DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Bokeh V scores
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 352, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/28/2008 07:00:52 PM · #1
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:


This in particular was the passage which opened my eyes to the larger idea of Bokeh from the first link I provided;

"Actually, to be precise, what I had noticed was not just that people mispronounced the word as it was commonly spelled, but that they had a tendency to ridicule it, making lame jokes about it as if it rhymed with "smoke" or "toke" or "joke." Actually, even spelled boke, it is properly pronounced with bo as in bone and ke as in Kenneth, with equal stress on either syllable. It is a Japanese word meaning, roughly, "fuzzy," and it is used to describe old people with cobwebs in their heads among several other things including the out-of-focus areas of photographs, which, I'm told, might more specifically be referred to as "boke-aji."

One of the curious aspects of the phenomenon for me was that some people then, and some even now, respond to the idea scornfully or even angrily. Is this some sort of insistence on conformity, as if you are supposed to look at certain parts of pictures and not others? I never did know, and I probably never will. (But then, there are a lot of things about my native culture that I will just never understand for instance, rubber suits as erotic accessories, or why it would occur to anyone to hate black people. What's up with that, anyway? I mean, I certainly know that race hatred exists I just haven't got the faintest idea why).

Now, I have to admit that I got somewhat obsessed with bokeh after I finally became aware of it. It interested me, in particular, that different lenses render blur in different ways. Even knowing that I take things a bit too far, though, it always seemed strange to me that there are people who don't think it's valid to look at the blurry parts of pictures.

Take this picture by Tony Rowlett, for example. It was made with a Leica Noctilux at a fairly wide aperture. I don't think it's possible to look at this and not get interested in what's going on in the out of focus areas, do you? If you really look at it, there are some pretty amazing abstracted shapes and tones. Does anyone really look at a picture like this and completely ignore all the blurry parts? I doubt it."


What I get from this is that bokeh is not just a part of a shot to be ignored. I fully agree with that. Even when the bokeh has no detail, it can hold interest in the color(s), how they complement the subject and (I would call it) the texture. I think you referenced one shot as having a "melted butter soft and smooth" bokeh.

I also feel that the OOF background can hold more interest or less and still be a bokeh shot.

Example of less:
' . substr('//farm4.static.flickr.com/3152/2773650432_eb307c613e_m.jpg', strrpos('//farm4.static.flickr.com/3152/2773650432_eb307c613e_m.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Example of more:
' . substr('//farm4.static.flickr.com/3019/2628310691_eefe581aa0_m.jpg', strrpos('//farm4.static.flickr.com/3019/2628310691_eefe581aa0_m.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
12/28/2008 01:41:27 PM · #2
Originally posted by rdebruyn:

Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

... The background was not a consideration in the composition of the shot, it is all about the Elk, I doubt you asked him to stand in that location so you could capture that particular background to leave the impression that the elk was in the woods.....


The background was absolutely a consideration in the framing of this shot. I had to move my feet a lot to get into position to photograph the elk with a distant background (much separation) and not include the bright overcast sky and not spook the big critter and keep the sun (obscured by clouds) on the back of my shoulders. I had plenty of images of the big guy with a more traditional bokeh background w/o snow, but the falling snow made the shot interesting to me. This shot was from a tripod mount and I precisely made sure the focus was nailed on his face. It was a capture taken with this challenge in mind. Certainly, the image has weaknesses, but lack of bokeh is not one of the weaknesses.


It's almost as though jhomrighaus thinks we happen upon a pretty picture, pull out our point and shoot and snap a quick shot to look at later. Ergo the pictures we come up with have no thought put into them. Oh! ...and none of us took any consideration of the quality of the bokeh and how it would add to the shot even though it was a bokeh challenge.

jhomrighaus I read through the first 5 topics you sent me. They predominently talk about the quality of the bokeh and not how it's used to create a better shot. I still challenge you to QUOTE sources in discussion - not list the first 2 pages of links from a google search. BTW I didn't choose the first google result of wikipedia. I searched for the wikipedia page on bokeh.


