Ryan Brenizer Talks About His Panorama Method

A while ago, I posted an article explaining the Brenizer method panorama. Ryan Brenizer is a NYC based wedding photographer and the “father” of Bokeh Panorama, or Brenizer panorama, technique, which allows one to achieve an otherwise impossibly shallow depth of field at a given angle of view. While I did my best to explain how it all works, it’s often better to see how one does it once than read about it ten times. And who to better do it that Ryan himself?

So here are a couple more tips for those of you interested in learning this technique, followed by Ryan’s much more understandable and professional explanation.

Brenizer method panorama

1) Remember Composition and Light

While Brenizer method panorama can help even the most simple and dull photograph look amazing, any eagle-eyed photographer will be able to tell you’re just trying to fool people by using simple aesthetics, such as bokeh, which has nothing to do with your skills as a photographer, only the lens you’re using. Light, Subject and Composition are the main aspects of an image, even when it’s 9463-ish pixels wide and has the most beautiful background blur you’ve ever seen. Work on it – find the best light, the best pose or lack of one, and work on your composition skills – Brenizer method is there to improve your photography and give you more creative choice, but that’s all it can do. The rest is, once again, up to the living, breathing creature holding the camera with a lens set wide open.

2) Always Start With that Moving Subject

If it’s breathing (trees need air, too), it can move and holding completely still for a longer period of time can be quite stressing, especially if you’re working with a client. Try to photograph your subject before you move on to anything else – grab them quickly in 4-5 sequential shots and move on. Once you’re safely keeping them out of your fragment shots, you can tell them to relax a little, or they’ll forget to breathe!

3) Make Sure Your Subject is Sharp

Yes, the image will be very big, which will allow you to print large and with a very high quality in mind. You don’t need the sharpest lens in the world for this, especially if you’re planning to downsize the image to a more manageable size than your average 60-100 megapixels (for the simple D700 users; D800/D600 users will have much more than those puny 100!). Still, a missed focus is a missed focus, and usually no amount of sharpening can save your from that situation.

Fast lenses can sometimes miss focus, and at close distances and open aperture even the slightest error is enough to ruin your image. Make sure your subject is focused just right before you feel confident of taking those remaining 10-50 images, otherwise it will all be for nothing! Also, don’t forget to calibrate your AF for every fast lens you own.

4) Play With It!

I’ve heard some photographers say you should never have out of focus objects at certain places in your image (like the foreground). I think that’s nonsense – it all depends on what you want. Brenizer method’s key offering is bokeh, so use it creatively!

And now, I give you to the capable hands of Ryan Brenizer at B&H and AdoramaTV:

I know some of our readers liked the technique very much. Have you got anything to share? We’d be delighted to see your work!


  1. September 14, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    Paragraph 2. Wrong, plants (which is what trees are) need carbon dioxide (CO2). Basic biology.

    • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin 1.1) Romanas Naryškin
      September 14, 2012 at 7:50 pm

      Air is what I wanted to write, thanks, Allan. I am a little ashamed if my silly mistake – it’s proof one should never write articles so late at night.

      Plants do consume oxygen (mostly during the night, and that’s why it’s not advisable to have many flowers in your bedroom), only not as much as CO2, which in this case is probably more relative. Thanks again!

  2. 2) Jay
    September 14, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    I actually have a section on my website dedicated to his technique…check it out. http://jaycassariophoto.com/bokah-panoramas/

  3. 3) Mister Pogi
    September 14, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    I had watched the video from Adorama a little over a year ago. At that time the content was way too advanced for me. It’s funny now I’m trying to learn this method only to find out I had watched that same video.

    I am curious if it’s possible to do this with a 24-70 and using it a 70mm? I probably have to compose my shots differently. I wanted to do the full body one but I think how he composed the one with Mark Wallace would work better for me.

    • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin 3.1) Romanas Naryškin
      September 15, 2012 at 12:12 am

      It’s possible, Pogi, only you will not see nearly as much of the effect even if you stand close – by far, in fact. Even the cheap 50mm f/1.8G lens is much better for Brenizer method!

      You should try and practice, though, it can be great fun :)

      • 3.1.1) Mister Pogi
        September 16, 2012 at 9:24 pm

        Thanks for the reply Roman. I have the 50 1.4G. I might try it with that instead. Ever since I got the 24-70 I have never put the 50mm 1.4G on my D800 again.

        What do you think about using the 85mm 1.8G vs the 1.4G?

        • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin Romanas Naryškin
          September 17, 2012 at 12:26 am

          Curiously it worked quite differently for me, ever since buying a 50mm lens, I rarely take it off my camera, and when I do, only to replace it with an 85mm f/1.4D, not a zoom. :)

          While there will be difference between the two 85mm lenses at their widest aperture concerning depth of field, 85mm f/1.8G will be quite sufficient and is much cheaper, so unless you feel like you really need the best fast 85mm lens, I’d choose f/1.8G. It’s sharp or sharper and has great bokeh, focuses rather quickly, is cheaper and lighter. Surely a better choice for most photographers.

