| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2005 01:35:00 PM · #76 |
Hi, thank you so much to those of you that replied to me and in a very encourageing way! I am sorry for sad sacking around the place :) I think I enjoyed getting out there taking photos, have missed that recently, I must make the effort to do so more often, the bad weather and a twisted ankle kept me in a lot this past month. I enjoy outdoor photography more than studio then again I love taking shots of people!
I think I am attached to my work and am a tad sensitive :) I have in the past taken some what I consider warm, loving and wonderful photos of my children and I thought they were just great! But thats why because they are my children.
Anyhow many thanks for the support and encouragement I will still keep at it, my husband also a member keeps telling me what a great bunch you all are.
best wishes
Lisa :) |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 02:21:40 PM · #77 |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 02:54:54 PM · #78 |
BOKEH explained. This article will explain the difference between good bokeh and bad bokeh and the fine and alternating line between.
Basically put good bokeh if a distortion by the lens of part of the image that pleases the eye and somehow compliments the subject. Bad bokeh distracts. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 02:57:59 PM · #79 |
Requiring that the bokeh be comprised of "out-of-focus points of light" sounds limiting to me. I haven't visited the site you reference so I don't know the context, but surely you think it's possible to have bokeh that is not made up of points of light, no?
Originally posted by ahaze:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
However, i have a comment (part of quoted here) "The short definition of Bokeh from KenRockwell.com, which I am using for voting on this challenge: "Bokeh describes the rendition of out-of-focus points of light." |
Just so you know, every image I vote on is getting that comment from me. Levels the playing field and lets the shooters know where I stand and why I'm voting the way I am. |
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 03:00:59 PM · #80 |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 03:06:05 PM · #81 |
It goes around and around, this is getting hysterical.
TECHNICALLY "bokeh" is an artefact created by the lens in extremely out-of-focus areas, usually by point sources of light, and it varies dramatically from lens to lens. TECHNICALLY when we talk about good bokeh and bad bokeh we are discussing the QUALITY of these artefacts; some are much more pleasing than others, depending on the lens.
ARTISTICALLY (and I believe, reading the challenge description, that this is what the council were after) "bokeh" is a way of playing extreme out-of-focus backgrounds with noticeable edge-fuzzing and "articulation" against a sharp subject in such a way as to enhance the oevrall impact of the picture. There's a tangible difference between shallow DOF and artistic bokeh, IMO.
If a background is so out of focus and so smooth it meets NEITHER of these criteria, then you got no bokeh. By definition, if you produce "technical" bokeh, you are out of focus back there, no problem. For me the grey area is those in-between backgrounds that are pretty out-of-focus but still seem detailed and readable. The more readable they are, the less it feels like "artistic" bokeh to me.
But that's just me.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 03:29:41 PM · #82 |
Ok, earlier today I had posted to this thread with a link to the other (How would this have done in Bokeh???) bokeh thread (and now there's a third one!) and went back later and took it out thinking I would be duplicating. Now it seems appropriate here also since what is/isn't bokeh is being discussed here. I thought the excerpt below did a good job explaining the technical terms of bokeh.
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.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 03:32:49 PM · #83 |
I probably shouldn't get in the middle of this at all (especially considering how my entry is doing), but what you are showing is what Bear_Music refers to as "technical" bokeh. There is, I believe, an artistic side as well, where bad "technical" bokeh might just work as good "artistic" bokeh. You can argue all you want about it, though, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder (sorry for the cliche).
Message edited by author 2005-01-10 15:33:41. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 04:20:07 PM · #84 |
| I'm just not sure where dof ends and bokeh begins. Can someone explain? |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 04:22:00 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by jemison:
I'm just not sure where dof ends and bokeh begins. Can someone explain? |
No! |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 04:26:35 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by jemison:
I'm just not sure where dof ends and bokeh begins. Can someone explain? |
I would say that this  has good bokeh and that this  just has an out of focus background. Better?
Message edited by author 2005-01-10 16:30:45. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 04:32:16 PM · #87 |
These are linked for your convenience:
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 04:32:55 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by jemison:
I'm just not sure where dof ends and bokeh begins. Can someone explain? |
I would say that this has good bokeh and that this just has an out of focus background. Better? |
No! |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 04:35:43 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
These are linked for your convenience:
|
How did you link those? I tried three different ways. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 04:36:15 PM · #90 |
Just for the record & without having done much research on the subject & especially to those that are dropping the actual definition in their comments, the challenge description is as follows;
"Technique Challenge: Loosely defined, bokeh is the quality and "feel" of the out-of-focus foreground or background elements of a photo. It isn't very interesting by itself, but take a photograph whose subject is enhanced by the bokeh of the background."