This in particular was the passage which opened my eyes to the larger idea of Bokeh from the first link I provided;

"Actually, to be precise, what I had noticed was not just that people mispronounced the word as it was commonly spelled, but that they had a tendency to ridicule it, making lame jokes about it as if it rhymed with "smoke" or "toke" or "joke." Actually, even spelled boke, it is properly pronounced with bo as in bone and ke as in Kenneth, with equal stress on either syllable. It is a Japanese word meaning, roughly, "fuzzy," and it is used to describe old people with cobwebs in their heads among several other things including the out-of-focus areas of photographs, which, I'm told, might more specifically be referred to as "boke-aji."

One of the curious aspects of the phenomenon for me was that some people then, and some even now, respond to the idea scornfully or even angrily. Is this some sort of insistence on conformity, as if you are supposed to look at certain parts of pictures and not others? I never did know, and I probably never will. (But then, there are a lot of things about my native culture that I will just never understand for instance, rubber suits as erotic accessories, or why it would occur to anyone to hate black people. What's up with that, anyway? I mean, I certainly know that race hatred exists I just haven't got the faintest idea why).

Now, I have to admit that I got somewhat obsessed with bokeh after I finally became aware of it. It interested me, in particular, that different lenses render blur in different ways. Even knowing that I take things a bit too far, though, it always seemed strange to me that there are people who don't think it's valid to look at the blurry parts of pictures.

Take this picture by Tony Rowlett, for example. It was made with a Leica Noctilux at a fairly wide aperture. I don't think it's possible to look at this and not get interested in what's going on in the out of focus areas, do you? If you really look at it, there are some pretty amazing abstracted shapes and tones. Does anyone really look at a picture like this and completely ignore all the blurry parts? I doubt it."
12/28/2008 01:34:01 PM · #3
Originally posted by rdebruyn:

[quote=hahn23]

It's almost as though jhomrighaus thinks we happen upon a pretty picture, pull out our point and shoot and snap a quick shot to look at later. Ergo the pictures we come up with have no thought put into them. Oh! ...and none of us took any consideration of the quality of the bokeh and how it would add to the shot even though it was a bokeh challenge.

jhomrighaus I read through the first 5 topics you sent me. They predominently talk about the quality of the bokeh and not how it's used to create a better shot. I still challenge you to QUOTE sources in discussion - not list the first 2 pages of links from a google search. BTW I didn't choose the first google result of wikipedia. I searched for the wikipedia page on bokeh.


My point to you before is that there are two concepts to Bokeh, one technical in nature which is what is mostly covered on the internet, however laced in among all the technical discussion is a theme about the Usage of Bokeh as a technique. In its most basic usage as a technique bokeh can be used to make the subject of a photo stand out more clearly. This is the easiest and most straight forward application of the technique and the one that is used most frequently in wildlife photography. You want to focus the attention of the viewer on the majestic animal.

This is perfectly valid and as shown above(and personally experienced by myself) getting a complementary background is not at all easy, sometimes you get lucky but I too have thousands upon thousands of shots with lousy backgrounds that don't compliment my subject.

You are being insulting to imply that I have implied that you all just happen upon nice shots, that is a gross oversimplification and you know it.

I think there are much more powerful ways to use Bokeh as a technique than just to make your animal the center of attention and I tried to cover some of them above.

I think in the ultimate achievement of Bokeh as a concept and technique that one could create an image that was completely OOF yet gave the viewer a powerful and compelling vision of what the photographer was trying to show them, to share the emotion and impact of something just by the suggestion of it in an OOF capture. For me that is what Bokeh is about in its highest form.

To shift perspective slightly one might equate Bokeh as a technique to Impressionist or abstract Paintings. The subjects are very often totally unclear yet somehow they evoke a powerful and clear message to the viewer.

Its not an easy idea evidenced by the failure in my ability to convey it but once you get it, a whole new vista of photography ideas opens up before you.
12/28/2008 01:06:13 PM · #4
Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

... The background was not a consideration in the composition of the shot, it is all about the Elk, I doubt you asked him to stand in that location so you could capture that particular background to leave the impression that the elk was in the woods.....


