| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/25/2006 12:53:24 PM · #26 |
I've seen some very good shots and given out some 8's and 9's.
Unfortunately, when the theme is somewhat abstract and wide open, like "contrast" or "bokeh", there tend to be a lot of entries. And with more entries, comes more good and many more so-so shots.
I have to admit, mine was hurried, and an average in the mid to low 5's show it.
It's too bad that I sent off my camera to be repaired this week... External shutter release jack broken? Anybody else? The portrait/landscape challenges look like a lot of fun - and with advanced editing for us mere 'registered users'. =)
Cheers,
-Jeff
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 12:54:11 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by mist:
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Many don't have bokeh at all. |
Many photos are sharp from back to front?
Hmm. |
Well. It could be OOF and not have bokeh. Isn't this fun? :D Ok, sling your definitions out there again... |
|
|
|
10/25/2006 12:59:32 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Too many people looking for circles maybe. Bokeh ain't just circles. |
I agree - it seems that a lot of people are only looking for circles. I even got a comment on that (the only comment I got sofar). Problem is, IMO, that there are not one 100 objective definition of bokeh. You can find a lot of definitions on different sites, but they are not necessarily saying the same thing.
But, this is what I expected and it's OK. It just seems that the majority now have another perception of bokeh than last time there was a bokeh challenge.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 01:01:39 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by mist:
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Many don't have bokeh at all. |
Many photos are sharp from back to front?
Hmm. |
Well. It could be OOF and not have bokeh. Isn't this fun? :D Ok, sling your definitions out there again... |
Surely a shot must have "bokeh" if it has any out of focus areas? The quality of the bokeh could be debatable, but not the fact that it exists.
Personally I entered a mediocre bokeh shot because I fancied entering something and was never going to get around to doing "after the game". Maybe other people did that too. Or maybe because there's over 400 entries it means that there are more "average" shots than might be usual. |
|
|
|
10/25/2006 01:11:17 PM · #30 |
I must admit, I was very bored going though the bokeh photographs. A few were very good and original, but why so many macro shots of flowers? Can't people be more creative? I did not enter this contest (it would only be my first) because I did not have anything 'different' to bring to the table. Sure I could have gone out and shot a flower or an insect but I knew there would be tons of them already. I just wasn't expecting 100's of 'em!!!
There should be new rules for Bokeh IV:
1) No macro
2) No flowers or insects
GET CREATIVE PEOPLE! All the same goes to me. Well hopefully the next challenge will be better...
P.S. Why do people send pictures that are blurred from excessive camera shake??? My God... |
|
|
|
10/25/2006 01:17:25 PM · #31 |
I thought the definition of bokeh was fall flowers? Crap!
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 01:20:14 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by candlerain:
Why do people send pictures that are blurred from excessive camera shake??? My God... |
I saw that one...yuck! :-(
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 01:22:09 PM · #33 |
I shot mine at 800 5.6 at a distance of about 10 ft. completely obliterating the background into just a nice shade of .....some color ....... which, imo, makes the subject really snap........scores are poor though and i sorta expected that I'd recieve DNMC's though it cleary DMC.
Not griping about my score just pointing out the bokeh doesn't have to slap you in the face........just cause you can't see it doesn't mean it aint there......... |
|
|
|
10/25/2006 01:25:47 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by mist:
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Many don't have bokeh at all. |
Many photos are sharp from back to front?
Hmm. |
Well. It could be OOF and not have bokeh. Isn't this fun? :D Ok, sling your definitions out there again... |
No, it couldn't. Unless you are redefining the word to mean something else.
From the guy's who introduced the term
As stated there, it just means 'blur' or more specifically the quality of the blur in out of focus regions (not motion blur or camera shake)
If the picture contains o-o-f blur, then it's "got" bokeh.
The opposite of an image with bokeh, is one with everything in focus from front to back, or pan-focus.
