| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/14/2006 12:44:04 PM · #51 |
An example posted by wikipedia:
 |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 12:45:03 PM · #52 |
There's an interesting discussion going on here
//www.flickr.com/groups/bokeh_/discuss/72157594162317245
The photo's background doesn't have to have those brilliant famous circular highlights to be considered to have Bokeh, there are plenty of other examples.
Message edited by author 2006-06-14 13:00:39. |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 12:49:01 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Techo:
There's an interesting discussion going on here
The photo's background doesn't have to have those brilliant famous circular highlights to be considered to have Bokeh, there are plenty of other examples. |
Clickable Linky |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 12:50:20 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by idnic:
An example posted by wikipedia:
|
That's a good one. How about this?
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 12:50:53 PM · #55 |
Probably one of the best bokeh pictures I've taken; and done with the crappiest lens I own.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 12:53:22 PM · #56 |
| I was not under the impression that the background had to contain circles in order to be considered good bokeh. In fact, this is the first time I've heard that. I may be wrong but it looks like quite a few voters feel the same way. |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 12:54:05 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Probably one of the best bokeh pictures I've taken; and done with the crappiest lens I own. |
Nice DOF blur but don't ya think the circles are a little too edgy and donut shaped? A lens with better bokeh characteristics would have a softer center to edge transition IMO.
Same thing with the wikipedia example.
Very harsh circles. |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 12:55:00 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by mk:
I was not under the impression that the background had to contain circles in order to be considered good bokeh. In fact, this is the first time I've heard that. I may be wrong but it looks like quite a few voters feel the same way. |
Thanks for the link, but I think you just confirmed my position. ;^) |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 12:56:19 PM · #59 |
Sorry, I must be missing the circles in this photo then.
 |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 12:59:05 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by rswank:
Nice DOF blur but don't ya think the circles are a little too edgy and donut shaped? A lens with better bokeh characteristics would have a softer center to edge transition IMO.
Same thing with the wikipedia example.
Very harsh circles. |
I can see that too; I'm sure the characteristics of the 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II are not that great. I can't even bear to put the lens on my camera anymore. However, I'm still fond of the shot, even more so because I got it out of a crackerjack quality lens. :)
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 12:59:13 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
OK I found a good read on bokeh HERE |
Scroll down to the pictures. Gives you a good example.
Message edited by author 2006-06-14 13:01:11.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 12:59:47 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Techo:
There's an interesting discussion going on here
The photo's background doesn't have to have those brilliant famous circular highlights to be considered to have Bokeh, there are plenty of other examples. |
Clickable Linky |
Thank you :)
I'll update the original post as well.
Message edited by author 2006-06-14 13:00:10. |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 01:00:39 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by mk:
Sorry, I must be missing the circles in this photo then.
|
Excerpt from my post you are referring to "Where's the circles, the points of light, etc...? ".
The blue ribbon winner may not have distinct circles, but it certainly has lighter points of light and if you look closely you can see where the circles of light have blended in some places. Also look at the remaining images in the top 10 for that challenge you've linked...many meet the quality of circles and/or points of light.
The examples posted earlier that I questioned as to bokeh qualities do not have these qualities, just blurred backgrounds. |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 01:02:27 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
OK I found a good read on bokeh HERE |
|
Yes. Very good. That came up during the last challenge as well. The DPC camp was split on the value/definition used at the link you've listed...of course. ;^) |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 01:09:05 PM · #65 |
In the end, I'm going to be voting on how well the picture uses the out of focus background to compliment the subject. This isn't, IMO, a challenge where I'm voting on the quality of the entrant's lens. The bokeh characteristics mentioned above all depend on the lens and not the user.
So to me, the challenge could be called "Shallow DOF" but with the understanding that the background is being evaluated as well. A solid OOF background isn't going to rate as highly (to me) as an interestinly OOF background which compliments the subject with either color, design, leading lines, etc.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 01:09:59 PM · #66 |
Bright spots and distracting circles (or pentagons, hexagons, and donuts)in the background of an image draws attention away from the actual subject of a photo and is GENERALLY frowned upon. The "problem" with this challenge is some are going to vote on if the bokeh ENHANCES the subject, and others are going to vote on if the bokeh IS the subject.
:(
also, there's good bokeh and bad bokeh. Beagleboy's is good, DrAchoo's is bad ... even though they BOTH have LOTS of it. |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 01:11:00 PM · #67 |
Here is an unambiguous example of bokeh from right here at DPC.
You can easily see that the little circles in this one are not circles at all, but octagons. If you were to take the lens off that camera, stopped it down by hand and look through the glass you would see the aperture would be in the shape of an octagon. That's bokeh!
Message edited by author 2006-06-14 13:11:56.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 01:16:50 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by hopper:
also, there's good bokeh and bad bokeh. Beagleboy's is good, DrAchoo's is bad ... |
What, are you trying to make me run home crying with my precious bokeh cradled in my arms?
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 01:21:07 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
That's a good one. How about this?
|
Not sure the bokeh enhance the boinkin'
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 01:23:52 PM · #70 |
lol
i knew you could take it ...
... besides, i quick scoreboard check would send me off crying, not you
:)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by hopper:
also, there's good bokeh and bad bokeh. Beagleboy's is good, DrAchoo's is bad ... |
What, are you trying to make me run home crying with my precious bokeh cradled in my arms? |
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 01:29:11 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the end, I'm going to be voting on how well the picture uses the out of focus background to compliment the subject. This isn't, IMO, a challenge where I'm voting on the quality of the entrant's lens. The bokeh characteristics mentioned above all depend on the lens and not the user.
So to me, the challenge could be called "Shallow DOF" but with the understanding that the background is being evaluated as well. A solid OOF background isn't going to rate as highly (to me) as an interestinly OOF background which compliments the subject with either color, design, leading lines, etc. |
The way you are viewing and evaluating this challenge is perfectly fine.
What is funny, though, is that bokeh IS a characteristic of the lens being used. How the photographer choses to use bokeh to support the composition determines if it is "good" bokeh or not. :)
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 01:31:58 PM · #72 |
A few of my bokeh shots:
 
Message edited by author 2006-06-14 13:33:30. |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 01:32:29 PM · #73 |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 01:55:50 PM · #74 |
Thanks for the mention, I'd like to point out that I totally ripped off this picture:
I think the other two fit this perfectly.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 02:08:39 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by idnic:
A few of my bokeh shots:
|
I like this as a best fit for the bokeh challenge. The bokeh does not compete with the main subject for viewer attention. In fact, the lighting from it highlights the bird's head drawing more attention to it. It supports your composition very well. That is exactly what this challenge is asking for. In the other two images the bokeh is more incidental.
Message edited by author 2006-06-14 14:10:20.
|
|