The background was absolutely a consideration in the framing of this shot. I had to move my feet a lot to get into position to photograph the elk with a distant background (much separation) and not include the bright overcast sky and not spook the big critter and keep the sun (obscured by clouds) on the back of my shoulders. I had plenty of images of the big guy with a more traditional bokeh background w/o snow, but the falling snow made the shot interesting to me. This shot was from a tripod mount and I precisely made sure the focus was nailed on his face. It was a capture taken with this challenge in mind. Certainly, the image has weaknesses, but lack of bokeh is not one of the weaknesses.


It's almost as though jhomrighaus thinks we happen upon a pretty picture, pull out our point and shoot and snap a quick shot to look at later. Ergo the pictures we come up with have no thought put into them. Oh! ...and none of us took any consideration of the quality of the bokeh and how it would add to the shot even though it was a bokeh challenge.

jhomrighaus I read through the first 5 topics you sent me. They predominently talk about the quality of the bokeh and not how it's used to create a better shot. I still challenge you to QUOTE sources in discussion - not list the first 2 pages of links from a google search. BTW I didn't choose the first google result of wikipedia. I searched for the wikipedia page on bokeh.
12/28/2008 01:05:14 PM · #5
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

It certainly has Bokeh, see my comments in te post below this one as I know I am not clearly articulating the concept I am trying to share. Your shot is a PHENOMONAL wildlife shot, it just doesnt seem like a Bokeh shot to me, but rather a great wildlife shot that happens to have some Bokeh in it.

And that's a goodly portion of the Bokeh concept as you see it, correct?

The ability to convey the USAGE of the technique?


I think you are correct, In an earlier post I eluded to the fact that 95% of photographs have some degree of Bokeh in them in the Technical sense, however the portion of photos that really USE that bokeh to strong impact is much much smaller.

I know I have not conveyed it very well but yes my central point is about the USAGE of Bokeh.
12/28/2008 12:55:52 PM · #6
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

It certainly has Bokeh, see my comments in te post below this one as I know I am not clearly articulating the concept I am trying to share. Your shot is a PHENOMONAL wildlife shot, it just doesnt seem like a Bokeh shot to me, but rather a great wildlife shot that happens to have some Bokeh in it.

And that's a goodly portion of the Bokeh concept as you see it, correct?

The ability to convey the USAGE of the technique?
12/28/2008 12:54:14 PM · #7
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

Your shot has Great QUALITY bokeh, softly rendered OOF areas in the image and somewhat distracting soft OOF areas in the Foreground. but in my opinion you did not USE bokeh very effectively in this shot. You took a picture of an elk where you found him with your focus being the elk.

I have simply implied that based on how I view BOKEH as a concept all of these shots have some degree of BOKEH but not nearly so many of them USE the OOF area of the image to much effect.

USEING Bokeh intentionally is quite challenging. I have a lense that renders PHENOMONAL QUALITY Bokeh, but learning to use that quality Bokeh is much Much harder than you might think.

I'd like to point out that these are the kind of expressions of thought and impression that are really helping me to understand Bokeh.

Even if the statement about the elk isn't wholly true of the actual scenario, it's the impression on the viewer that is what is part of the Bokeh concept as I understand it now......hence the assertion that the Bokeh is both hard to use AND convey.

I have read and studied Eastern concept here and there for years and it has helped my to understand the idea of inscrutable quite well.

I've been trying to grasp Bokeh for about two years now, and I'm finally feeling like I have the general concept.

Is anyone else seeing this idea as I am?
12/28/2008 12:48:40 PM · #8
Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

... The background was not a consideration in the composition of the shot, it is all about the Elk, I doubt you asked him to stand in that location so you could capture that particular background to leave the impression that the elk was in the woods.....


The background was absolutely a consideration in the framing of this shot. I had to move my feet a lot to get into position to photograph the elk with a distant background (much separation) and not include the bright overcast sky and not spook the big critter and keep the sun (obscured by clouds) on the back of my shoulders. I had plenty of images of the big guy with a more traditional bokeh background w/o snow, but the falling snow made the shot interesting to me. This shot was from a tripod mount and I precisely made sure the focus was nailed on his face. It was a capture taken with this challenge in mind. Certainly, the image has weaknesses, but lack of bokeh is not one of the weaknesses.


It certainly has Bokeh, see my comments in the post above this one as I know I am not clearly articulating the concept I am trying to share. Your shot is a PHENOMONAL wildlife shot, it just doesn't seem like a Bokeh shot to me, but rather a great wildlife shot that happens to have some Bokeh in it.

