SHOW Paths, Tracks and Roads

Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Matt
LM103458.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


M.
 
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Matt
Interesting juxtaposition. Is the foreground house a caretaker residence for the larger manor house up on the hill, or are narrow paths running so close to private residences common over there?
There's most probably no relation whatsoever - the path doesn't lead up to the old castle that in turn is part of the fortress that streches the whole length of the ridge above; I know that for certain because I took the path ... The house itself looks as if it was actually built to fit between the (older?) path and the road that was a major thoroughfare until maybe fifty years ago. Its ground-plan is decidedly irregular; there's actually a sequence of buildings that seem to have been squeezed into what little space was available between the road and the rock face ...

M.
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Location
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Real Name
Miguel Tejada-Flores
FUJI XE2 + TTARTISAN 50mm f1.2 APSC
View attachment 269891

This is SUCH a brilliant - and amazing - image, Milan.
I only have two (possibly quite stupid) questions about it---
First--it seems to be a wide angle view--but was taken with what I believe is a portrait lens (the TTArtisan 50mm f/1.2) - how did you achieve what appears to be such a seemingly wide field of view in this image?
Second - on the posted image, it says it was taken at f/1.0 - but how is this possible with a lens whose maximum aperture is f/1.2?
And let me just say it again: what a great photograph.
 

pictogramax

All-Pro
Location
Zemun, Serbia
@MiguelATF Thank you, Miguel! And you are right, there is something off with that image :)

It is in fact an approach that is called BOKEH PANORAMA or BRENIZER METHOD (named after the wedding photographer who invented it, or revived the old idea and popularized it, depending who you ask - you can find a lot about it if you google one of those terms).

Basically, you shoot longer (and preferably faster) lens relatively close to the subject and thus obtain the shallow DOF - it gives that nice creamy look, but very tight view of the subject, naturally. But with the same manual settings (focus and WB) you continue to shoot around the subject (overlapping images by third or half of the frame, once again depending who you ask about it) until you have enough frames to obtain the wider composition you desire. After all the shots are bagged, you have to stitch them in Photoshop (or other software) to obtain the final image (sometimes it is relatively easy, sometimes very difficult or impossible for the software, so you either have to give up or stitch it manually).

It is a bit tedious method, more demanding in planning, executing and processing, but when everything falls in place, it can give a beautiful kind of look, a wide-angle image with shallow DOF which I particularly like. Bokeh panoramas are sometimes referred to as "medium format look for the poor"... Even more so; with some effort invested in mastering the technique, you can obtain "results" of lenses that don't even exist. There is a calculator for the effective focal length and resulting aperture depending on the lens you use, the number of frames stitched and distance to subject, but I'm to weak in math and physics to actually master it. Or I'm just lazy; I'm more interested in the look of final image than bragging about the "impossible" aperture I managed to achieve.

The previous image I posted, the one that made you ask the question, was composed from 80 frames, 10 rows of 8 frames, overlapping about 50 percent. The individual frames were shot with TTArtisan 50mm f1.2 lens, at f1.2, but as it is all manual lens, Fuji XE2 cannot record the exif properly.

Here is another example that fits this thread; it is my favorite image from our brief vacation. This one is composed of "only" 48 frames but the effect is even more pronounced as the background was further away from the fence, allowing for even more compression and creamyness.
PICTOGRAMAX - 2021 - VISOKO - 08.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Location
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Real Name
Miguel Tejada-Flores
@MiguelATF Thank you, Miguel! And you are right, there is something of with that image :)

It is in fact an approach that is called BOKEH PANORAMA or BRENIZER METHOD (named after the wedding photographer who invented it, or revived the old idea and popularized it, depending who you ask - you can find a lot about it if you google one of those terms).

Basically, you shoot longer (and preferably faster) lens relatively close to the subject and thus obtain the shallow DOF - it gives that nice creamy look, but very tight view of the subject, naturally. But with the same manual settings (focus and WB) you continue to shoot around the subject (overlapping images by third or half of the frame, once again depending who you ask about it) until you have enough frames to obtain the wider composition you desire. After all the shots are bagged, you have to stitch them in Photoshop (or other software) to obtain the final image (sometimes it is relatively easy, sometimes very difficult or impossible for the software, so you either have to give up or stitch it manually).

It is a bit tedious method, more demanding in planning, executing and processing, but when everything falls in place, it can give a beautiful kind of look, a wide-angle image with shallow DOF which I particularly like. Bokeh panoramas are sometimes referred to as "medium format look for the poor"... Even more so; with some effort invested in mastering the technique, you can obtain "results" of lenses that don't even exist. There is a calculator for the effective focal length and resulting aperture depending on the lens you use, the number of frames stitched and distance to subject, but I'm to weak in math and physics to actually master it. Or I'm just lazy; I'm more interested in the look of final image than bragging about the "impossible" aperture I managed to achieve.

