Wedding Photographer, Ryan Brenizer: How’d They Do That?
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 For related articles and videos, and to order books and other products to help you create great wedding photos, go here: www.adorama.com Visit www.adorama.com for more photography videos! Send your questions to: AskMark@Adorama.com
Related Blogs
Posted by BK |
Comments (23)
@theiPhone4Videos
Yes.
December 6th, 2011 | #
@theiPhone4Videos, I was thinking the same thing, like whats so special about that? I don’t see the big deal…
December 7th, 2011 | #
Boring.. Answer = wide angle 1 shot.. Not 6-8…
December 7th, 2011 | #
@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.
December 7th, 2011 | #
@garym5 hahaha…. this technique was named after him…. because it is a great technique… and you simply say a solution here…. LOL! so… we will name ignorance after you…. ” you Gary M. little fool”… (you ignorant little fool) LOL!
December 7th, 2011 | #
Hahahaha….
December 7th, 2011 | #
Pure ignorant.. Get it right… Lol!
December 7th, 2011 | #
@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.
December 7th, 2011 | #
@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.
December 7th, 2011 | #
Also worth mentioning that the lens of choice should be a longer focal length (85mm or longer) to really get the best effect.
December 7th, 2011 | #
@garym5 the difference is the depth of field.. check out ryan’s blog, those photos will show it better.
December 8th, 2011 | #
That’s awesome, Ryan, and thank you for sharing – you too Mark!
December 9th, 2011 | #
You can take the image with a wide angle then add the bokeh in photos shop.
December 10th, 2011 | #
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?
December 16th, 2011 | #
I follow him so long in 500px there and I did not know its him until 1:46 that photo
December 29th, 2011 | #
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.
January 1st, 2012 | #
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.
January 5th, 2012 | #
@BloatedSensations wouldn’t this technique make more sense to shoot with a 50mm prime at 1.4f and then Create a panoramic with that.
January 5th, 2012 | #
@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.”
January 5th, 2012 | #
@Nogert “wouldn’t this technique make more sense to shoot with a 50mm prime at 1.4f and then Create a panoramic with that.” – You can use any focal length when doing this technique. The longer the lens, and the wider the aperture, however, the more drastic or exaggerated the effect will appear. I’ve found my best results to be in using the 85-100-ish mm range – but that’s just a matter of personal preference.
January 5th, 2012 | #
I’d love to tell you what I though of this video but I need to keep it a secret.
January 28th, 2012 | #
@CampFireFilmsInc I hope you don’t do this for a living.
February 4th, 2012 | #
I actually do stubby and very good at it.
February 4th, 2012 | #