bokeh anyone? - DPChallenge Forums

06/15/2006 08:00:39 PM · #176

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by stdavidson:
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?

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?

Yup, however that's more about the shallow DOF than bokeh and would get slammed in the voting, IMO. Also, the OOF areas simply aren't blurry enough. Ideally you want a blurry background that acts as an abstract backdrop to your subject. It should enhance the subject in some way usually making it "pop" from the background.

Beetle

06/15/2006 08:02:54 PM · #177

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

But again I would refer you to the Japanese definition ....

Those definitions are half the problem - they don't all say the same thing. Many of them clearly talk about circles.

I mostly look at it as "something more" than just an out of focus background (versus needing definite circles).

As somebody else said, there is a "feel" to this, as well, not easily explained in a formula.

06/15/2006 08:04:23 PM · #178

Originally posted by Beetle:

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.

The thing is any blurred area (i.e. OOF) will have those circles and therefore contain bokeh. Some images will have those circles clearly but not each one will. If you disagree tell me where you see the circles in this shot:

Edited to add: However, I think I know where you are going with this and I agree. The bokeh NEEDS to be a big factor in the image enhancing the subject and making it pop. Simply having a blurry background or a shallow DOF will not make for a good bokeh image as it won't be the focal point of the image at all.

Message edited by author 2006-06-15 20:08:54.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

06/15/2006 08:04:41 PM · #179

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

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.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

06/15/2006 08:08:35 PM · #180

Yet another link to peruse on the subject...

more to read

Beetle

06/15/2006 08:09:24 PM · #181

Originally posted by yanko:

Perhaps I wouldn't use that one as the textbook example for bokeh, but yes, it most certainly has that something "extra" that I'd call bokeh. The circles aren't circles, but the priniciple is there.

LOL it's all so easy inside my head and so hard to explain :-)

Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF for Pentax

06/15/2006 08:22:34 PM · #182

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by yanko:

The thing is any blurred area (i.e. OOF) will have those circles and therefore contain bokeh. Some images will have those circles clearly but not each one will. If you disagree tell me where you see the circles in this shot:

Perhaps I wouldn't use that one as the textbook example for bokeh, but yes, it most certainly has that something "extra" that I'd call bokeh. The circles aren't circles, but the priniciple is there.

LOL it's all so easy inside my head and so hard to explain :-)

Oh I know the feeling! And you're right in that it's more than just a blurry background but I feel that's getting into what makes good/great bokeh. :)

Pug-H

Pentax K10D

06/15/2006 08:23:22 PM · #183

The word "boke" comes from the verb "bokeru", related to "boyakeru" - to blur or dim. My electronic dictionary just gives a sample sentence - Romanised for your convenience. kono shashin wa sukoshi boketeiru "This picture is a bit out of focus.".

My paper dictionary is at home, and I'm not, on this dreadfully rainy day. (Rainy season, you see.)

Dr.Confuser

Nikon D800

06/15/2006 08:24:55 PM · #184

So, would you describe either of these as "good bokeh?"

Good bokeh, sounds like what you'd say to a dog ... "Sit bokeh, ..., good bokeh." lol

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

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

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

06/15/2006 08:27:39 PM · #185

I say both. But the owl image is much more pleasing to my eye. It compliments the owl more than the other image.

Just one dog's opinion.

:-P

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

06/15/2006 08:28:00 PM · #186

First one a definate yes.

Second one no. The background is too OOF.

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

06/15/2006 08:28:53 PM · #187

LMAO

Good fun!

Canon EOS-20D

06/15/2006 08:31:06 PM · #188

Sounds like thegrandwazoo and I have a pretty similar line of thought judging from his posts.

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

First one a definate yes.

Second one no. The background is too OOF.

I think that the OOF is exactly why it IS good. I say yes. :)

3eyedcrow

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

06/15/2006 08:34:27 PM · #189

I think both have very "good" bokeh. The reason for me is this: If the DOF was larger, would they have the same FEEL? I say no.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

06/15/2006 08:36:43 PM · #190

With that let's just call this a shallow DOF challenge as was suggested earlier.

To me in the owl picture there is nothing being rendered in the background. It's pretty much solid green.

So the answer to this question is yes.
So a background that is so OOF to be pretty much a solid block of one colour is an example of bokeh?

Message edited by author 2006-06-15 20:41:01.

06/15/2006 08:44:15 PM · #191

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

With that let's just call this a shallow DOF challenge as was suggested earlier.

This is where 3eyedcrow wins the day. This image

does not feel shallow to me.

This is where the Philosophy or "Zen", as 3eyedcrow put it, of the Japanese idea comes into play.

Sony FE 3.5-5.6/28-70 mm OSS

06/15/2006 08:45:01 PM · #192

How about this then

JunieMoon

Sony Alpha a7 II

06/15/2006 08:47:42 PM · #193

Are there different strengths of bokeh? I love this image, but the lilypads in the background may not be shallow enough. I have several images where the background is still discernable, so is bokeh the complete blur of the background, or just enough to just give the foreground a compositional boost?

Beetle

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

06/15/2006 08:48:02 PM · #194

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

How about this then

Nope.... the background isn't distracting, but it doesn't add to it, either.

Canon EOS-20D

06/15/2006 08:49:20 PM · #195

Originally posted by ladymonarda:

I personally would not consider that bokeh but just a slightly shallow DOF.

06/15/2006 08:59:24 PM · #196

Ah the 70-200 2.8 VR thats why the BoKeh is so sweet!

That lens, as Pawdrix put so succinctly "is becoming legendary"

:-)

Sony FE 3.5-5.6/28-70 mm OSS

06/15/2006 09:27:48 PM · #197

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Ah the 70-200 2.8 VR thats why the BoKeh is so sweet!

That lens, as Pawdrix put so succinctly "is becoming legendary"

:-)

Exactly. If that lens was less sweet it might have left more details in the background which would have been susceptible to creating those obvious looking fuzzy circles but whether they are seen or not by the naked eye is irrelevant. ALL blurred areas in a photo is going to contain those fuzzy circles (i.e. bokeh) because THAT'S the way the camera/lens system produces that blur effect which we see with the naked eye.

The question is does the blurred areas/bokeh enhance the image and how much so? As far as I'm concern the only DNMC image would be one shot with a pinhole camera or any photo where the entire image is sharp. That is not to say images like the lilly pad shouldn't get a low vote because clearly the focus isn't about the bokeh at all.

Message edited by author 2006-06-15 21:29:59.

JunieMoon

Sony Alpha a7 II

06/15/2006 09:44:12 PM · #198

I finally found an image I took which shows the telltale signs of bokeh in the background, very softly done which I guess is a good thing. Anyway, I know the pic isn't that great, but now that I know what I am looking for, I will go out for another shooting day to try and get a better image then the ones I did today. This image I took with my olympus point and shoot digital last year. Lets see if I can do the same with my current camera.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5