The previous image I posted, the one that made you ask the question, was composed from 80 frames, 10 rows of 8 frames, overlapping about 50 percent. The individual frames were shot with TTArtisan 50mm f1.2 lens, at f1.2, but as it is all manual lens, Fuji XE2 cannot record the exif properly.

Here is another example that fits this thread; it is my favorite image from our brief vacation. This one is composed of "only" 48 frames but the effect is even more pronounced as the background was further away from the fence, allowing for even more compression and creamyness.
View attachment 269914

Fascinating! And an excellent explanation, too, Milan - thank you for that!

I only have one more 'practical' question: the main focus point appears to be the fence (in the forest picture) - and in the nighttime photo (which you took with your Minolta lens), the focus appears to be the nearer end of the metal rail). My question is: do you take your first shot (the one "in focus") of your main or focal point - and then move the camera gradually in one direction (to the right, or to the left) taking a series of overlapping frames (which will be gradually more and more out-of-focus, assuming you keep your initial focus unchanged (a manual focus lens obviously works best here)?

And (oops, this is a 2nd related question): after taking a series of photos to one side (either right, or left, or whatever) of your original in-focus subject -- do you then move the camera back towards the 'other side' of your initial focal point, doing the same process but 'on the other side'?

And (oops, question #3 but it's the last one, I promise!) is a tripod necessary or vital in this kind of process?

Mille mercis and many thanks for your practical insights and advice here!
The process itself seems fascinating - but I give credit to the eye of the photographer - and his (your!) vision, as well.
 

pictogramax

All-Pro
Location
Zemun, Serbia
@MiguelATF Well you guessed the basics of it already :) Yes, I always shoot first the focal point of the image, the part of subject or composition I want to be in focus, to get it sharp and to determine my (manual) focus setting for all the frames. The exposure and WB are set in advance, as they, as well as focus, cannot be changed throughout the process. Once I snapped the first (and the sharpest) frame, I usually go down, overlapping between a third or a half of the frame, until the edge of the desired frame. This also have to be at least approximately determined in advance, otherwise you wouldn't know how many frames to get in each row.

It is somewhat tricky, as while you shoot the sequence, you see only a tiny bit of composition, like peeping on your world through the keyhole, so you have to previsualize a bit in advance and tell yourself something like "I'll stop at that pole on the left and that fence on the right", for example. That way, once you reach the set "mark" you stop, in order not to make too many frames.

I'm used to shooting vertical rows; I start from the focal point of the image, swoop down several frames, depending on that preset "boundary", than swoop up until vertical border. Then I shoot the vertical row to the right, overlapping a half, from top to bottom, then continue the next from bottom to top, zig-zaging to the right edge. Then I return to the focal point and move to the left, and zig-zag to the other side.

Depending on subject, the lens I'm using, the time and my patience, it can range from 20something to 100something frames per composition. And the effect can vary a lot, depending again on subject and distance ratios, so you never really know what you will get until the final image is stitched. It is a lot of work, and sometimes I curse myself, but when everything falls in place, I quite like the result, and the cycle begins anew :)

I'll put here an example of sorted (but never stitched) frames for one image - here I missed one frame at the bottom while shooting so I never actually finished it :)
PICTOGRAMAX - 2019 - BOKEH PANO DEMO.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


And here is one comparison, back from 2019 when all this was new to me and I was doing some research on my own beside just reading about it. The white rectangle in the image is the size of the single frame. With Minolta 45mm the FOV is wider, but the DOF not as shallow. With Minolta 100mm the FOV is much tighter (so you have to shoot much more frames for the same composition), but the DOF is notably shallower. The last superimposed image shows the difference in DOF in final composition; the basic composition is the same wide-angle image, but the one shot with longer lens and more frames have that shallower DOF look.
PICTOGRAMAX - 2019 - PARK HEROCOMPARUM - 45 SB VS 100 SB.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Regarding tripod, I don't use it, and in fact I do all this in a casual way. In the Facebook "Bokeh Pano" group that I am a part of, there are guys shooting from tripods with full-frame cameras and expensive long and bright lenses so - you can guess it and it's hardly a surprise - their results look more professional than mine :) All this would be better discussed in the dedicated BOKEH PANORAMA thread, but I don't think we have one. My apologies to participants and admins for this intrusion; feel free to move or delete this if it pollutes this otherwise lovely thread.
 
Last edited:

albertk

Veteran
Three paths:
down to the Loire river (Summicron 35mm)
MP014227.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

In the mountains, braking up after a quick coffee pause in the Jura mounatins after climbing up (Russar 20mm):
L1373211.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

and walking up a volcanoe in the Auvergne (Puy de la Vache)
L1374232.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

And the simple path going down. All those mountains are volcanoes.
1631803178553.png


It is red grit like tennis turf. See those others falling down the slope of the edge of the old crater?
 
Last edited:
Top