| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/23/2006 03:06:39 PM · #51 |
Sooo, I'm just curious... are they learning? Or, are all the threads debating bokeh going unheard by the voters?
|
|
|
|
06/23/2006 03:11:49 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by d50kid:
forgive my ignorance but im havent been a photographer for an extremely long time and i dont know what bokeh is. Would someone kindly explain it to me. |
By the strictest definition, "bokeh" describes the visible artifact created by an out of focus, specular light source. The "quality" of the bokeh is determined by the physical construction of the lens itself. The purest example of bokeh I've seen in DPC is this:
However, for THIS challenge, the description seems to have been written specifically to expand the concept, probably as a response to the somewhat bitter back-and-forth that accompanied the last "Bokeh" challenge.
I think everyone's worrying too much; just judge the images based on how well the OOF parts enhance the image and you're fine.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2006 03:17:33 PM · #53 |
Crud Robert - Since you put an example out there I'll have to show the other side of the coin.
The image Robert (Bear_Music) posted, came in 2nd in the last Bokeh challenge.
This came in 1st: 
This came in 3rd: 
So...what is bokeh? Fun isn't it. ;^)
|
|
|
|
06/23/2006 03:19:12 PM · #54 |
This was an out-take a few challenges back, only the bokeh was the subject and not just background. It was actually supposed to simulate a micro-photograph ...
"Original":  Edited: 
Message edited by author 2006-06-23 15:23:21. |
|
|
|
06/23/2006 03:24:05 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
So...what is bokeh? Fun isn't it. ;^) |
Yeah, that's my point: there was so much bickering last time that this time the description specifically includes pictures like those as being acceptable, so what are we worrying about? But since d50kid wanted to know what a "bokeh" actually was, I thought I might as well show him a literal example.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2006 03:28:34 PM · #56 |
With all due respect Bear I disagree as I take the literal definition to be what the Japanese intended.
The Japanese word "Bo Ke" defined is "UnSharp" or "Blur" or "Fool"
Just my $.02
I think though after this challenge I will be the Fool! :-P
Message edited by author 2006-06-23 15:29:10. |
|
|
|
06/23/2006 03:49:34 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
With all due respect Bear I disagree as I take the literal definition to be what the Japanese intended.
The Japanese word "Bo Ke" defined is "UnSharp" or "Blur" or "Fool"
Just my $.02
I think though after this challenge I will be the Fool! :-P |
I refuse to take a stand in this debate, but please don't confuse etymology with definition. Just because a word means one thing in Japanese doesn't mean it means the same thing in American... um... I mean, English...
|
|
|
|
06/23/2006 03:54:52 PM · #58 |
I am out of this now. I have my understanding of BoKeh and I guess the debate will continue. I am not confusing the two by the way I have read deeply on this subject and posted all of my thoughts on the subject Here. No more BoKeh talk for me.
Erick |
|
|
|
06/23/2006 04:02:40 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
By the strictest definition, "bokeh" describes the visible artifact created by an out of focus, specular light source. The "quality" of the bokeh is determined by the physical construction of the lens itself. The purest example of bokeh I've seen in DPC is this:
|
though i've never been too keen on using "strict definitions", i must say that each time this photo comes up as an example of "pure" or "true" bokeh i have to laugh. generally speaking, light points with brighter centers and soft edges are usually considered "good" or "pleasing" bokeh... light points with lighter centers and stark edges, as in this photo, are generally viewed as an example of "bad" bokeh. light points with visible straight edges, are generally seen as "really bad" bokeh, yet a photo in the previous challenge with hexegonal light points was in the top 10...
not that i don't like those photos, mind you.. i agree w/ mr bear when he says everyone's worrying too much...
so... now i've had my say... jejeje and all that... :)
|
|
|
|
06/23/2006 11:40:10 PM · #60 |
Actually the word bokeh comes from the Japanese word Bokashi---Gradation( officialy they call ) but normaly we said shade or more likely off focus. Bokashi mean gradualy fade the light or color. Hence the confusion it can be light or just color. but has to have a sort of look to it not just a solid palet of color out of focus.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2006 03:09:33 AM · #61 |
Bokashi, n. shading; blurring, dimness.
This is the worst challenge I have voted on yet. My definition of bokeh, and seemingly every single person who voted, was different. In my opinion this subject should never be in the challenges, as how can one get accurate results when absolutely no one can agree on the actual topic?
I'll be sure to limit my voting to very clear and obvious challenges from now on, it's very frusterating to see images that should have placed in the top landing in the middle, and seeing images that IMO should be disqualified in decent placings.
I voted 1, 2 etc. on some very NICE photos, that I felt were not applicable to the challenge. I see many others did the same. It's probably extremely frusterating for those who got low votes, as well.
What a volatile topic, doing no good for anyone :-)
-Hideo |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 06:13:00 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
With all due respect Bear I disagree as I take the literal definition to be what the Japanese intended.
The Japanese word "Bo Ke" defined is "UnSharp" or "Blur" or "Fool"
Just my $.02
I think though after this challenge I will be the Fool! :-P |
I refuse to take a stand in this debate, but please don't confuse etymology with definition. Just because a word means one thing in Japanese doesn't mean it means the same thing in American... um... I mean, English... |
Etymological fallacy is a term for the assumption that a word is defined by its origins, rather than its common usage. Mind you, etymology is useful and relevant in discussions such as this one, it just isn't the definition of the word. |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 08:42:15 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by redsunphotography:
... how can one get accurate results when absolutely no one can agree on the actual topic? ... |
Fairly new here - eh? ;^)
Your statement is applicable to a majority of the challenges that go on here. Subject? Description? Define this...? My definition of that...?
Never a dull moment, and that's a good thing! :-D |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 08:46:56 AM · #64 |
 IS this bokeh or is this bokeh
which is better?
Message edited by author 2006-07-02 08:49:01.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2006 08:47:46 AM · #65 |
| the crazy thing is we should have all voted by the description left on the challenge. That would have been a fair way of doing it. Put away your interpretation of a word and use the one set forward in the challenge. I voted based on quality of photo and the definition set in the description on the challenge. |
|
|
|
07/02/2006 09:05:55 AM · #66 |
The picture that got the highest vote could be said to be a sharp foreground image with a blurred background. I'd say it won for the quality of the foreground image rather than that of the background or of the correlation between the two. Either way it deserved a ribbon and the rest is, evidently, semantics.
There is then, the question of aims/priorites. My own little darling washed up three or four places shy of a brown ribbon (again, deservedly, I'm sure), while I myself took a huge hike up the learning curve... |
|
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: 08/03/2025 09:29:21 AM EDT.
