| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/25/2008 10:19:19 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Bokeh = out-of-focus specular highlights
There were some good examples of bokeh in the recent challenge. Unfortunately, none of them won a ribbon. In my opinion, of the three ribbon winners, only roz's "summer rain" exhibits any bokeh at all. The other two, while wonderful photos in their own right, are not especially good examples of bokeh.
Of course, all of this is simply my opinion. YMMV. |
Opinion is good......that's kind of what we're looking for here.
Would you post up some of what you felt were good examples?
|
|
|
|
12/25/2008 10:26:27 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Okay, then explain it, and be constructive in your commentary.
|
Originally posted by TrollMan:
I think he explained it very well here. I can't think of a better way to say it: |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Bokeh is the word used to comment on the quality of a lens on how it renders the out of focus part of a picture. |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
And then of course, it depends on what type of bokeh feels appropriate to the viewer for a particular image and what is pleasing to your eye :o) |
Well, the SPECIFICS of that quality is what we're looking for, is it not?
Isn't that the circles, pattern, particular depth, whatever?
If it is in fact a "feel", then it cannot be defined, so then Bokeh will be many different things to different people and the constant "that isn't 'real' Bokeh" will kind of be negated.
I just find it frustrating to hear the constant back and forth if it's not going to result in any kind of reasonable conclusion.
I keep hearing, "This or that is NOT Bokeh.".....okay, fine.....what is?
Hence my suggestion that those who are so adamant in their statement that the community doesn't have the concept give us some working examples.
Can't put it into words?
Okay....give us image examples that will help us understand the concept. |
I think there are several points that need consideration. First, all OOF areas in any Photo are technically Bokeh. In the same sense that all images have a point of Focus, They all have it, the question for me is how it is used. If we use focus as an example if you focus on the eye of a portrait subject then you generally will generate a pleasing image for most people, if however you focus on their ear and their eyes are a little soft, for most the image will appear off, or OOF. Neither one is wrong but they are very different. Focus has a second quality which is its depth, this would be similar in some ways to the "use" of Bokeh in photography, when a deep Depth of field is used you get one feeling compared to a shallow depth of field.
In bokeh I think there are two concepts, one the QUALITY of the Bokeh, the way the lens, the light etc come together to render the OOF areas of the image. This is where the concept of Creamy buttery smooth Bokeh kicks in, smooth is better than angular or uneven rendering(sharp edged circles of light for example)
The second idea is that of the USE of Bokeh in the image. In most Wildlife photos, the OOF area of the image is simply the background for the main subject, most photographers try to catch a contrasting or muted background so the main subject stands out more clearly(like the orange bird image above), This is perfectly acceptable but I would Posit is not really USING Bokeh, it is simply using the background that is there. On the other hand if you look at the little red squirel or the duck above, the background sets a stage and enhances and interacts with the subject, creating a sense of scale for the squirel(now we can see he was photoed in the the woods etc) for the duck he is most assuredly a creature of the water, the same images without the backgrounds would feel very different and have a much reduced impact I suspect.
I know this is a little fuzzy but most concepts in photography are fuzzy. This is what I have been able to distill for myself after Hours and hours of reading and interpretation of this concept.
|
|
|
|
12/25/2008 10:43:39 AM · #28 |
First, all OOF areas in any Photo are technically Bokeh.
Amen
You could sort of narrow that down to areas that are out of focus due to being outside a limited depth of field. Otherwise an entirely out of focus picture would be 100% bokeh.
The implication of a challenge entitled bokeh, is that the out of focus areas should be a feature of the picture and/or enhance the overall quality/effect. |
|
|
|
12/25/2008 10:49:05 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by raish:
First, all OOF areas in any Photo are technically Bokeh.
Amen
You could sort of narrow that down to areas that are out of focus due to being outside a limited depth of field. Otherwise an entirely out of focus picture would be 100% bokeh.
The implication of a challenge entitled bokeh, is that the out of focus areas should be a feature of the picture and/or enhance the overall quality/effect. |
This response may be the world record for selective editing.
|
|
|
|
12/25/2008 12:21:05 PM · #30 |
|
|
|
12/25/2008 01:59:57 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
First, all OOF areas in any Photo are technically Bokeh. |
Originally posted by raish:
Amen
You could sort of narrow that down to areas that are out of focus due to being outside a limited depth of field. Otherwise an entirely out of focus picture would be 100% bokeh.
