5 Steps to Rock the Brenizer Method


Pier brenizer

What is the Brenizer Method?

The Brenizer Method is named after wedding photographer, Ryan Brenizer. He invented the method (but didn’t name it) and made it popular by using it with his wedding clients, and teaching others how to do it as well. For those who have been around photography for a while, you will recognize the process. Photographers have been stitching images together to create panoramas for decades. However, Photoshop and similar software have now made this method extremely simple for you.

Advantages of using the Brenizer Method

Creating an image using the Brenizer method takes more time than just capturing a single image, but the results are well worth it. When using this method, you will create an image with:

  • Very high resolution
  • Very shallow depth of field (it equates to using a lens that has an f-stop less than 1)
  • Great bokeh
Mermaid brenizer

This image was created using 32 different shots and merged together in Photoshop to give it an extremely shallow depth of field.


Once you’ve decided you want to try the Brenizer Method, you will need to decide where and what to photograph. Look for layers that will be interesting with a shallow depth of field. If you are shooting a subject, make sure the subject chooses a comfortable pose they can hold for up to 30 seconds.

Step 1 – Prepare Your Settings

Aperture – Shoot as wide as your aperture will allow. For some lenses that might be f/1.2 for others it may be f/3.5, and for the rest, it will probably be somewhere in between. The wider you can go, the more amazing effect you will achieve.

White Balance – You will want to choose any white balance other than auto. As you position your camera, auto white balance might change the color temperature as you move from shade to a brighter area or vice versa. Manually setting the Kelvin temperature is my preferred method. If you aren’t familiar with manipulating your white balance, here’s a great article to help you learn.

Focal Length – As you take these shots, you want your focal length to stay exactly the same. Shooting with a prime lens makes this easy, otherwise make sure to hold your lens carefully if it tends to zoom in and out easily.

Focus – Once you’ve set your focus on your subject, change it to manual and don’t touch it again until you’re done shooting your series.


Step 2 – Shoot Your Images Using an Organized Layout

Layout shooting

Capturing your images in rows from left to right (like reading a book) will give you greater chances of not having holes (gaps) in your images.

Shooting your series of images in an organized layout will help the images stitch together better in your editing software. When you first try this method, you might be tempted go out of order and continue adding as many images as you think you might need. When you do that, Photoshop might give you an image with some holes and extra pieces at the bottom of your picture.

Image with holes

I shot this image in a circular motion, instead of the row method shown above. Photoshop had a hard time properly merging the image. There were many extra shots it didn’t know what to do with, so I had to go in and manually piece some of the images together. Save yourself time and learn from my mistake.

Before you start shooting, think about your final image. Will it look best as a vertical, horizontal, square, or a panorama? Make sure to shoot enough shots to be able to crop it in your preferred orientation.

Step 3 – Overlap Your Shots

While you are shooting your series of images, make sure to overlap each shot by at least 1/3. That will give the software enough information to see where each image belongs when it does the stitching. Most people take between 20-50 shots in their series that will be compiled into one final image. Take as many as you need and overlap by more than 1/3 if you feel more comfortable with that. As you gain experience with the Brenizer method, you will probably find a way to get the same result with less shots.


Step 4 – Batch Edit All the Images

When you are ready to process the images, load them into a batch editing software, like Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw. Edit the first image (exposure, contrast, saturation, etc.), then sync the entire batch of images so the exact same editing has been applied to each image in the series.

Next, you are ready to export your images. Since you’re going to be merging so many images together, there is no reason to export these as high resolution files. Doing so, would only slow down the process in Photoshop. Export your images as JPGs, with the long edge between 700-1000 pixels, depending on how many images you’re going to be merging.

Step 5 – Merge the Images

Photoshop steps

1 – In Photoshop, click on File, Automate, and Photomerge. 2 – Leave the default settings selected and browse for your series of images. 3 – After the image merges, there are often extra images below the merged image. Sometimes they are extra and not needed because of the amount of overlapping, or sometimes the software doesn’t know where they belong and you’ll have to manually put them in their place. 4 – I decided that my image was fine without the extra images, so next I cropped out the excess to create the final image.

Finally, open Photoshop. Go to File > Automate > Photomerge… When the window pops up, keep the default settings of “Layout: Auto and Blend Images Together” checked. Browse for your images and hit “OK”. Then it’s a waiting game. Depending on your file sizes, and the number of images your computer is processing, this could take 1-10 minutes.