Message edited by author 2008-12-28 13:01:23.
12/28/2008 12:45:42 PM · #9
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Although our friend Jason is decidedly, uh, pointed and outspoken, I certainly have learned a lot from this discussion, and I'm more than willing to pursue this.

If you'll idulge us, could you use these examples to tell us whether you see them as Bokeh, or not, and why.

This one looks like it imminently qualifies, although IMO the background's brightness almost overcomes the dragonfly. It does help to create a minimalist effect that I like.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/700145.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/700145.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

This is obviously more DOF, right? BUT.....the texture of the floor helps add the depth and the "Cliffhanger" concept. So that'd be Bokeh-ish, right?
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/904/120/710119.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/904/120/710119.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Can shallow DOF and Bokeh be cooperative? Don't they go hand in hand to a certain extent?

IMNSHO, this is PERFECT Bokeh, yes? It has the right background fuzziness and subtle circles. I know the circles are by no means critical, but these soft ones are stellar.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/700143.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/700143.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Thoughts?


' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/700145.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/700145.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
Well this was one of the first shots I ever took with my D40 so technically it is really a mess, I would agree with you that this is a shot that uses Bokeh(which I didnt even know about at the time) I think if I had this shot to do again I would have tried to achieve a background that left more of a swamp impression that would imply the setting in which the image was taken. I personally see this more as a Wildlife shot. When I took It I was trying to capture a Dragonfly and the background was completely incidental to that process.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/904/120/710119.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/904/120/710119.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
I think this one is both a DOF shot and a Bokehish shot, the DOF changes in the woodys body set a close in perspective as well as drawing you deeper into the shot(in a kind of literal sense) This shot USES Bokeh to achieve that sense of depth and height which i think is one of the interesting ways that one can use bokeh to enhance the impact of a photo. I agree with you 100% that DOF and Bokeh are hand in hand concepts but obviously there are several different ways you can interlace them which provide a variety of different effects. As for this shot I think it is a little Bokehish but probably not what I would have called a Bokeh shot. for example,
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/704176.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/704176.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
This is a DOF shot that has Creamy smooth Bokeh of the highest order, however I dont see this as a Bokeh shot despite the title. THis is a DOF shot. The OOF areas do not contribute to the imapact or message of the image, the Background is not distinct and it does not play a role in defining the subject, it is just a continuation of the subject.
Many spider web DOF shots tend to do the same thing where the OOF web serves to frame the spider and really doesnt contribute to the spider directly.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/700143.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/700143.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
So yes this is a Classic type of bokeh shot that many people see as Bokeh and I can admit that when I took it I was trying for Bokeh as a concept(thought at the time I thought OOF circles to be the epitome of bokeh. Unfortuantely the teazle is OOF a little and could have benefited from some fill flash or something.

Nikonjeb, I found this shot on your portfolio which I was amazed to find includes VERY FEW shots with OOF backgrounds, You must have a wicked cool camera/lens combo as very few of my shots have that much DOF.
[thumb]666131[/thumb]
I think this shot of yours was an interesting Bokeh shot as the OOF area at the center far off tended to draw me deeper into the image. Just to comment you have some really neat shots in your portfolio.

This shot was one of My outakes from the Bokeh Challenge.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/746600.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/746600.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
I loved the shot, the BOKEH Quality was absolutely Perfect. Melted butter soft and smooth. however it doesn't do a lot to send a message and there was a distracting little growth on her eye that distracted everyone.