          Personally, I’m a sucker for f/1.4 lenses and if there’s a way to get one, that’s what I’m going to try to buy eventually. But that’s me, and I’m a little weird. :)

  4. 4) Pascal
    September 15, 2012 at 1:15 am

    Wow is all I can say. I had never heard of this technique until I read your two articles on this site. Ryan truly is a fenominal photographer. That guy is extremely talented and he remains so down to earth. Check out his website for some more stunning images. Amazing!

  5. 5) mike
    September 15, 2012 at 3:51 am

    A little off main topic, but how do you calibrate a fast lens for d7000?

  6. 6) Iqbal
    September 15, 2012 at 5:30 am

    “…any eagle-eyed photographer will be able to tell you’re just trying to fool people by using simple aesthetics, such as bokeh, which has nothing to do with your skills as a photographer, only the lens you’re using. ”
    AND this is my quote of the day. Thumbs up!

    • 6.1) gav
      September 18, 2012 at 12:56 am

      So you get this comment every time you take a great picture ‘wow nice lens Iqbal’

      It’s using your imagination to make a unique image, just the same as you may use afternoon light or some other technique….but then again you would probably say ‘your fooling people by using the golden hour to make your pics look better. It has nothing to do with being a good photographer’

      Sometimes it isn’t about analysing technique but more about appreciating a different way to capture an image in an original way.

      • 6.1.1) Iqbal
        September 18, 2012 at 9:27 am

        Comparing golden hour and bokeh is completely not an apple to apple comparison.
        If you have the money, you can get the best glass in the world that gives you the most beautiful bokeh, isolating the subject from poor background, and instantly creates a stunning photograph.
        Even a beginner photographer can do that.
        In the other hand, even if we have the best glass in the world and golden light in front of us, it is much harder to create a good photograph. Besides composition, there are so much to consider: quality of light, contrast difference, creatively correct exposure, etc.
        Again, an eagled-eye photographer can easily recognize that.

        • gav
          September 18, 2012 at 5:32 pm

          Hi Iqbal

          you can pick up a 50mm 1.4d or 85mm1.4d for very cheap

          I do understand your point perfectly, but my point is that it isn’t about fooling people it is using techniques to produce a beautiful photo. We spend too much time analysing pictures and criticising them. Yes, anybody can do this technique and everyone who has a DSLR can afford to as well.

          And of course this still needs all of the above considerations to make it a good photo :-)

  7. 7) Prakash
    September 15, 2012 at 11:05 am

    Thanks for the information on this lovely technique, Roman. I have always loved the square pics of medium format cameras…something to do with more space/environmental context around the subjects, I guess. The rectangular pics from DSLRs seem a bit claustrophobic to me. Now, this method has really allowed me to generate those lovely three dimensional squarish pics from my APS-C DSLR with pixels to match the medium format equipment. And the method to “make” (rather than “take”) these images involves more work than just pushing the shutter button. So, it is quite an artistic feeling at the end of the day. Hope to see more such articles in the future. Keep up the good work.

  8. 8) suhazli
    September 16, 2012 at 8:29 am

    Is this effect just like blur effect on Photoshop albeit this is cleaner?

    • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin 8.1) Romanas Naryškin
      September 16, 2012 at 9:31 am

      Not even comparable, Suhazli. Yo can buy yourself an apple, and you can draw one using Photoshop. The latter is the quicker, cheaper way, but it’s not a real apple. I hope you understand my metaphor :)

  9. 9) Anthony
    September 16, 2012 at 8:35 am

    How do the software programs like Alien Skin Bokeh or even the Lens Effect (?name) Filter in Photoshop compare with this somewhat labor intensive technique? I’d like to see what someone who has mastered that software can do to produce images like Brenizer’s. After all, we are talking about producing blur, albeit pretty blur, which ought to be a lot easier than producing sharpness!

    • 9.1) Anthony
      September 16, 2012 at 8:39 am

      Suhazli and I asked the same basic question at the same time..Lens BLUR is what I meant…

    • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin 9.2) Romanas Naryškin
      September 16, 2012 at 9:29 am

      Just like in real life, Anthony, the more you work, the better the result :) Software will never be nearly as precise and I’d never even consider such an approach. In fact, I believe it’s quite a bit more tiring to try to manipulate an image in such a way over stitching a panorama.

      Doing Brenizer panoramas is quite easy – try. :)

      • 9.2.1) Anthony
        September 16, 2012 at 2:17 pm

        You may be right, you may be wrong: you’re just speculating (“software will never be nearly as precise…more tiring”).
        We need some facts here, at least the judgement of experts who have tried both! That’s what I’m asking for, perhaps with examples…not armchair reasoning.

    • September 16, 2012 at 5:34 pm

      Anthony, trying to blur the background and bokeh to an image via software is painful. How are you going to isolate your subjects from the area that you want to blur? Selective masking is often too time consuming. No software will be able to replicate what a good lens can do.