Co-incidentally, I'd emailed Mike about this challenge. He says 'sorry'
I assume many people enter macros, because in those cases it is easier to get more extreme out of focus/ shallow depth of field, with cheaper lenses and/or cameras.
Once you've gone macro, most people go 'flowers'
Message edited by author 2006-10-25 13:27:11. |
|
|
|
10/25/2006 01:26:18 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by candlerain:
I must admit, I was very bored going though the bokeh photographs. A few were very good and original, but why so many macro shots of flowers? Can't people be more creative? I did not enter this contest (it would only be my first) because I did not have anything 'different' to bring to the table. Sure I could have gone out and shot a flower or an insect but I knew there would be tons of them already. I just wasn't expecting 100's of 'em!!!
There should be new rules for Bokeh IV:
1) No macro
2) No flowers or insects
GET CREATIVE PEOPLE! All the same goes to me. Well hopefully the next challenge will be better...
P.S. Why do people send pictures that are blurred from excessive camera shake??? My God... |
Because, (1) even macros and flower/insect shots can be creative, even though it probably is harder because they have been done a lot; (2) when people get "truly creative" they are often punished with low scores.
BTW, define "creative". Sometimes I am just a little tired of complaints about lack of creativity. Just because somebody goes out and makes a photo that is not a flower/macro/insect (or whatever other subject is the current subject to put down) doesn't make their picture "creative". Creative is all sorts of things.  scalvert comes to mind for creative, but his is only one kind of creativity, there are others.  Dax- has tons of creativity, but it's a totally different kind of creativity than Shannon's. So what's creative?
Anyway. End of today's rant.
ADDED: Uh, oh, I just noticed you're a new user. I should have waited for a long established user with thick skin before laying into your post. Sorry, and welcome to DPC! :)
Message edited by author 2006-10-25 13:34:57. |
|
|
|
10/25/2006 01:26:43 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by jaxsond:
........just cause you can't see it doesn't mean it aint there......... |
ROFL! In a photography challenge that has to be the most silly thing anyone's ever said....okay, maybe not, but I'm still laughing. |
|
|
|
10/25/2006 01:27:18 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by candlerain:
I must admit, I was very bored going though the bokeh photographs. A few were very good and original, but why so many macro shots of flowers? Can't people be more creative? I did not enter this contest (it would only be my first) because I did not have anything 'different' to bring to the table. Sure I could have gone out and shot a flower or an insect but I knew there would be tons of them already. I just wasn't expecting 100's of 'em!!!
There should be new rules for Bokeh IV:
1) No macro
2) No flowers or insects
GET CREATIVE PEOPLE! All the same goes to me. Well hopefully the next challenge will be better...
P.S. Why do people send pictures that are blurred from excessive camera shake??? My God... |
I may be ok then. :P
Message edited by author 2006-10-25 13:28:28.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 01:34:42 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by mist:
Originally posted by Jutilda:
Many don't have bokeh at all. |
Many photos are sharp from back to front?
Hmm. |
Well. It could be OOF and not have bokeh. Isn't this fun? :D Ok, sling your definitions out there again... |
No, it couldn't. Unless you are redefining the word to mean something else. |
Ok, ok, ok... :D I was just poking some fun at the way this thread is ratcheting up, predictably.
It just amazes me how everyone has to get their 2 cents in on what is or isn't good bokeh while the challenge is actively being voted on.
Pick MY definition - it's the best! No...pick mine - I'm right! So many images suck. So many images blah, blah, blah...