Here are some of the shots that I found really interesting in this last challenge, most did fair to midland to outright poor as almost none of them have circles of light in them or have much better defined backgrounds.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747791.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747791.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
This shot really drew me in as it gave me the sense of an intimate recording session or sitting around the Campfire. While I think technically a DOF shot, the OOF area of the shot had a huge impact and if anything drew more attention than the focused area.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747808.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747808.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
I think the OOF forest in the background drew a very powerful counterpoint to the hard edges technologically reproduced forest on the screen. In this sense the OOF area had a very powerful impact on the way I interpreted the in focus area of the shot.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747902.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747902.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
IMHO this is one of the best shots int he challenge, this drew me in and made me think of christmas and family and my grandmother(who always made cookies) I wanted to know more about the person at the bowl, who else was near buy, what were they talking about, again the Background lead me to interesting places and I stood and stared thinking about these things, that is powerful emotional impact and I think that is what Makes USING bokeh so powerful as the fact that things are OOF means we can focus them for ourselves in our mind, kind of like a daydream or something. In this case the in focus cookies served mostly to anchor your vision and set you int he right place to begin exploring the rest of the image.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747919.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747919.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
Another interesting and compelling image. Where is the Pub, why is the smoker alone, is he waiting for someone, is he mourning someone(and thus closing the bar). This one really drew me into the background.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747622.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747622.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
The background really adds a ton of depth to this shot of an otherwise totally boring iron ring. The background is what makes this shot interesting, where is the harbor, how many ships has this ring held fast etc etc etc.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747259.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747259.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
This is a neat image, the background is very vibrant and exciting, the execution on this one is a little off but none the less the background is very intriguing and more interesting than the foreground. It kind of made me smell the bouquet of flowers as if I had plunged my nose into the middle of them.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747620.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747620.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
Even though this was disqualified the background here really draws the eye into a much bigger story, I think this one was really interesting because the BG was such a small percentage of the shot, yet had such a powerful impact on setting the stage and drawing you in.

These are just my impressions, and in citing them I do not belittle any of the shots that won, all of them are phenomenal shots but they don't fit my vision of what makes a powerful Bokeh shot, where as the ones I share here do.

Message edited by author 2008-12-28 13:00:38.
12/28/2008 12:31:34 PM · #10
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

... The background was not a consideration in the composition of the shot, it is all about the Elk, I doubt you asked him to stand in that location so you could capture that particular background to leave the impression that the elk was in the woods.....


The background was absolutely a consideration in the framing of this shot. I had to move my feet a lot to get into position to photograph the elk with a distant background (much separation) and not include the bright overcast sky and not spook the big critter and keep the sun (obscured by clouds) on the back of my shoulders. I had plenty of images of the big guy with a more traditional bokeh background w/o snow, but the falling snow made the shot interesting to me. This shot was from a tripod mount and I precisely made sure the focus was nailed on his face. It was a capture taken with this challenge in mind. Certainly, the image has weaknesses, but lack of bokeh is not one of the weaknesses.
12/28/2008 11:51:48 AM · #11
Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

....

As to the Top 20 images 10 of them are Wildlife shots with nothing really interesting going on in relation to the background, one of them appears to have scored well based solely on the fact that it was a neat shot of a wild animal that is not commonly seen otherwise it has almost none of the qualities of Bokeh discussed by anyone....

20) Wildlife with no Bokeh at all??


Did you look at the image? I strongly disagree with your comments. The Imperial Elk has bokeh in front of and behind the DOF plane. It is the reason I took the shot in the falling snow with a fast shutter speed. I take great offense at your comments, but I take your comments in the frame of reference that you don't know what you are talking about.

ETA: I just looked at your entry in this challenge. Now, I understand.


I did look at the shot and what I saw was an outstanding wildlife shot. The background was not a consideration in the composition of the shot, it is all about the Elk, I doubt you asked him to stand in that location so you could capture that particular background to leave the impression that the elk was in the woods.

Your shot has Great QUALITY bokeh, softly rendered OOF areas in the image and somewhat distracting soft OOF areas in the Foreground. but in my opinion you did not USE bokeh very effectively in this shot. You took a picture of an elk where you found him with your focus being the elk.

You all seem to want to burn me at the stake by implying that I am stating that your shots are lousy WHICH I HAVE NOT DONE. I have simply implied that based on how I view BOKEH as a concept all of these shots have some degree of BOKEH but not nearly so many of them USE the OOF area of the image to much effect.

