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

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> How would this have done in Bokeh???
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 49, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/09/2005 11:17:47 PM · #1
I was going to submit this photograph but then i felt that it didn't fit the challenge because the background doesn't really enhance the subject...so did i make the right desicion??

01/09/2005 11:21:08 PM · #2
You made the right choice, there is no bokeh there, just shallow dof. Nice hawk though.
 01/09/2005 11:22:25 PM · #3
Great photo...I think the background enhances the subject but not because of the boke.

I would have given it a 5 or 6 in the challenge and at least a 7 or 8 on its own merits in a free study or something...

Message edited by author 2005-01-09 23:22:44.
 01/09/2005 11:56:39 PM · #4
What you have is getting close, but for good bokeh you would probably want less sky and less dof or have the subject a little farther from the background. I don't guess you could have asked the hawk to move to a better location.

One way to get great bokeh it to shoot with the apperature opened up looking up at the subject into the thick vegetation or treetops with sparse bits of light shineing through. Here is one of my better.

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 00:02:32.
 01/09/2005 11:58:37 PM · #5
There are degrees of boke. You can place a new car with a wrecking lot behind it with hundred of crushed cars out of focus. You can also do a flower and obliterate the background.

The above image fits the challenge because the branches are in the family of where this guy happens to be. However, the definition may get very narrow because some people interpret boke as total blur, this is not so.

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 01:20:46.
 01/10/2005 12:02:31 AM · #6
Now I'm confused then. I thought Boke had nothing to do with just shallow dof and having things in the background, but had to do with the lighting....points of light, so to speak. Otherwise, what is the difference between just having out of focus elements in the background, and bokeh? Wish I had known as I didn't enter the challenge, but if this is considered bokeh I could have.
 01/10/2005 12:03:15 AM · #7
I would have given it a 9. Great shot...I think the background is awesome and compliments the photo very well.
 01/10/2005 12:08:53 AM · #8
Originally posted by rscorp:
Now I'm confused then. I thought Boke had nothing to do with just shallow dof and having things in the background, but had to do with the lighting....points of light, so to speak. Otherwise, what is the difference between just having out of focus elements in the background, and bokeh? Wish I had known as I didn't enter the challenge, but if this is considered bokeh I could have.


When people refer to good bokeh they are usually refering to the roundish shapes you get when foreground or background objects are out of focus. These can be points of light, patterns on the wall, leaves of trees or Christmas lights. This is a narrow definition. Literally it just means foreground or background blur. If you wanted to score good in this chalenge you would probably have to stick to the narrow definition.
 01/10/2005 12:17:50 AM · #9
Originally posted by nsbca7:
When people refer to good bokeh they are usually refering to the roundish shapes you get when foreground or background objects are out of focus. These can be points of light, patterns on the wall, leaves of trees or Christmas lights. This is a narrow definition. Literally it just means foreground or background blur. If you wanted to score good in this chalenge you would probably have to stick to the narrow definition.


Darn. I was under the impression, for example, that:

This photo and this one just had shallow dof.

This one to me is an example of bokeh:


which I wasn't able to produce with the overcast skies here lately.
 01/10/2005 12:18:15 AM · #10
The one I didn't enter (actually missed out on this one totally) had alright boke but couldn't get the exposure that I wanted.




01/10/2005 12:24:19 AM · #11
Originally posted by rscorp:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
When people refer to good bokeh they are usually refering to the roundish shapes you get when foreground or background objects are out of focus. These can be points of light, patterns on the wall, leaves of trees or Christmas lights. This is a narrow definition. Literally it just means foreground or background blur. If you wanted to score good in this chalenge you would probably have to stick to the narrow definition.


Darn. I was under the impression, for example, that:

This photo and this one just had shallow dof.

This one to me is an example of bokeh:


which I wasn't able to produce with the overcast skies here lately.


That is awesome bokeh, especially the first image. That is exactly what I was talking about with the roundish shapes in the backgound. (they don't necessarily have to be roundish, just pleasingly distorted.)

And yeh, I had to wait till today to get mine because of the weather. This is the first sunny day we have had.

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 00:26:55.
 01/10/2005 12:29:34 AM · #12
i think the definition is relatively open for interpretation (which is probably why they didn't specify specific shapes and/or other specifics in the challenge description) here - but of course will depend on voter choices as well.
 01/10/2005 12:35:32 AM · #13
30 minutes into the challenge I have the sudden realization that I shouldnt have entered... too many people have different interpretations of the challenge and a lot of entries are going to suffer. One crowd is going to go after the circular blobs background, another crowd is going to punish circular bloabs for detracting from the image, another crowd is going to punish all flower shots, whilst another is going to punish blurly foreground, middle ground or even background as bad technique.