Note: Similar results can be created using other software. To save time, I’m just mentioning the process I use with Photoshop.

If you shot your series in an organized layout, your software should have been able to piece your image together well. All that’s left to do is crop your image to the orientation you were hoping to use (vertical, horizontal, square, or panorama) and save it as a JPG. Voila!

It may seem like a lot of steps your first time through, but with more practice it becomes second nature.

Your Turn

Have you tried creating an image using the Brenizer Method? What was your experience? Do you have any additional tips that would help those getting started? Let us know in the comments. Also, feel free to share your Brenizer Method images as well. We’d love to see what you create!

Read more from our Post Production category

Danielle Ness has recently moved to Maui, Hawaii and just launched Simply Maui Photography. When she's not photographing portraits in Maui, HI, she's traveling the world or floating in the ocean with her husband. You can also connect with Danielle on Instagram and Facebook.

  • Azka Azkiya

    Hello, I just knew about this method last night and immediately gave it a try this morning. my first try of this method resulted in a distorted image, probably because I included too much frames from left and right sides of me.


    Then I tried not to include too much frames from left/right sides of me and the resulting image was not so distorted but it’s kind of square image. The question is how to produce panoramic size image (16:9) without distortion?

  • Simon de Winter

    Hi, nice article!

    I am just wonder why this results in extremely shallow depth of field, the article doesn’t really expand on that. I am trying to wrap my head around it…

    My guess is that stitching these photos together while the camera stays in place means that you are covering a larger field of view, which (I guess) is kinda like using an extremely large sensor.

    Can this be compared to the way a 28 mm lens with an aperture setting of 2.8 behaves as a wide lens on a full frame and produces a much more shallow depth of field, compared to the same lens used on a Micro Four Thirds camera, where it would behave as a medium lens / short tele lens with a less shallow depth of field?

    Am I (at least) kind of right in my assumption above as to the “why” of the shallow depth of field?


    Thanks! Simon

  • Fred Lascombe

    Autopano Giga is a better tool for making panoramic pictures, btw … It has far more adjusting tools.

  • Edd_N

    I love the Bokeh pano technique. So much so that I’ve just made I’ve a website for it here: https://www.bokehpano.com/about
    It also has tutorials and equipment guides etc.. Plus I have comparisons to fast wide angle lenses.

    Ps. I’m not keen on the “Brenizer method” naming. He may be famous for doing it but did not invent the technique. You should remove that from the article really.

  • Sofia

    I’m in doubt about some stuff:
    1- I should use the same focus for the whole image? Is that why you said to chance the focus to manual after the first shot?
    2- Should I use a tripé or it doesn’t make a difference?
    3- What if the person moves during the shots? Because the person will appear again in other shots. How do I correct that? I undestand that, for example, the woman’s body, in that pic, should be entirely in a single shot…if she moves, i just substitute the photograph or it can be overlaped and look weird?

  • That photo is breathtaking! What a beautiful family!

  • Daniel Ecoff

    Why is there no mention of lens parallax and the use of a nodal slide. I fine this decreases the potential of distortion , especially if you are tiling wide angle plates.

  • Top Rock Photography

    ? Yes. Focus does not change. This method in essence, only increases your field of view (FoV) with the same DoF as the lens you are using. If you swapped out the body for a large format body at the same focal length and f-number, this is the effect you will get. If you swapped out the lens for a shorter focal length but kept the absolute aperture the same, (that is, increase your f-number by the same factor you decreased your focal length), you will get the same effect. Problem is, most SLR lenses cannot achieve that aperture.

    ? One should use a tripod with a gimbal head so that swinging the camera leaves the optical center of the lens at the same point. Failing that, a pan head or ball head, leaving the focal plane at the same point will do, but with some distortion (which can be fixed in post processing). Failing that, it can be done handheld, but some stitching mistakes may become evident.

    ? If the person moves, there may be stitching mistakes. They either have to remain stationary throughout the multiple frames in which they appear, or they must be entirely within one frame throughout the shoot.

  • Top Rock Photography

    You almost got it, but, yes, all this method does is alter the FoV, imitating a much larger sensor.

