| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/11/2008 10:30:01 AM · #26 |
I can't describe it any better than Ken Rockwell did in this article.
Allow me to quote:
"Bokeh describes the rendition of out-of-focus points of light.
Bokeh is different from sharpness. Sharpness is what happens at the point of best focus. Bokeh is what happens away from the point of best focus.
Bokeh describes the appearance, or "feel," of out-of-focus areas. Bokeh is not how far something is out-of-focus, bokeh is the character of whatever blur is there.
Unfortunately good bokeh doesn't happen automatically in lens design. Perfect lenses render out-of-focus points of light as circles with sharp edges. Ideal bokeh would render each of these points as blurs, not hard-edged circles. Mathematicians would say the intensity distribution of the blur circles are rectangular in perfect lenses, and good bokeh would prefer a Gaussian distribution. This is one area in which physics doesn't mirror what we want artistically. "
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 10:32:35 AM · #27 |
| Yeah, I shall just take a shot when I have a gin, they are always bokehish after that |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 10:39:17 AM · #28 |
hahahahah! I felt like a blond too Julien, but i understood that a good bokeh photo would be one with colored lights and undefined shapes or diferent forms (circles, triangles...). Anyway, i don't know if i'm right and i wouldn't know how to prepare the camera for a good bokeh photo...Can someone give me tips?
PS: This article (already sent) is great. //www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 10:40:55. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 10:58:00 AM · #29 |
Because I love to hate this discussion I will post for like the billionth time BoKeh is a Japanese concept to define the pleasing out of focus area of an image it is not defined by the little OOF circles of light although they are a result of BoKeh.
And for the record Rockwell is a Fool (This is funny because in Japanese BoKeh means "Fool" or "Idiot:! :-D
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 11:03:55. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:09:07 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Because I love to hate this discussion I will post for like the billionth time BoKeh is a Japanese concept to define the pleasing out of focus area of an image it is not defined by the little OOF circles of light although they are a result of BoKeh.
And for the record Rockwell is a Fool (This is funny because in Japanese BoKeh means "Fool" or "Idiot:! :-D |
I don't know anything about Bokeh or Rockwell, but i liked his article because it gave me some information. I'm just trying to learn. And the thing about circles was just a inexperienced impression... |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:11:43 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by pedrobop:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Because I love to hate this discussion I will post for like the billionth time BoKeh is a Japanese concept to define the pleasing out of focus area of an image it is not defined by the little OOF circles of light although they are a result of BoKeh.
And for the record Rockwell is a Fool (This is funny because in Japanese BoKeh means "Fool" or "Idiot:! :-D |
I don't know anything about Bokeh or Rockwell, but i liked his article because it gave me some information. I'm just trying to learn. And the thing about circles was just a inexperienced impression... |
I am not picking on you at all. This is just a pet peeve of mine and I guess I would just like to see more really learn about the concept as opposed to just defining it by the circles of confusion. As far as the Ken comment it is a reference to a thread here on DPC.
:-)
-Erick |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:16:52 AM · #32 |
I throw my $.02 in here just for kicks. I've entered 3 of the 4 previous Bokeh challenges. Here are the shots and the scores:
Bokeh II:  4.58 (abstract, not very pleasing circles, not surprised by the 4.x score)
Bokeh III:  6.3 (water drops on flower, nice smooth circles, score about right I'd say)
Bokeh IV:  6.46 (another flower, but it's all about the center. no real circles in the background)
So, there ya go. I don't know if that helps or not, but that's been my experience.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:28:08 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
"Good" bokeh or "bad"? |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Yeah, I know, I know. It's a crappy shot, that's why it's hidden in my workshop :P
:)
(the background is actually a print of lights taken last year) |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Yeah, I know, I know. It's a crappy shot, that's why it's hidden in my workshop :P
:)
(the background is actually a print of lights taken last year) |
what a splendid idea! fake bokeh anyone? ;) |
Originally posted by bobnospum:
I have been spending too much time in the "Art Rule" thread. My first thought on this one was that the foreground nutcracker was in sitting in front of a background photo or monitor screen. Not making any accusations at all, just laughing at myself for "artwork rule paranoia" after reading too many posts. |
Actually in terms of a Bokeh challenge, this is exactly what's being discussed in the "Art Rule" thread.
The bokeh portion of the image as used here is "fake", deceiving the viewer with the impression that its one shot capture.
Remarkable, the deception is also self confessed, as in the Feast fiasco.
Uniformly applying the current interpretation of the rule would result in a DQ.
No hijack intended, we now return to our regularly scheduled thread.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:31:34 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by pedrobop:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Because I love to hate this discussion I will post for like the billionth time BoKeh is a Japanese concept to define the pleasing out of focus area of an image it is not defined by the little OOF circles of light although they are a result of BoKeh.