I guess its just another normal day on dpc then :-)
 01/10/2005 12:39:42 AM · #14
I have to agree. Going for my first brown ribbon. My scores seem to be consistent thru out the week. 3.67 oooch!
 01/10/2005 12:50:57 AM · #15
Originally posted by nsbca7:
That is awesome bokeh, especially the first image.


I agree, that first one woulda snagged a ribbon. I filled the birdfeeder with the GOOD seed this morning, hung up a big pinecone rolled in peanut butter and seeds, and sprinkled the ground with oats. Then I waited... and waited... and waited some more. Nothing. Not so much as a feather all day. Hmph.
 01/10/2005 12:53:27 AM · #16
Sigh. I'm an idiot then. The first image I could get a background like that, but I didn't think that was bokeh at all, just blurry.

The woodpecker image is the only one I thought was bokeh, and try as I might, the light would not cooperate with me at all.
 01/10/2005 01:05:46 AM · #17
Boke has several flavors. You have the non-descript background where everything just melts and allows the foreground to shine. You have the reverse.

You also have the related background. Not just any background but one that is tied to the subject. Example: a man putting on a tie while all other ties filled the background.

Blobs, etc are sometimes the property of the non-descript. Knowing the voters and their propensity for left brain allocation, the definition will probably predominate. Remember, right or wrong, the voters always decide.

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 01:23:04.
 01/10/2005 01:21:49 AM · #18
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Boke has several flavors. You have the non-descript background where everything just melts and allows the foreground to shine. You have the reverse.

You also have the related background. Not just any background but one that is tied to the subject. Example: a man putting on a tie while all other ties filled the background.

Blobs, etc are sometimes the property of the non-descript. Knowing the voters and their propensity for left brain allocation, the definition will probably predominate. Remeber, right or wrong, the voters always decide.


I wish the voters would read this!
 01/10/2005 01:30:08 AM · #19
I would have voted 6 or maybe 7.
I, myself, don't realy undesrtand the concept.
This is the one I did not submit.

Please let me know what do you think
 01/10/2005 01:33:23 AM · #20
Tiberius;

That's shallow DOF, not bokeh, IMO.

Rscorp;

Both the bird shots are superior bokeh, IMO.

Robt.

01/10/2005 01:35:49 AM · #21
Originally posted by bear_music:
Tiberius;

That's shallow DOF, not bokeh, IMO.

Rscorp;

Both the bird shots are superior bokeh, IMO.

Robt.

This is what I thought, too. Glad I did not submit it.
Thanks!
 01/10/2005 02:21:14 AM · #22
I'm confused on what Bokeh is and what is good or bad.

Here is the definition from Dictionary.Com which seems to be just a blurred background without a lot of rules. This is why I could use some clarification.

Main Entry: bokeh
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a Japanese term for the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of a photographic image
Example: The bokeh, or quality of the blurred image in the photograph, was described and discussed.

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 13:18:05.
 01/10/2005 10:00:03 AM · #23
More on Bokeh and what it is / isn't for anyone interested:

Bokeh
 01/10/2005 10:22:41 AM · #24
Once again time and the weather didn't favour me for the bokeh challenge, the only dry day( yesterday) was blowin a gale, anyway I submitted one,currently in the low 5s.
Wonder what people think of one of my alternative shots,nothing like my entry, what do you think, is it bokeh ? how would you have voted this one?

01/10/2005 10:40:34 AM · #25
Since we're all discussing bokeh in this thread and perhaps still trying to influence voters' perceptions of correct bokeh - I put this out there for consideration.

The following is an excerpt from What is Bokeh by KenRockwell.
//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

Fig. 1. Poor Bokeh. This is a greatly magnified blur circle showing very poor bokeh. Note how the edge is sharply defined and even emphasized for a point that is supposed to be out-of-focus, and that the center is dim.

Fig 2. Neutral Bokeh. This is a a technically perfect and evenly illuminated blur circle. This isn't good either for bokeh, because the edge is still well defined. Out-of-focus objects, either points of light or lines, can effectively create reasonably sharp lines in the image due to the edges of the sharp blur circle. This is the blur circle from with most modern lenses designed to be "perfect."

Fig. 3. Good Bokeh. Here is what we want. This is great for bokeh since the edge is completely undefined. This also is the result of the same spherical aberration, but in the opposite direction, of the poor example seen in Fig. 1. This is where art and engineering start to diverge, since the better looking image is the result of an imperfection. Perfect bokeh demands a Gaussian blur circle distribution, and lenses are designed for the neutral example shown in 2.) above.

Of the three bird photos submitted by rscorp, I think this one is the best representation for the bokeh challenge - again, just my opinion. :-)


edited to correct referenced bird photo - it was rscorp, not nsbca7.

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 15:13:36.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/07/2025 02:50:05 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: 09/07/2025 02:50:05 PM EDT.