    Here is the thing about DoF. Assuming the same distance from your subject, DoF is only dependent on the ABSOLUTE aperture one is using. That is, the effective diameter of the aperture. The f-number is a ratio of the focal length to the aperture diameter, so the actual aperture is not the f-numebr, (such as 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, etc.), but the focal length, f, divided by the f-number, (such as, f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6, etc). So a 100mm lens at f-number 5.6 will give the same DoF as a 50mm lens at f-number 2.8, as both would have an aperture of 17.86mm diameter. (100÷5.6=50÷2.8=17.86).

    However, if you wanted the DoF of a 100mm lens at f/4.0, (25mm aperture), but the FoV of a 12mm (12.5mm nominally) lens, your aperture on the 12mm lens would have to be f/0.5, (25mm aperture, nominally).

    By using a 100mm lens at f/4.0, and stitching a panorama to get the desired FoV, you get the look of a large format camera, more commonly called in recent times, a bokehrama image (or, as I have seen here for the first time, bokeh pano image).

  • Top Rock Photography

    ? Rotate the camera around the optical center of the lens, instead of the film plane.

    ? take even more pictures, (top and bottom as well as left and right), than you need, then fix distortion in software, (resulting in cropping, hopefully not more than the ratio you desire).

  • Top Rock Photography

    If you are looking at it on your computer screen, then it may appear so, due to the size reduction of the stitched image. Try viewing them both at 1:1, and they should have equal DoF.

  • Top Rock Photography

    no you did not. I learned that method in the early 1980’s when I saw a shot from the mid 20th century, (1946), and asked how it was done. The method was first patented back in 1843. You may think you invented something new, but it is not.

  • Top Rock Photography

    Not necessary. With a ? overlap, any vignetting or corner/edge distortion is not at all likely to show up in the image. Another great advantage of this very old technique.

  • Top Rock Photography

    Because, ? doing a panorama stitch at f/22 and doing a panorama stitch at f/2.8 is precisely the same thing, and ? giving a name to a technique over 1½ centuries old is not inventing something new, deserving a name, (and ? it is not technically a “panorama” if it does not go all the way around. 😉 )

  • But to be clear … Mr. Brenizer did not name the method nor did he call it a panorama. Others did. And in this case, doing a a stitch at f/22 and doing a stitch at f/2.8 do not yield the same results. Have you tried this or working from assumption?

    Also, it does not matter. The name has stuck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenizer_Method

  • Top Rock Photography

    ? It does not matter who gave it the name because ? the method had been around for more than 100 years before the one to whom someone now named it, and ? whomever gave it that name ought to ave done their research. It really was not that hard.

    ? It does not matter that he did not call it a panorama, it is called a panorama, and, although technically, it is not, that really was a parenthetical remark, hence the parentheses.

    ? Taking any subject/scene at f/22 does not yield the same result as taking the same subject/scene at f/2.8, but the method for an f/22 panoramic stitch and an f/2.8 stitch is precisely the same method. That aside, the precise method of doing a wide aperture stitch with a small format camera to emulate the look of a large format camera has been around since patented in 1843, so why are you arguing?

    A man who is not even 100 years old, claims to have invented a process which was patented over 150 years ago. Even if it was not ever patented, it is listed in books from the 1940’s. I learned the method in the 1980’s. The same method is used today, and explained in details, in many modern books, without specifying an aperture….

    ? So who cares that you think the name has stuck (due to some Wikipedia entry by some other mis-informed person)? It is not his invention, it is older than him, it is well known by photographers alive today who are older than him, it does not deserve his name, and he ought to stop claiming that he invented it.

    Want a better argument than the logics? I’ll give you two; ? obvious method, and ? prior art. Those are legal arguments.

  • I just saw this, but it’s pretty important to note that I did not ever claim to invent the panorama. Nor did I invent cameras. This is a very specific subset technique.

  • I would genuinely love to see your sourcing on this. From everything I’ve seen this was not the intended purpose of the panoramic camera he invented in 1843.

  • Top Rock Photography

    Wasn’t talking about the panoramic camera.

  • I’m serious, I would love to learn more.

  • Jory Keller

    Awesome. I’ve been stitching images together like this for years, never knew it was an actual method, just thought I was cheating full-frame with my crop-sensor. 🙂

Join Our Email Newsletter

Thanks for subscribing!

DPS offers a free weekly newsletter with: 
1. new photography tutorials and tips
2. latest photography assignments
3. photo competitions and prizes

Enter your email below to subscribe.
Get DAILY free tips, news and reviews via our RSS feed