The implication of a challenge entitled bokeh, is that the out of focus areas should be a feature of the picture and/or enhance the overall quality/effect. |
So......(Cue candle spluttering to life above Jeb's head)....the actual Bokeh would then be the effectiveness of the OOF area as it enhances the subject?
So all that about circles, smoothness, texture......it's all crap if it doesn't work with the main focal point, right?
Hence the confusion?
By Jove, I think I might just have a glimmer!!!
Hallelulia!
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
This response may be the world record for selective editing. |
Concise, ain't it?
Peter's really obnoxious like that.......8>)
|
|
|
|
12/25/2008 02:54:05 PM · #32 |
|
|
|
12/26/2008 11:39:43 AM · #33 |
Just because I feel like prolonging the thread...
I had five minutes between rain showers yesterday to try out my new camera and lens, so I was trying out the autofocus on the water drops on the clothesline. When I got back in the house and looked at the shot, I thought of this thread and burst out laughing. |
|
|
|
12/26/2008 12:19:25 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Just because I feel like prolonging the thread...
I had five minutes between rain showers yesterday to try out my new camera and lens, so I was trying out the autofocus on the water drops on the clothesline. When I got back in the house and looked at the shot, I thought of this thread and burst out laughing. |
Rabble-rouser!.......8>)
I finally believe I understand Bokeh well enough now to understand a REALLY ghood example, and that this is B&W just makes it that much more stunning!
Sublime!
|
|
|
|
12/26/2008 01:44:36 PM · #35 |
would this be classed as Bokeh these days?
;)
|
|
|
|
12/26/2008 01:52:02 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Ann:
Just because I feel like prolonging the thread...
I had five minutes between rain showers yesterday to try out my new camera and lens, so I was trying out the autofocus on the water drops on the clothesline. When I got back in the house and looked at the shot, I thought of this thread and burst out laughing. |
Rabble-rouser!.......8>)
I finally believe I understand Bokeh well enough now to understand a REALLY ghood example, and that this is B&W just makes it that much more stunning!
Sublime! |
Well, it's EXCELLENT as an example of bokeh, but B/W it ain't :-) Monochromatic, yeah, but in full color nevertheless, I'm sure...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/26/2008 02:04:26 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Ann:
Just because I feel like prolonging the thread...
I had five minutes between rain showers yesterday to try out my new camera and lens, so I was trying out the autofocus on the water drops on the clothesline. When I got back in the house and looked at the shot, I thought of this thread and burst out laughing. |
Rabble-rouser!.......8>)
I finally believe I understand Bokeh well enough now to understand a REALLY ghood example, and that this is B&W just makes it that much more stunning!
Sublime! |
Well, it's EXCELLENT as an example of bokeh, but B/W it ain't :-) Monochromatic, yeah, but in full color nevertheless, I'm sure..
R. |
Robert is correct, that's straight out of the camera. The day was pretty monochromatic.
|
|
|
|
12/26/2008 02:08:53 PM · #38 |
This has nothing to do with bokeh, but on this lensbaby shot I actually pushed UP the saturation as much it could handle, LOL. These winter days are GRAY...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/26/2008 02:11:26 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, it's EXCELLENT as an example of bokeh ... |
Robert, I would have agreed with you prior to the latest challenge, but after reading the many "no one understands bokeh" posts (old and new), it now seems to me an example of what bokeh is commonly thought to be, but really isn't. Or something like that.
|
|
|
|
12/26/2008 02:21:33 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, it's EXCELLENT as an example of bokeh ... |
Robert, I would have agreed with you prior to the latest challenge, but after reading the many "no one understands bokeh" posts (old and new), it now seems to me an example of what bokeh is commonly thought to be, but really isn't. Or something like that. |
Look at it this way: NOBODY would argue that this is NOT bokeh. This is definitely bokeh-to-the-max, in-your-face bokeh. The question is whether the definition of "bokeh" is broad enough to include all this OTHER stuff. See?
