying to copy looks with light behind. Perhaps a different time of day and different setting are needed for what you are after, but still not my cup of tea, but that is what I guess makes the photography world interesting, so many different styles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted June 10, 2012 Author Share Posted June 10, 2012 Bokehrama isn't just about how each point of light is handled, it's about depth of field and it's application in a shot that would traditionally be a wide angle shot with a large DOF. I've already said that the photo I posted wasn't about the composition etc and it was just practice if the technique, I already know the flaws in that shot. That is why I asked if it had the feel of the method, regardless of the composition or subject matter. I was quickly testing how my lens handled the background in a stitch of ten photos. This method isn't about the wiki definition of bokeh you found and just the quality of those small balls of light. The photo below is a Brenizer method shot from a very well known photog and you'll see there are no "points of light" yet it is held up as excellent example of bokehrama. I know it's not something that appeals to everyone and life would be boring it if was but you need to understand the process and expected results before saying it isn't bokehrama because there are no lights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo_Baggins_Junior Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Bokehrama isn't just about how each point of light is handled, it's about depth of field and it's application in a shot that would traditionally be a wide angle shot with a large DOF. I've already said that the photo I posted wasn't about the composition etc and it was just practice if the technique, I already know the flaws in that shot. That is why I asked if it had the feel of the method, regardless of the composition or subject matter. I was quickly testing how my lens handled the background in a stitch of ten photos. This method isn't about the wiki definition of bokeh you found and just the quality of those small balls of light. The photo below is a Brenizer method shot from a very well known photog and you'll see there are no "points of light" yet it is held up as excellent example of bokehrama. I know it's not something that appeals to everyone and life would be boring it if was but you need to understand the process and expected results before saying it isn't bokehrama because there are no lights. I know what you are saying and what you are working towards. Just remember that Bokeh as per the wiki definition and Bokehrama are two different things. Do not confuse the two. As you said "This method isn't about the wiki definition of bokeh you found and just the quality of those small balls of light." There is no reason the image that you have posted as a ref should not be held as an excellent example of Bokehrama, as it is Bokehrame, not Bokeh as per the traditional definition. Bokehrmae is a style made from a particular technique, Bokeh is the traditional definition. I get the feeling you probably do know this anyway, but just wanted to clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 lots of bokehrama images HERE and an explanation ..interesting, and a lot of effort , apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted June 11, 2012 Author Share Posted June 11, 2012 There is a bit of effort required to set up the shot, which is one of the things that appeals to me. A lot of elements need to come together as well as getting the pp right. But that's the fun of it you have to try new things and it's helping me get my creativity back. If anyone else wants to try this method out please post your pics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 it's helping me get my creativity back. not my cup of tea ...but I can appreciate the effort taken :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted June 11, 2012 Author Share Posted June 11, 2012 Well the above pic was little effort but something I would be proud of will take more than the 10 minutes doing that one :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 something I would be proud of will take more than the 10 minutes doing that one :laugh: Fair enough . Hope we see one you are really pleased with :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted June 11, 2012 Author Share Posted June 11, 2012 I've started the preparation for a proper series, tried out my model today and he was a trooper so next step is work out location and then get the lighting right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 :) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda K Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 looking at the Brenizer website, I think one of the things is that you still need to have interesting foreground and background there, and the subjects seem to be more straight on, not sideways. Still not my cup of tea, as I don;t really see the point of taking heaps of photos and combining them into 1 mega photo like that, but each to their own. You were the one who said though that you were paying with bokeh, this is not bokeh, but as you have now clarified bokehrama, a totally different thing, or as the creator of this technique says, bokeh as it relates to landscape in trying to recreate the look of medium format with panoramic stitching of multiple images all taken at maximum aperture. Nothing I photograph is going to stay still for 30 seconds long enough to do the shots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huga Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 I had a go on the weekend. Can't get the right look - it is very challenging!! I'm a bit confused about the focus though. I manually focused on the subject, but then didn't refocus as I moved. I think I probably should have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now