DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Defining Boke
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 38 of 38, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/10/2005 05:26:11 PM · #26
Originally posted by ahaze:
This and rooster's comment all over the forums seem to be directly pointed at me for choosing a definition to stick with for voting- and telling people what I'm doing. If I was an "expert" (overnight or otherwise) I wouldn't feel it necessary to find a definition in the first place. I have seen a few images in this challenge that don't have "my" definition of bokeh to a tee, but have that artistic quality of blur and are beautifully executed shots. I've voted them highly. I vote the best I can with what I'm given. I'm not arbitrary. I don't vote unfairly. Thus far I haven't given any 1's in this challenge and only one 2. I explain myself, unlike the many others who throw around low votes with no comments whatsoever. Don't like it? Perhaps you'd prefer I vote without a comment at all?

You people are never happy.

Check my profile. I've left hundreds more comments than I've received, most of them marked helpful. I must have some clue.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
That is the problem with our self made experts. They go to the internet and instead of doing thorough research they latch on to the definition that is easiest for them to understand and then they vote accordingly.

This happens in challenge after challenge. There is a desire to narrow all definitions and to penalize any effort that they feel is out of the equation.

For this challenge, the first definition is very loose in the challenge instruction. Then someone becomes an overnight expert and comes back and say that bokeh has just to do with creating eye floaters and if there are no sperichal aberrations that are distinct, then it is only shallow dof.

It seems we create a nightmare because we all go our own way.


stick with it andi! all you are doing is offering your honest perspective and applying it consistently. you are giving people something to balance their work against. and, in the big scheme of things, you are only one vote, so, please, stick with it and don't back down!
 01/10/2005 05:30:59 PM · #27
No problem from me Andi. I've only had 2 comments so far on my bokeh entry and I have nothing but thanks for those that left them. Helps that they were pleasant ones. :-)

I've been posting definitions in bokeh threads to help keep the playing field fair with the various opinions going around on what is/isn't bokeh. I'm not disgruntled at all, actually I'm finding this whole process rather amusing.

Let's keep the good times rolling! I love DPC!
 01/10/2005 05:39:04 PM · #28
Originally posted by ahaze:
I can't believe I'm defending how I'm voting. Hundreds of others are voting the exact same way, they're just not telling you so. There are very few experts on this site. If you want your images only voted on by experts, you should go elsewhere.


Hey Andi,
I didnt call you out! I am not trying to say that that way you vote is wrong or right but either way I dont have to like it.
"all of the forums"? For real? I should post my original post a few more times in a few more threads so your post can be a bit more accurate.
And is it all that fair just using your own definition of something instead of thinking of things more broadly? Just a question, not an accusation. I feel I have to be hyper dilberate here since folks tend to take things way personal.
I am one of those peeps that marked you comment helpful so what's the beef?
What's the big deal anyway? No one called you out by name. We are allowed to express ourselves without fear of pissing somebody off all the time. Geez.
I dont think you or anyone else votes to make other people happy do we?
You want props for your candor? Big ups to you then. I gave you props by finding your comment helpful & I give you props now. Cool?

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 17:41:59.
 01/10/2005 05:41:37 PM · #29
My shot has definite relation to the background, and my comment so far is that it does not use light appropriately. I didn't realize light was required (as per my commenter), but I know light sure helps.

My photo has a little light in the background and the entire background is blurry (but not obliterated). The background and foreground are totally related. So, it is bokeh, right?! I am under the impression that people do not think so. :(
 01/10/2005 05:47:57 PM · #30
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
My shot has definite relation to the background, and my comment so far is that it does not use light appropriately. I didn't realize light was required (as per my commenter), but I know light sure helps.

My photo has a little light in the background and the entire background is blurry (but not obliterated). The background and foreground are totally related. So, it is bokeh, right?! I am under the impression that people do not think so. :(


Wouldn't know without actually knowing which picture is yours. But as to the question of if light was required, that depends on whether you mean direct or reflected light. It's all light unless it's black. No, it doeas not have to be direct light such as headlights or street lamps, but sometimes those are nice too. It can be as simple as the light reflected off of leaves or pine needles.

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 17:49:11.
 01/10/2005 05:48:41 PM · #31
Originally posted by Rooster:
What's the big deal anyway? No one called you out by name.


I guess then I should assume you're receiving other comments from people...
Originally posted by Rooster:
that are dropping the actual definition in their comments


Good. Glad to know I'm not the only one sticking to a definition. This is, after all, a technique challenge as stated in the challenge itself.

Originally posted by Rooster:
I dont think you or anyone else votes to make other people happy do we? You want props for your candor? Big ups to you then. I gave you props by finding your comment helpful & I give you props now. Cool?