      Lola and I shoot weddings. I cannot imagine trying to “blur” the background of hundreds of images via software. I won’t waste my time in even trying…

  10. 10) Anthony
    September 16, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    So do you shoot 9, 16, 25 images and then combine them in Photoshop Photomerge for each of those hundreds? You’re not making sense. You are speculating. I’d love to hear from somebody who has used the software and is good at at it – not me, and apparently not you. What if the software is terrific on any of those hundreds? Try it before you condemn it. I think you’re too young to be an old fart.
    If I told you about content aware fill before you used it, you’d probably say the same thing…let’s hear from somebody who has mastered it and see what they say and can do. Maybe it’s awful, maybe not…
    What does Brenizer know? Maybe he tried it.

    • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin 10.1) Romanas Naryškin
      September 17, 2012 at 12:57 am


      it would be stupid to do hundreds of panoramas per wedding, and even more so – hundreds of fake blurry photos with some clever-ish software.

      We at Mansurovs above all value politeness and respect towards our readers and ourselves – this is not a dpreview forum to go all offensive on anyone, ever. So unless you can change the way you ask questions and react to our answers, you should not bother doing either. We do our best to answer questions patiently, but provoking never helps.

      You asked us a question, and both me and Nasim answered. Neither of us was skeptical, and neither is an old fart – we have enough experience to be able to tell software will be much less effective and practical, because we know how it works and what it does. Background blur, and the strength of it, depends on distance – both how far or close you focused, and how far or close the background is to your subject. Software has no way of calculating how far the background is, and thus how far and where to blur it realistically, for different portions of an image will have to be blurred differently. It can only estimate and make it look relatively accurate. Just as content aware fill does lots of errors, smart as it is, and will never beat one picking up a plate and moving it out of the frame rather than trying to remove it during post, blurring techniques will never come close to using a good lens. If you don’t have one, again, any eagle-eyed photographer will be able to tell you’re just trying to fool everyone by simple, low quality and fake aesthetics. Also, it’s along process, trying to mask you subject, and the slightest error will ruin all your effort immediately.

      There’s another side to this, however, and it’s how high your standards are. If you think tricks like that will satisfy you, and you won’t be able to tell the difference, by all means, go on ahead and use the software – that’s why it’s there, and no one is going to judge. Me, I’m a professional and have no time to play around with it, Brenizer method, when I need it, is a much faster, more reliable and immensely more quality approach than software. Not to mention that it’s not just about Bokeh. I’m sure the software is quite complex and good, but only at certain situations, just like the mentioned content aware is better with some images more so than others. With that in mind, Alien Skin Bokeh will not be close to Brenizer method even if you only consider the shallow depth of field aspect. If it’s good enough for you, again, use it and be happy.

      You asked for our opinion, we answered it – while no one is asking you to share such a point of view and agree with everything we’re saying, respect it or don’t ask again.

      I wish you a good day, Anthony, and hope you don’t take my message offensively – all I’m trying to do is keep this place polite, and such remarks as “get real”, “old fart” and others you’ve used recently don’t help the case. You’ve been an active participant here ever since you joined our community, it would be sad to see you go all berserk like this. Try not to provoke, we will appreciate that.

      • 10.1.1) George Kurian
        September 17, 2012 at 10:21 am

        Roman- we all appreciate you and Nasim and all others for the valuable suggestions and tips. Please don’t be offended by some irresponsible folks. For all of the good readers and supporters of Mansurovs, I apologize to you!

        • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin Romanas Naryškin
          September 17, 2012 at 11:03 am

          There’s no need, George, I’m sure Anthony didn’t mean to sound offensive. :) Thank you!

      • 10.1.2) Allan Wood
        September 17, 2012 at 10:41 am

        Nicely put.
        Thanks Roman, Nasim and team; keep up your wonderful work.

        • Profile photo of Romanas Naryškin Romanas Naryškin
          September 17, 2012 at 11:04 am

          Thank you very much, Allan!

          As long as you don’t keep yourself from noticing my mistakes :)

  11. 11) Paul
    September 17, 2012 at 5:54 am

    Thanks for this and the sister article, very cool photos and an interesting technique, although somewhat time consuming me thinks?

  12. 12) Peng
    September 17, 2012 at 7:07 am

    Hi Roman,

    I really appreciate all your work and the time and effort you put in writing this article. After I read about the Brenizer method, I’ve tried it and the result has been great!

    First I used Photoshop CS2 to stitch the image but it didn’t do a good job. So I tried again with Photoshop CS3 (from Ryan himself he said he prefers CS3 over CS4 or CS5 … I don’t know why … maybe the software get too complicated at doing this particular job.) Anyway, long story short, CS3 works great and not time consuming as I would expect. And I can guarantee that it’s a lot easier to do Brenizer method than trying to blur the background using just pure software. That’s just my experience. Maybe one day we could have software that could do all the magic work but then what the fun of being a photographer.

    On a side not, I hope to keep this place calm forever too. Cheers!

  13. 13) Fraidy
    October 5, 2012 at 11:48 am

    hi Roman..

    i faces some problem when do this method.. I put toy cars on the table, then I began to shoot that car with Brenizer method.. I did it with tripod and handled…
    the problem is my pic was look like bending… especially the side of the table.. its bending..

    did i do it correct or not.. still confusing…


Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <i> <s>