Given this explanation, why are there so many haters amongst us, getting all into the absolute hyper definition of bokeh when the challenge description just calls for an out of focus BG or FG that makes an otherwise uniteresting foto interesting?
Just a question.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 04:42:00 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
Given this explanation, why are there so many haters amongst us, getting all into the absolute hyper definition of bokeh when the challenge description just calls for an out of focus BG or FG that makes an otherwise uniteresting foto interesting?
Just a question. |
Are you going to post this on every thread? |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 04:46:28 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Rooster:
Given this explanation, why are there so many haters amongst us, getting all into the absolute hyper definition of bokeh when the challenge description just calls for an out of focus BG or FG that makes an otherwise uniteresting foto interesting?
Just a question. |
Are you going to post this on every thread? |
Yes.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 07:04:51 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
Just for the record & without having done much research on the subject & especially to those that are dropping the actual definition in their comments, the challenge description is as follows;
"Technique Challenge: Loosely defined, bokeh is the quality and "feel" of the out-of-focus foreground or background elements of a photo. It isn't very interesting by itself, but take a photograph whose subject is enhanced by the bokeh of the background."
Given this explanation, why are there so many haters amongst us, getting all into the absolute hyper definition of bokeh when the challenge description just calls for an out of focus BG or FG that makes an otherwise uniteresting foto interesting?
Just a question. |
First, I really don't see any "haters". It's just a discussion.
Second, the challenge isn't "Out of Focus Background" or "Out of Focus Foreground", It's "Bokeh", which I think is why the peeps are discussing "bokeh".
Third, I don't see "absolute hyper definitions" of bokeh, just folks discussing what their understanding of bokeh is.
And last, that's what I love about this site - I learn so much from the discussions when I can learn what all the varying viewpoints are.
Message edited by author 2005-01-10 19:06:19. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 07:23:27 PM · #94 |
| "Loosely defined" is a pretty accurate statement and the description is a pretty awful definition of what bokeh is. Given what was written, it's no wonder that a good number of photos have no bokeh, they just have a shallow dof, but they were just going by that definition so who can really blame them? |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 07:46:20 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
"Loosely defined" is a pretty accurate statement and the description is a pretty awful definition of what bokeh is. Given what was written, it's no wonder that a good number of photos have no bokeh, they just have a shallow dof, but they were just going by that definition so who can really blame them? |
I would think that if someone really didn't know what bokeh was before the chalenge they would look it up or ask.
Ignorence may be bliss, but any judge will tell you it is no excuse for breaking the law. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 08:01:04 PM · #96 |
| No I completely agree. It is or it isn't. We say we're here to learn and have fun, so let's do both. If a picture does not contain what it's supposed to, should the group look the other way so we don't hurt each other's feelings? Or correct the mistakes and learn like we say we want to? I just meant that it was a very poor definition for something a little more in depth and complicated than was described. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 08:41:11 PM · #97 |
LOL. The challenge description was inadequate, the photographers didn't know what it was, and neither do the voters. Welcome to DCP! Let's all just have fun and then go out for a beer. First 'pitcher' is on me.
Originally posted by rscorp:
"Loosely defined" is a pretty accurate statement and the description is a pretty awful definition of what bokeh is. Given what was written, it's no wonder that a good number of photos have no bokeh, they just have a shallow dof, but they were just going by that definition so who can really blame them? |
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 08:43:17 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by strangeghost:
...Let's all just have fun and then go out for a beer. First 'pitcher' is on me.
|
Heh heh, careful John, I'm only 75 minutes away...
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 08:53:00 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Heh heh, careful John, I'm only 75 minutes away... |
OK, I'll buy the first pitcher and then we'll go out and shoot some "pitchers." BTW, me and my daughter smartypants and I are headed to downtown Madison's newest architectural wonder to shoot for the new challenge next Saturday. Interested?
edit: typo
Message edited by author 2005-01-10 20:56:52. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 09:02:18 PM · #100 |
Oooh, that is tempting! What time are you thinking of going?
|
|
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: 07/31/2025 03:17:31 PM EDT.
has good bokeh and that this 
just has an out of focus background. Better?