Cool. Thanks for finding my comment helpful, thanks for the ups, and thanks for complaining about a voting style very similar to mine but not necessarily mine in exactly 4 threads (unless there are others I haven't read).

Seriously, cool. Just giving you shit. I can't believe what a big deal this has become.
 01/10/2005 05:50:20 PM · #32
Uhmm.... just 2 threads. :P

Hey Andi? Friends?
 01/10/2005 05:51:01 PM · #33
Originally posted by Rooster:
Hey Andi? Friends?


Yep.
 01/10/2005 05:54:40 PM · #34
Originally posted by ahaze:
Originally posted by Rooster:
Hey Andi? Friends?


Yep.


Cool!

01/10/2005 05:57:23 PM · #35
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
My shot has definite relation to the background, and my comment so far is that it does not use light appropriately. I didn't realize light was required (as per my commenter), but I know light sure helps.

My photo has a little light in the background and the entire background is blurry (but not obliterated). The background and foreground are totally related. So, it is bokeh, right?! I am under the impression that people do not think so. :(


Wouldn't know without actually knowing which picture is yours. But as to the question of if light was required, that depends on whether you mean direct or reflected light. It's all light unless it's black. No, it doeas not have to be direct light such as headlights or street lamps, but sometimes those are nice too. It can be as simple as the light reflected off of leaves or pine needles.


Does the light have to come from behind the subject? Does the photo have to have that neat bubble effect in the background (blurry circles or hexagons)? Mine has a few blurry circles but there is only one direct light that's not really well rounded (bubbly). I totally have the relation thing going for me though!
 01/10/2005 06:23:07 PM · #36
In my submission, my bokeh melted away the foreground but it is also related to the background blobs and the title. Too bad the commenters/voters so far haven't picked up on it yet :/
 01/10/2005 07:14:13 PM · #37
Originally posted by ahaze:
I can't believe I'm defending how I'm voting. Hundreds of others are voting the exact same way, they're just not telling you so. There are very few experts on this site. If you want your images only voted on by experts, you should go elsewhere.


Hey Andi,

Hang in there. :) IMHO you are just giving the photographer an explaination for the vote you gave - where i come from that's called "common courtesy." Kudos to you!! I took an approach like yours in the Black on Black challenge and it wasn't pretty. I think I was 'persona non grata' for some time. Don't be surprised if you get a bunch of hate mail.

Good luck,

Owen
 01/10/2005 11:03:38 PM · #38
Originally posted by ahaze:
This and rooster's comment all over the forums seem to be directly pointed at me for choosing a definition to stick with for voting- and telling people what I'm doing. If I was an "expert" (overnight or otherwise) I wouldn't feel it necessary to find a definition in the first place. I have seen a few images in this challenge that don't have "my" definition of bokeh to a tee, but have that artistic quality of blur and are beautifully executed shots. I've voted them highly. I vote the best I can with what I'm given. I'm not arbitrary. I don't vote unfairly. Thus far I haven't given any 1's in this challenge and only one 2. I explain myself, unlike the many others who throw around low votes with no comments whatsoever. Don't like it? Perhaps you'd prefer I vote without a comment at all?

You people are never happy.

Check my profile. I've left hundreds more comments than I've received, most of them marked helpful. I must have some clue.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
That is the problem with our self made experts. They go to the internet and instead of doing thorough research they latch on to the definition that is easiest for them to understand and then they vote accordingly.

This happens in challenge after challenge. There is a desire to narrow all definitions and to penalize any effort that they feel is out of the equation.

For this challenge, the first definition is very loose in the challenge instruction. Then someone becomes an overnight expert and comes back and say that bokeh has just to do with creating eye floaters and if there are no sperichal aberrations that are distinct, then it is only shallow dof.

It seems we create a nightmare because we all go our own way.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Andi: I am not at all addressing you. This topic has spawned 4 threads or so. There are many offering opinions. And believe me, all opinions are welcome. Like I said at the start of this thread I was unable to reshoot my image and what remains is not at all a viable image. In short, I have not received your comment and if I did I can assure you that I would not be offended.

Since I do not have a qualified horse in this race I am merely concerned for those that do. Consider the topic of electricity, we can all read a definition but we remain far from understanding this phenonema. The same applies to many things in life.

I have noticed that some have looked up the definition but their research was not exhausted. They are using the culmination of spherical aberration into disc or blobs of light to describe bokeh and if you research the topic you will find that this is not the only quality. There are points of degrees before this final formation is reached, which are part of bokeh. All I am saying is that it is not cut and dried and for some voters to apply a strict definition will indeed have an adverse effect.

I also understand that the voter is supreme: right or wrong. All that I am saying is that many challenges do suffer because voters apply the simplest definition and ignore the total meaning.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 07:51:11 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 07:51:11 PM EDT.