| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/19/2006 11:36:59 AM · #76 |
that IS awesome! ...
I gotta copy this! ;)
Originally posted by dallasdux:
Originally posted by Pedro:
 this one of MAKs is also a fab example. |
Wow, that is a great bokeh shot. Nice job MAK. |
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 12:04:33 PM · #77 |
O circles of confusion why hath thou forsaken me?
:-P |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 12:32:32 PM · #78 |
Bokeh, translated from Japanese, simply means "fuzzy". Last time many voters reduced the term "bokeh" to the "rendering of circular highlights". I believe this is wrong. I like the pretty circular highlights as everyone else, though:
  |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 12:34:35 PM · #79 |
BoKeh also means "Fool" or "Idiot" :-P
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 12:36:09. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 12:35:38 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by dallasdux:
Originally posted by Pedro:
this one of MAKs is also a fab example. |
Wow, that is a great bokeh shot. Nice job MAK. |
Agree, nice bokeh - however, don't you think it's a little thin on subject matter? Guess it's ok in an abstract kind of way... |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 12:36:28 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
BoKeh also means "Fool" or "Idiot" :-P |
Hehe
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 12:38:33 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by dallasdux:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Show The Voter Where the Bokeh Is, Girl
 |
This one has strong bokeh. It is a good shot of the dog and has the blurred circles I hear people talking about when they like their bokeh. Simply my opinion here, but the bokeh on this is actually too strong. What I mean by that is, when I view bokeh, I like to see a progression of the image going out of focus. A transition if you will. Here I get the sharpness of the dog followed by strong bokeh and no (or too little) transition between the two. But, judging from my scores, what do I know ;)
It is a good image to show the bokeh circles. |
I was actually going to run it with that title, but decided I might get hammered by voters for being a smarta$$, :-)
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 12:41:03 PM · #83 |
So to sum up, a good picture for this challenge would meet the following criteria:
- Super-sharp subject
- Background that has a high contrast in colour and/or light that is relatively distant to the subject. (or a foreground that is relatively distant to the subject to achieve foreground bokeh which is harder to attain).
- The bokeh will have definite spherical or polygonal elements (Circles of confusion)
Would this summary be correct? |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 12:42:39 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
- The bokeh will have definite spherical or polygonal elements (Circles of confusion)
Would this summary be correct? |
NO! But that is because of the way I define BoKeh using the Japanese Idea. Not the DPC idea of what BoKeh is.
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 12:42:48. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 12:44:21 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
... Would this summary be correct? |
There is no summary for this challenge. :D Take a peek at the dozens of threads generated by the last two Bokeh challenges. He-he. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 12:50:38 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
So to sum up, a good picture for this challenge would meet the following criteria:
- Super-sharp subject
- Background that has a high contrast in colour and/or light that is relatively distant to the subject. (or a foreground that is relatively distant to the subject to achieve foreground bokeh which is harder to attain).
- The bokeh will have definite spherical or polygonal elements (Circles of confusion)
Would this summary be correct? |
Not necessarily.
Point 1: IMHO, the subject doesn't need to be super-sharp, especially not the whole subject - it helps if some portion of the image is sharp, but to say that the subject needs to be super-sharp is overkill I think. Example:
Very little of the subject is sharp, but it works just fine.
Point 2: High contrast in colour or light, or distance, is really not that important at all. You could have a rather monochromatic composition with subject and background/foreground quite close to each other, and still have a decent bokeh image. I'm thinking of something like this:
Subject is very close to out of focus foreground and background, there's very little other colour than blue, and there isn't that much difference in contrast between subject and fore/background.
Point 3: definite spherical or polygonal will help with scores :) But then you could do stuff like this:
No sphericals or polygonals, but it is bokeh.
ADDED: He, he, so I'm using my own pictures for examples - write it off to being too lazy to go look for the examples elsewhere. Too lazy, really, not just trying to push my own images. Really ;P
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 13:09:43. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:14:58 PM · #87 |
Man, I am so good at killing threads!
:( |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:20:55 PM · #88 |
So this image would be an example of Shallow depth of field but the bokeh would be mediocre? (I'm trying to set the bar for myself here by the way).
 |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:22:44 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Man, I am so good at killing threads!
:( |
Nah. I think everyone is still reeling from that impressive photo lineup you posted! :D |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:24:42 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
So this image would be an example of Shallow depth of field but the bokeh would be mediocre? (I'm trying to set the bar for myself here by the way).
|
Yes. Plus, it's almost not shallow enough. If you want to go shallow, make it really shallow (for the most part - there are always exceptions). In this case, it almost looks like a mistake rather than shallow DOF. And the bokeh doesn't really do much for the image, a bit, but not much.
IMO, of course :)
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 13:25:30. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:39:27 PM · #91 |
Thats the information I was looking for. By the way I was just playing around with the camera for the first time and I was actually trying to achieve a shallow depth of field but I was trying to do it in automatic mode. (Darn automatic mode!).
Anyways, your comments give me some idea what I am going to have to do to score well on this challenge. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 01:46:10 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
Thats the information I was looking for. By the way I was just playing around with the camera for the first time and I was actually trying to achieve a shallow depth of field but I was trying to do it in automatic mode. (Darn automatic mode!).
Anyways, your comments give me some idea what I am going to have to do to score well on this challenge. |
And here I was worried you'd throw rotten eggs at me :)
NEVER USE AUTOMATIC (or almost never). He, he, he, stick shift is so much more fun! |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:15:53 PM · #93 |
OK,
So I read through the post, I can't figure out what BOKEH is?
JUST KIDDING!!!!!!! lol |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:24:12 PM · #94 |
| www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm this link might help |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:24:36 PM · #95 |
NO NOT KEN!
ETA: :-P
Message edited by author 2006-10-19 14:24:49. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:28:57 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
NO NOT KEN!
ETA: :-P |
Ohhh Good Lord... I guess Ken is the end all be all :-) End of discussion ... LOL
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:30:59 PM · #97 |
| ok fill me in. I dont know Ken, Just found his sight. |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:31:05 PM · #98 |
| ken? what's wrong with him? |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:32:06 PM · #99 |
| He is a contentious topic all by himself then add that to the BoKeh topic and LMAO! |
|
|
|
10/19/2006 02:34:10 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by biteme:
ken? what's wrong with him? |
hmmm... not sure I wanna open THAT can of worms. But, let's just say that a LOT of people find him over-rated and arrogant.
|
|