And for the record Rockwell is a Fool (This is funny because in Japanese BoKeh means "Fool" or "Idiot:! :-D |
I don't know anything about Bokeh or Rockwell, but i liked his article because it gave me some information. I'm just trying to learn. And the thing about circles was just a inexperienced impression... |
I am not picking on you at all. This is just a pet peeve of mine and I guess I would just like to see more really learn about the concept as opposed to just defining it by the circles of confusion. As far as the Ken comment it is a reference to a thread here on DPC.
:-)
-Erick |
Oh, it's ok Erick, i understood your awnser, i just tryed to explain myself better!
Since you know the right concept of Bokeh..would you awnser something for me?
The forms behind the object can be totally unshaped right? If i can get a good focus on the front object and create a good effect at the background that can turn almost all the attention of the photo for it, i got a good Bokeh?
PS: I'm sorry if i'm asking stupid questions, but i'm really trying to learn how to obtain a good Bokeh in a picture.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 11:38:12. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:37:44 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by pedrobop:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by pedrobop:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Because I love to hate this discussion I will post for like the billionth time BoKeh is a Japanese concept to define the pleasing out of focus area of an image it is not defined by the little OOF circles of light although they are a result of BoKeh.
And for the record Rockwell is a Fool (This is funny because in Japanese BoKeh means "Fool" or "Idiot:! :-D |
I don't know anything about Bokeh or Rockwell, but i liked his article because it gave me some information. I'm just trying to learn. And the thing about circles was just a inexperienced impression... |
I am not picking on you at all. This is just a pet peeve of mine and I guess I would just like to see more really learn about the concept as opposed to just defining it by the circles of confusion. As far as the Ken comment it is a reference to a thread here on DPC.
:-)
-Erick |
Oh, it's ok Erick, i understood your awnser, i just tryed to explain myself better!
Since as you know the right concept of Bokeh..would you awnser something for me?
The forms behind the object can be totally unshaped right? If i can get a good focus on the front object and create a good effect at the background that can turn almost all the attention of the photo for it, i got a good Bokeh? |
So in short yes. What I look for is a very isolated, in-focus subject with a really creamy smooth, pleasing OOF background that ads to the over all composition. The BoKeh needs to enhance the subject not detract from it. I will look for some examples. The biggest problem with the concept of BoKeh is that it is very subjective.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 11:38:31. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:40:04 AM · #36 |
This is fantastic boKeh
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 11:40:11. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:43:18 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
This is fantastic boKeh |
But where are all the circles of light!? ;-P |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:46:02 AM · #38 |
oh...now that was mean! :( hahaha!
I think i'm beggining to see it more cleary. But...i still can't understand why this photo won in this challenge...
//www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_results.php?CHALLENGE_ID=297 |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:49:28 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
This is fantastic boKeh |
But where are all the circles of light!? ;-P |
:-P |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:51:40 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by pedrobop:
oh...now that was mean! :( hahaha!
I think i'm beggining to see it more cleary. But...i still can't understand why this photo won in this challenge...
|
This image has great creamy smooth BoKeh background that isolates the subject while lending itself to the overall composition.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 11:52:08. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:02:34 PM · #41 |
| Ok Erick, thanks for the class hehe...I will try some things here! |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:33:36 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by pedrobop:
oh...now that was mean! :( hahaha!
I think i'm beggining to see it more cleary. But...i still can't understand why this photo won in this challenge...
|
This image has great creamy smooth BoKeh background that isolates the subject while lending itself to the overall composition. |
Actually the "QUALITY" of the Bokeh in this shot isn't all that great(many sharp distracting lines as opposed to soft color varations, however, the "USE" of Bokeh in this shot is OUTSTANDING(Bird well framed and supported by the OOF background"
In this case the "Quality" of the Bokeh is largely a function of the lense used, the "USE" of Bokeh is very much about the photographer.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:40:14 PM · #43 |
Here are some other images that use Bokeh for your review, some of these were taken with my MC-Rokkor f1.2 MF lens which is noted for its buttery soft Bokeh. What do you think?
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 13:43:52.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:45:57 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by pedrobop:
oh...now that was mean! :( hahaha!
I think i'm beggining to see it more cleary. But...i still can't understand why this photo won in this challenge...
|
This image has great creamy smooth BoKeh background that isolates the subject while lending itself to the overall composition. |
Actually the "QUALITY" of the Bokeh in this shot isn't all that great(many sharp distracting lines as opposed to soft color varations, however, the "USE" of Bokeh in this shot is OUTSTANDING(Bird well framed and supported by the OOF background"
In this case the "Quality" of the Bokeh is largely a function of the lense used, the "USE" of Bokeh is very much about the photographer. |
I agree that the quality of BoKeh is a function of the lens. Now as far as the "Use" of the BoKeh it is subjective. The lens used to capture the shot above is a very high quality lens capable of exceptional BoKeh quality.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 13:46:16. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:51:47 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by pedrobop:
oh...now that was mean! :( hahaha!