R.
|
|
|
|
12/26/2008 02:30:20 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, it's EXCELLENT as an example of bokeh ... |
Robert, I would have agreed with you prior to the latest challenge, but after reading the many "no one understands bokeh" posts (old and new), it now seems to me an example of what bokeh is commonly thought to be, but really isn't. Or something like that. |
Look at it this way: NOBODY would argue that this is NOT bokeh. This is definitely bokeh-to-the-max, in-your-face bokeh. The question is whether the definition of "bokeh" is broad enough to include all this OTHER stuff. See? |
Yeah, I see. I'm feeling annoyed because I think people voted against "circles of light" (for example) as too cliché. I found some of the broader definitions impenetrable, or at least too intangible to be useful. |
|
|
|
12/26/2008 02:33:12 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Simms:
would this be classed as Bokeh these days?
;) |
All the background is out-of-focus ergo bokeh. If it were not out of focus the fern would be lost in it, so the limited depth of field has a positive effect. I presume you want lens effects of circles etc. I sympathise, but don't feel that there is a useful 'definition' to be had there. A structured background might have raised this picture a notch, but I personally feel that you were just a couple of dice throws short of serendipity with the black blodge at the top there and otherwise it's a nice picture. |
|
|
|
12/26/2008 02:51:07 PM · #43 |
Bokeh to me can be either the soft focus that sets the subject off or the circle effect that is some times seen, either way it needs to compliment the subject rather than cause distraction. The examples posted already all have to me some valid examples of Bokeh and if I were judging them it would come down to how much the bokeh helps create layering in the shot to control the mood or interest of the subject in the shot.
I like the Bokeh in this shot because it has soft focus and a few minor circles thrown in, but I mainly like the effect because it takes the detail out of the back ground so it does not compete with the subject.
This shot would in my opinion also be considered Bokeh but is much milder of an effect but still helps mimimize the clutter of the back ground to show the detail of the subject.
Message edited by author 2008-12-26 14:52:46. |
|
|
|
12/26/2008 06:04:03 PM · #44 |
Bokeh enhances and makes the subject stand out. IMHO like this  
This too is bokeh(technically) but doesnt really add alot to the photo 
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/26/2008 07:48:14 PM · #45 |
I think I have a way to define the difference between a Bokeh Shot and a Shallow DOF shot, a Bokeh shot tends to have a relatively distinct "background" which is not composed of the main subject but of other objects etc at some separated distance from the main subject,
a Shallow DOF shot on the other hand would seem to be one in which the Foreground and background are all part of one object or a group of tightly associated objects(say pieces on a chessboard or a spider on its web) that appear at variable amount of focus within the image.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2008 11:37:14 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
I think I have a way to define the difference between a Bokeh Shot and a Shallow DOF shot, a Bokeh shot tends to have a relatively distinct "background" which is not composed of the main subject but of other objects etc at some separated distance from the main subject,
a Shallow DOF shot on the other hand would seem to be one in which the Foreground and background are all part of one object or a group of tightly associated objects(say pieces on a chessboard or a spider on its web) that appear at variable amount of focus within the image. |
So, by that definition, this would just be shallow DOF?
 |
|
|
|
12/27/2008 11:41:07 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
I think I have a way to define the difference between a Bokeh Shot and a Shallow DOF shot, a Bokeh shot tends to have a relatively distinct "background" which is not composed of the main subject but of other objects etc at some separated distance from the main subject,
a Shallow DOF shot on the other hand would seem to be one in which the Foreground and background are all part of one object or a group of tightly associated objects(say pieces on a chessboard or a spider on its web) that appear at variable amount of focus within the image. |
So, by that definition, this would just be shallow DOF?
|
Yeah that's Kind of what I was thinking. Please note, that does not mean that there is no Bokeh in the shot, or commment on its quality but rather is a suggestion on how to define a Bokeh Shot from one that is a DOF shot. Its just an idea so take it for what it is worth.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2008 01:21:36 PM · #48 |
How about this?
I assume this does not qualify for bokeh.. although it does have a shallow DoF?
|
|
|
|
12/27/2008 01:45:32 PM · #49 |
I agree that bokeh is a word that describes how the out of focus areas of a photo look. Some lenses produce a smooth creamy look and some are harsher. Some lenses produce points of light that are soft and round and others hard and octagonal. What is good is what is pleasihg to your eye.
Here are a few shots from what I have up on DPC that I consider good bokeh.
  
Here are two I like but think are a little harsher:
 
And one last one I just think is dull:
|
|
|
|
01/10/2009 05:34:01 PM · #50 |
Apparently we are not the only ones who like to argue about 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: 06/18/2025 04:18:18 AM EDT.
