Super shallow and wide??

[abarickman]

I need to shoot a portrait wide and shallow. It is going to be used horizontally on a newsletter and will be wide and long (1875 x 675). The look the media director wants is super shallow depth of field. The shallowest lens I have is a 50 1.8. If I have the room to backup I can, but sometimes I don't have the room to backup to make it wide enough. Also as I backup the depth of field is reduced.

I was thinking of stitching three images together but I used speedlites last time and worry that the light would be slightly different each flash and make it hard to stitch. Also with the background way out of focus the stitching software will probably not be able to stitch it properly since there are no hard lines to work with. My initial test showed that it could not figure out how to stitch it. I could try to manually stitch but....... FYI last time I used my 24-70 at 24mm and F2.8 and she is looking for a shallower depth of field.

Can anyone provide a technique on how to accomplish what I have described?

[zona5101]

is simulating a shallow dof in post not an option?

[abarickman]

That is an option but I have rarely seen it done well. The alien skin product Bokeh seems promising but I still think it is going to require very careful masking to get it to look natural. Also that is a $200 product.

The lens blur from photoshop has always looked pretty bad to me but I might just not be the PS ninja I need to be.

[vandergus]

I think a lot of people have had sucess stitching photographs with blurred background. Google the Brenizer method for more info on that. Sounds like it would work for you here if you could figure out a way to do it without strobes. Or you could rent a lens for the shoot, something like the 85mm f1.2L.

[Eastree]

Erm, except he's already said he needs wider than 50mm ....

I wish I were much more familiar with the lens selection out there. But I'm fairly certain I haven't seen anything wide (20mm to 35mm prime area) with an aperture wder than f/2. I don't know if that would give the sort of DoF you need, either.

[abarickman]

Originally Posted by Eastree

Erm, except he's already said he needs wider than 50mm ....

I wish I were much more familiar with the lens selection out there. But I'm fairly certain I haven't seen anything wide (20mm to 35mm prime area) with an aperture wder than f/2. I don't know if that would give the sort of DoF you need, either.

Hi there. I think the 24mm F1.4 would be perfect but its a lot. This is volunteer work and so renting a lens is out unfortunately.

[abarickman]

Originally Posted by vandergus

I think a lot of people have had sucess stitching photographs with blurred background. Google the Brenizer method for more info on that. Sounds like it would work for you here if you could figure out a way to do it without strobes. Or you could rent a lens for the shoot, something like the 85mm f1.2L.

Thanks. I thought about the Brenizer method and might give it a try. I have always wondered how he can get his models to hold still enough to fire off 20 images and not have movement in them.

[RecceDen]

If you need to see how he does it here is a link to an explanation i found. The Brenizer Method Explained With Directions | San Francisco Lifestyle Wedding Photographer | Bay Area Wedding Photography

It explains how the models don't need to stand still for 20+ images

or

A video for those that believe a picture paints a thousand words. http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=575352237342

RD

[IABoomer]

Wow, that video should win an award for "Most informative despite being the worst produced".

There was a thread here about using that Brenizer method.

The Brenizer Method - A medium format feel

[abarickman]

Does anyone else have an idea besides the Brenzier method?

Thanks!