bokeh anyone? - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/15/2006 01:21:25 PM · #151

Originally posted by American_Horse:

So, am I reading this right.

To get good bokeh, open up the iris, have long lens, dappaled light in bg.

Is this pretty much how to do it?

Pretty much.

Canon EOS-20D

06/15/2006 01:28:49 PM · #152

So for you discy people, this would not be enough?

But this would be okay?

06/15/2006 01:31:39 PM · #153

Yes. Backlit subjects work best.

The first may be acceptable if the background were a little less OOF providing more detail. (based on the challenge description)

06/15/2006 01:44:59 PM · #154

Originally posted by mk:

So for you discy people, this would not be enough?

But this would be okay?

I believe both are examples of Good Bokeh!

06/15/2006 01:51:38 PM · #155

Originally posted by mk:

Given the recent hoopla over uncredited photos in other people's portfolios, you'd probably be best to link to that photo or at least give the url. [/quote]

Here is the link crayon did not add
Credit

Message edited by author 2006-06-15 13:52:02.

06/15/2006 01:54:11 PM · #156

More Examples of Good BoKeh

I have read 25-30 different articles on BoKeh and the one consistent thing in all the articles is the definition of the Japanese word "Bo Ke" and that is "Un-Sharp" or "Blur" or "Fool". Not little OOF circles of light.

The rest of the BoKeh discussion is the subjective part. Is it "good" or "bad" BoKeh.

Message edited by author 2006-06-15 14:03:26.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/15/2006 04:18:09 PM · #157

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

I agree 100%. Any image that has a blurred background accomplished in camera due to a large aperture setting will be meeting the challenge.

Artifacts

06/15/2006 04:55:23 PM · #158

Originally posted by yanko:

Any image that has a blurred background accomplished in camera due to a large aperture setting will be meeting the challenge.

Does this differ from shallow depth of field also accomplished in camera due to a large aperture setting or are we saying that shallow DOF and bokeh are the same thing?

06/15/2006 05:01:16 PM · #159

So a background that is so OOF to be a solid block of one colour is an example of bokeh?

06/15/2006 05:16:46 PM · #160

This is how I see it and I only speak for me!

This is shallow depth of field:

No BoKeh

"Good" BoKeh

"Bad" BoKeh

"Great" BoKeh

06/15/2006 05:23:50 PM · #161

I have to agree on your choice of great bokeh. The OOF background makes the image very dynamic.

The bokeh in what you call bad bokeh does actually have some nice patterns in it. There's just a bad choice of foreground subject.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/15/2006 05:26:14 PM · #162

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by yanko:
Any image that has a blurred background accomplished in camera due to a large aperture setting will be meeting the challenge.

Does this differ from shallow depth of field also accomplished in camera due to a large aperture setting or are we saying that shallow DOF and bokeh are the same thing?

Pretty much however the two are not the same but if you have a shallow DOF then you will have bokeh by default since the lens has to use circles of confusion a.k.a. fuzzy circles or circle-like shapes (depends on the lens) to produce the OOF area. As I understand it that's the way a blurred area in a photograph is produced in camera, whether you see the circles with the naked eye or not.

Message edited by author 2006-06-15 17:28:02.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

06/15/2006 05:27:25 PM · #163

Well to me the "Bad" BoKeh is harsh and not smooth almost like it is banding. Which as I understand it is a characteristic of the lens, how it was manufactured and how many apeture blades is has.

3eyedcrow

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

06/15/2006 05:28:24 PM · #164

Bokeh isn't something that you can point to in a photograph and say "There it is". Bokeh is the FEELING that the image exudes to the viewer through the out-of-focus portions. Bokeh is an eastern abstract concept, like zen or mushin. Bokeh can be strong or weak, pleasing or displeasing.
The question you should ask is, "Does the out-of-focus portion improve the over-all feel of the image. If it does, then this is pleasing bokeh, if it detracts then it is displeasing bokeh.
I hope this helps.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

06/15/2006 05:32:32 PM · #165

Originally posted by 3eyedcrow:

Yes and No! "Bo Ke" or BoKeh for us westerners is clearly defined as "Blur" or "Un-Sharp" by the Japanese definition. But I do agree with the rest of your statement.

3eyedcrow

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

06/15/2006 05:39:06 PM · #166

We use the japanese term "BoKeh" because we don't have a word that means the same thing. But yes, you're right, it is clearly rooted in the "blur" or "unsharp" part of the image.

Jason_Cross

Nikon D50

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

06/15/2006 05:39:30 PM · #167

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by mk:
So for you discy people, this would not be enough?

But this would be okay?

I believe both are examples of Good Bokeh!

Now I am really confused.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

06/15/2006 05:45:24 PM · #168

From your portfolio

This is BoKeh to me. It is a little harsh but still BoKeh

3eyedcrow

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

06/15/2006 05:48:24 PM · #169

boomtap, does the out-of-focus portions make the image stronger? There is no right or wrong answer. It up to the veiwer to decide. In my opinion, one of the images has more pleasing and positive bokeh than the other. But both have it.

Artifacts

06/15/2006 06:47:32 PM · #170

Being a quality of OOF, you cannot have bokeh without shallow DOF. But can you have shallow DOF without bokeh? If so, what would be some distinguishing characteristics separating shallow DOF from bokeh?

06/15/2006 07:09:59 PM · #171

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Very Hard question. I don't think you can have shallow DOF without boKeh. However I think shallow DOF would have both a foreground boKeh and a Background BoKeh like this:

Sound Good?

Beetle

06/15/2006 07:52:48 PM · #172

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Very Hard question. I don't think you can have shallow DOF without boKeh. However I think shallow DOF would have both a foreground boKeh and a Background BoKeh like this:

Sound Good?

NO, not good. Shallow DOF means it has one plane that is in focus. That plane can be at the front (most common), in the middle or at the back.

06/15/2006 07:54:08 PM · #173

Same thing I think

Beetle

06/15/2006 07:54:57 PM · #174

Add me to the camp of circles.
Whilst those circles don't have to be blindingly bright, in my opinion bokeh is something more than simply out of focus/shallow DOF.