I think i'm beggining to see it more cleary. But...i still can't understand why this photo won in this challenge...
|
This image has great creamy smooth BoKeh background that isolates the subject while lending itself to the overall composition. |
Actually the "QUALITY" of the Bokeh in this shot isn't all that great(many sharp distracting lines as opposed to soft color varations, however, the "USE" of Bokeh in this shot is OUTSTANDING(Bird well framed and supported by the OOF background"
In this case the "Quality" of the Bokeh is largely a function of the lense used, the "USE" of Bokeh is very much about the photographer. |
I agree that the quality of BoKeh is a function of the lens. Now as far as the "Use" of the BoKeh it is subjective. The lens used to capture the shot above is a very high quality lens capable of exceptional BoKeh quality. |
The overall QUALITY of the lens has LITTLE or nothing to do with the Quality of its Bokeh. Every lens is different and will generate different types, degrees and qualities of Bokeh. The lens in question is an outstanding piece of glass however the quality of its Bokeh is not as strong as other lenses, this does not reflect its value as a lens or the quality of its construction but rather the physical nature of its design. Here is an interesting article to look at.
Bokeh Test
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:53:29 PM · #46 |
#1, #2, #4 - Ok, fine.
#3, #5 - meh. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:58:50 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
The overall QUALITY of the lens has LITTLE or nothing to do with the Quality of its Bokeh. Every lens is different and will generate different types, degrees and qualities of Bokeh. The lens in question is an outstanding piece of glass however the quality of its Bokeh is not as strong as other lenses, this does not reflect its value as a lens or the quality of its construction but rather the physical nature of its design. Here is an interesting article to look at. |
It has to do with aperture size and number of blades period. The faster the lens and greater number of blades the better the BoKeh quality that can be achieved. High end optics such as the canon 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2 are arguably the best BoKeh capable lenses out there.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 13:59:56. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 02:06:47 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
The overall QUALITY of the lens has LITTLE or nothing to do with the Quality of its Bokeh. Every lens is different and will generate different types, degrees and qualities of Bokeh. The lens in question is an outstanding piece of glass however the quality of its Bokeh is not as strong as other lenses, this does not reflect its value as a lens or the quality of its construction but rather the physical nature of its design. Here is an interesting article to look at. |
It has to do with aperture size and number of blades period. The faster the lens and greater number of blades the better the BoKeh quality that can be achieved. High end optics such as the canon 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2 are arguably the best BoKeh capable lenses out there. |
Again Not true, read the link and learn a little more about the lens designs and their impact on Bokeh. As a general rule the speed of the glass and the design of its aperature play a big part in the quality of the Bokeh, however the things that make for good Bokeh are one in the same as the things required to create an f1.2 lense, namely a huge many bladed aperature, a huge piece of high quality glass etc. The lenses you cite are great lenses yet there are still people out there ponying up HUGE dollars for old Nikkor, Rokkor and Jupiter and Zeiss lenses to add to their collections, Cannon DOES NOT have a corner on the Bokeh market. A 30 year old Rokkor 1.2 can easily bring 400 to 600 dollars due to their desirability.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 14:09:51.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 02:11:08 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
The overall QUALITY of the lens has LITTLE or nothing to do with the Quality of its Bokeh. Every lens is different and will generate different types, degrees and qualities of Bokeh. The lens in question is an outstanding piece of glass however the quality of its Bokeh is not as strong as other lenses, this does not reflect its value as a lens or the quality of its construction but rather the physical nature of its design. Here is an interesting article to look at. |
It has to do with aperture size and number of blades period. The faster the lens and greater number of blades the better the BoKeh quality that can be achieved. High end optics such as the canon 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2 are arguably the best BoKeh capable lenses out there. |
Again Not true, read the link and learn a little more about the lense designs and their impact on Bokeh. The lenses you cite are great lenses yet there are still people out there ponying up HUGE dollars for old Nikkor, Rokkor and Jupiter and Zeiss lenses to add to their collections, Cannon DOES NOT have a corner on the Bokeh market. |
I have been reading about BoKeh for over 3 years and we have this argument every time the challenge rears it's ugly head. You should read more then just one article and I never said that canon had cornered the market on BoKeh I just said they are the best out there right now. Don't believe me check out  Larus or  Joey Lawrence's portfolio. BoKeh is subjective as it is a concept not a technology...
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 14:14:24. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 02:18:23 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I have been reading about BoKeh for over 3 years and we have this argument every time the challenge rears it's ugly head. You should read more then just one article and I never said that canon had cornered the market on BoKeh I just said they are the best out there right now. Don't believe me check out Larus or Joey L's portfolio. BoKeh is subjective as it is a concept not a technology... |
Why do you assume I have read only that article? Also your statement seemed to state that Those two lenses you cited were the best lenses one could get when it came to Bokeh, yet there is ample evidence to say that that is simply not true, are they potentially two of the best lenses that one can purchase new, perhaps that is true, they are not however the best lenses available. You are correct that Bokeh has as much to do with the photographer as it does with the lens(if not even more), hence my original comments about the the Quality and Use of Bokeh.
|
|
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: 06/15/2025 08:27:30 PM EDT.