Gosh. Can't we just let people make up their own minds on how to vote and read the challenge definition? Really quite unbelievable. |
|
|
|
10/25/2006 01:47:27 PM · #39 |
This is the kinda crap that influences voting, not outtakes. All this does is make people second-guess the score they gave and possibly go back and change it. As far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be any discussion on challenges during voting. Reserve your opinions for a photos comment box and after the voting period ends. All voters should be capable of reading the challenge description and deciding if an entry meets the requirements based on their interpretation of the description.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 01:48:58 PM · #40 |
Dont think you folks should worry about your photo having those circles or not. A great OOF background should be good enough. At the moment my current Bokeh entry isn't doing as well as my last one and it has those defined circles and looking at the previous top10 placing pics, not many there had those circles too well defined either. So either way, circles or no circles... end of story. So I'm waiting for the time the next Bokeh challenge comes around, not! ;)
Message edited by author 2006-10-25 13:49:51. |
|
|
|
10/25/2006 01:58:16 PM · #41 |
| And if you're all frustrated with Bokeh, go vote Trains. Just a thought. :-) |
|
|
|
10/25/2006 03:33:07 PM · #42 |
| yep, this is a fun ride! had some interesting voting on this one so far. Had a comment saying "10. wish it could be 11". Yeah, the ego gets stroked! Then the next update, a 4 vote to bring me back to earth. Looking forward to Landscapes and Portraits! |
|
|
|
10/25/2006 03:38:58 PM · #43 |
I haven't got a Jutilda comment...now I am depressed!
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 03:44:03 PM · #44 |
I did get a Jutilda comment and I believe she gave me the benefit of the doubt. Thanks Judy.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 03:44:10 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by silverscreen:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Too many people looking for circles maybe. Bokeh ain't just circles. |
I agree - it seems that a lot of people are only looking for circles. I even got a comment on that (the only comment I got sofar). Problem is, IMO, that there are not one 100 objective definition of bokeh. You can find a lot of definitions on different sites, but they are not necessarily saying the same thing.
But, this is what I expected and it's OK. It just seems that the majority now have another perception of bokeh than last time there was a bokeh challenge. |
Well mine has the circles and it has a pathetic score. If I were to venture a guess I'd say people are simply deducting more points for every little thing they find wrong. I'd love to see what the total voter average is at DPC per year. I'm guessing it goes down every year.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 03:44:22 PM · #46 |
It would have been better if the fuzzy word "Bokeh" wasn't used, the title were "Out of Focus Background" and the description had said, "Take a photograph whose subject is enhanced by the quality and "feel" of the out-of-focus background elements."
IMHO there are too many challenges with ill-defined or misleading titles and descriptions.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 03:46:49 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by talmy:
It would have been better if the fuzzy word "Bokeh" wasn't used, the title were "Out of Focus Background" and the description had said, "Take a photograph whose subject is enhanced by the quality and "feel" of the out-of-focus background elements."
IMHO there are too many challenges with ill-defined or misleading titles and descriptions. |
If you look at the last bokeh challenge how many of the top tens had circles in them? Only 2 or 3 had clear circles you could see. I bet when this challenge is over that will be the case again.
Message edited by author 2006-10-25 15:47:25.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 03:54:44 PM · #48 |
Ho-hum - blah, blah, blah...
Originally posted by glad2badad:
It just amazes me how everyone has to get their 2 cents in on what is or isn't good bokeh while the challenge is actively being voted on.
Pick MY definition - it's the best! No...pick mine - I'm right! So many images suck. So many images blah, blah, blah...
Gosh. Can't we just let people make up their own minds on how to vote and read the challenge definition? Really quite unbelievable. |
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 03:59:38 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by yanko:
If I were to venture a guess I'd say people are simply deducting more points for every little thing they find wrong. I'd love to see what the total voter average is at DPC per year. I'm guessing it goes down every year. |
That is probably part of "the rub". What is one's benchmark for voting.
Do you start with a 0 and go up with what was right
Start with 5 (average) and then add/subtract for rights/wrongs
Or start with a 10 and then deduct on what was not 'right'
|
|
|
|
10/25/2006 04:01:34 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Ho-hum - blah, blah, blah... |
LOL! Nice, subtle. ;-)
|
|
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: 08/26/2025 12:42:33 AM EDT.
