Talk:Brenizer method

at least one photo does not fit

Sorry for formatting. The photo of the tomatos is just a wide angled shallow dof shot. Even if it does follow the method, it does not lend itself to showing the technique and seems to be added simply for the photographers benefit. Would suggest removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.47.239.17 (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

JPhilipW (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC) I'm new to this, but this article seems more like a promotion of Breizer than a recognized "method." This method "developed in 2008" has been used by thousands of people for as long a PanoTools has been around. It's commonly known as a "stitched mosaic" or a "tiled panorama." I question whether Wikipedia should legitimize an eponymous name for a long and widely used panorama technique. I don't think I have ever seen the term "Breneizer Method" used by anyone in the PanoTools community. Might this be promotional? It seems to me this is a pretty generic image stitching technique that predates the credited person's use of it. It would be appropriate to describe it in a section of a photo-stiching/Panotools/digital panorama stitching/etc. Any thoughts?

I've looked at the article (having originally reviewed it) and it seems a lot of extraneous and not very useful external links have crept in. I've revised these and also taken out the first link which someone had replaced with Ryan Brenizer's home page (that's unacceptable so I've now moved it to an acceptable external link). If you look up Brenizer Method you will see pages of specialist forums and articles referring to the technique as Brenizer. It isn't a new concept – as some of them point out – but one popularised because of the equipment used, notably a camera phone or generic digital camera. If the name has moved into common usage among a substantial group within the photography community – as this would suggest – then it exists and can be written about. I do agree that the previous edits had left the page looking more promotional than the original, so I'll keep an eye out in case more such promotion creeps in. I note that there is a separate article on PanoTools. Libby norman (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Still seems very promotional and does not differentiate this technique from any other photo stitching

I suggest adding that "Bokehrama" is a misuse of the term bokeh. Bokeh refers to the quality (softness, creaminess, harshness, etc.) of out-of-focus areas, not the shallow depth of field and soft focus itself. It's a common misuse that undermines the value and utility of the term. I see nothing clear in the description of this method that shows it to be different than any other use of stitching tiled photos. Looking at the examples, the description should likely include the idea that shooting live models or other non-stationary subjects would require that one image tile would need to capture that part of the scene — since stitching would produce artifacts with even minor subject motion. The discussion of "tilt-shift" is entirely devoid of information on how tilt and shift focal plane alignment adjustments really work. The idea that a stitch with shallow depth of field merely reminds some people of tilt, shift, and large format photography is fine, but doesn't go far enough to show the differences between the techniques and limitations of this stitching technique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.122.204 (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

And to think, I have been doing this since 2003.

Canon PowerShot Primeguey (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"Ryan Brenizer, not first but, initially referred to the technique as a bokeh panorama."

I'm not sure what this sentence means. TraceyR (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - that was introduced in a single edit by an anon user (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1045460764) which I've just reverted. I think it was graffiti motivated by the "why does this person get the technique named after them and not me" energy. Da5nsy (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Polyamorph (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

---

.

Brenizer Method → Brenizer method – WP:MOSCAPS Tony (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 2601:3C4:200:BD10:2CF8:7D7E:3034:C445 (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support – Really, someone contested this at RMTR? Why? Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I see that an editor noted there that Some sources seem to use "Breziner Method". Yes. Perhaps that editor is not aware of the criterion in MOS:CAPS: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Plenty of sources use lowercase, e.g.: [1], [2], [3] (look beyond the titles, obviously). Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.