Comments on: The Brenizer Effect With Fantastic Examples http://fstoppers.com/the-ryan-brenizer-effect-explained-with-examples Video Blog for Creative Professionals Sun, 26 May 2013 06:30:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: cnolan011http://fstoppers.com/the-ryan-brenizer-effect-explained-with-examples/comment-page-1#comment-75649 cnolan011 Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:05:00 +0000 http://fstoppers.com/?p=37826#comment-75649 dig your work

]]> By: Barrington Russellhttp://fstoppers.com/the-ryan-brenizer-effect-explained-with-examples/comment-page-1#comment-64152 Barrington Russell Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:29:00 +0000 http://fstoppers.com/?p=37826#comment-64152 Proof that extreme technical novelty does not necessarily produce beautiful images. 

/ http://www.barringtonrussell.com

]]> By: tommybyrdhttp://fstoppers.com/the-ryan-brenizer-effect-explained-with-examples/comment-page-1#comment-63876 tommybyrd Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:04:00 +0000 http://fstoppers.com/?p=37826#comment-63876 I actually did this on a portrait a while back before I ever heard of the effect.  I was shooting on a 50mm f/1.4 so I could have the image only lit by the candlelight, but I wanted to show more of the scene, so I stitched a few images together.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomascbyrd/6040623975/in/photostream

]]> By: Mark Dubhttp://fstoppers.com/the-ryan-brenizer-effect-explained-with-examples/comment-page-1#comment-58748 Mark Dub Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:46:00 +0000 http://fstoppers.com/?p=37826#comment-58748 I noticed that too. I was thinking the sky was added in post for some pop

]]> By: Dennis Roliffhttp://fstoppers.com/the-ryan-brenizer-effect-explained-with-examples/comment-page-1#comment-50663 Dennis Roliff Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:28:00 +0000 http://fstoppers.com/?p=37826#comment-50663 Interesting technique, but gimmicky. 

]]> By: Morgan Mollerhttp://fstoppers.com/the-ryan-brenizer-effect-explained-with-examples/comment-page-1#comment-47275 Morgan Moller Mon, 13 Aug 2012 07:19:00 +0000 http://fstoppers.com/?p=37826#comment-47275 Is it me or do I not get the point? Couldn’t one get the same result shooting a pano with a 70-200 at 2.8 (which would put the background out of focus if you focus manually on the wrong thing) and at 2.8 the subject would be sharp on his position (here you focus on him)?

]]> By: Jens Marklundhttp://fstoppers.com/the-ryan-brenizer-effect-explained-with-examples/comment-page-1#comment-45599 Jens Marklund Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:32:00 +0000 http://fstoppers.com/?p=37826#comment-45599 First two are badly made. Second, the sky is in focus, but not the trees, wtf?

]]> By: Michael Porcohttp://fstoppers.com/the-ryan-brenizer-effect-explained-with-examples/comment-page-1#comment-44804 Michael Porco Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:50:00 +0000 http://fstoppers.com/?p=37826#comment-44804 ah ok. i’ll have to give this a try!

]]> By: lencurriehttp://fstoppers.com/the-ryan-brenizer-effect-explained-with-examples/comment-page-1#comment-44578 lencurrie Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:06:00 +0000 http://fstoppers.com/?p=37826#comment-44578  Unfortunately not Michael.. as you step back, the DOF increases exponentially..

]]> By: Michael Porcohttp://fstoppers.com/the-ryan-brenizer-effect-explained-with-examples/comment-page-1#comment-44504 Michael Porco Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:51:00 +0000 http://fstoppers.com/?p=37826#comment-44504 Please excuse my ignorance – but wouldn’t the same affect occur if you just stood further back with a longer lens and kept your DOF shallow? 

]]>