You wanted to dis on my entry and thats fine, I tried a lot of different things for this challenge and many of them didnt work like I hoped they would, USEING Bokeh intentionally is quite challenging. I have a lense that renders PHENOMONAL QUALITY Bokeh, but learning to use that quality Bokeh is much Much harder than you might think. For my entry I tried to capture the lazy sunday afternoon type feel that i got when I say my cat sleeping on the radiator in front of the lace curtains with the sun filtering through. I took about 30 shots with my f1.2 rokkor Wide open which generates an incredibly narrow DOF which with the small viewfinder on the D40 is very difficult to judge accurately which is reflected in several of the comments. I took the shot in natural light so it was quite dark and slow making focus even harder. I make no suggestion anywhere that my shot is great, I think personally that it did a decent job of conveying the feeling I was after of a soft lazy afternoon in a sunbeam and based on the comments I got it appears that others were able to feel that as well and for me that is a success.

I think it would have done better had it contained a few circles of light as this appeared to be a major point of focus for many people.
12/28/2008 11:20:45 AM · #12
Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

....

As to the Top 20 images 10 of them are Wildlife shots with nothing really interesting going on in relation to the background, one of them appears to have scored well based solely on the fact that it was a neat shot of a wild animal that is not commonly seen otherwise it has almost none of the qualities of Bokeh discussed by anyone....

20) Wildlife with no Bokeh at all??


Did you look at the image? I strongly disagree with your comments. The Imperial Elk has bokeh in front of and behind the DOF plane. It is the reason I took the shot in the falling snow with a fast shutter speed. I take great offense at your comments, but I take your comments in the frame of reference that you don't know what you are talking about.


Well, i loved your shot, i think you did a good job with the bokeh at the background, at the foreground i don't see much, but the DOF, puting just the object in focus is great! I don't think you should take offense, it's so bad to make enemies here. But like i said, i loved your photo, just think the colors could be stronger...
12/28/2008 11:03:29 AM · #13
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

....

As to the Top 20 images 10 of them are Wildlife shots with nothing really interesting going on in relation to the background, one of them appears to have scored well based solely on the fact that it was a neat shot of a wild animal that is not commonly seen otherwise it has almost none of the qualities of Bokeh discussed by anyone....

20) Wildlife with no Bokeh at all??


Did you look at the image? I strongly disagree with your comments. The Imperial Elk has bokeh in front of and behind the DOF plane. It is the reason I took the shot in the falling snow with a fast shutter speed. I take great offense at your comments, but I take your comments in the frame of reference that you don't know what you are talking about.

ETA: I just looked at your entry in this challenge. Now, I understand.

Message edited by author 2008-12-28 11:21:25.
12/28/2008 10:57:07 AM · #14
I didn't read all the discussion, but what i think from this 3 photos is:

1 and 2, a think the background is too well sharpened for being a good bokeh.
3- love the bokeh.

Message edited by author 2008-12-28 10:57:37.
12/28/2008 10:46:52 AM · #15
Although our friend Jason is decidedly, uh, pointed and outspoken, I certainly have learned a lot from this discussion, and I'm more than willing to pursue this.

If you'll idulge us, could you use these examples to tell us whether you see them as Bokeh, or not, and why.

This one looks like it imminently qualifies, although IMO the background's brightness almost overcomes the dragonfly. It does help to create a minimalist effect that I like.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/700145.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/700145.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

This is obviously more DOF, right? BUT.....the texture of the floor helps add the depth and the "Cliffhanger" concept. So that'd be Bokeh-ish, right?
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/904/120/710119.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/904/120/710119.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Can shallow DOF and Bokeh be cooperative? Don't they go hand in hand to a certain extent?

IMNSHO, this is PERFECT Bokeh, yes? It has the right background fuzziness and subtle circles. I know the circles are by no means critical, but these soft ones are stellar.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/700143.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/96477/120/700143.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Thoughts?
12/28/2008 09:03:12 AM · #16
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

.....7) Wildlife Shot with Bokeh BG
8) Bokeh Shot
9) Bokeh but really tacky (its Gold on sparkly gold for Christ's sake)
10) Wildlife
11) Wildlife Macro....


Actually my really tacky gold on gold finished 8th. I put a lot of work getting the exact shot I had in mind and I think its finishing place indicates that it was generally well received.

I think you need to remember that this is a friendly site where people offer their work for scoring/comment on the basis that any offered will be constructive and help them to improve their shots. If you have anything constructive to offer I'd love to hear it.

Message edited by author 2008-12-28 10:59:25.
12/27/2008 10:41:16 PM · #17
Originally posted by Judi:



My image was 15th....and I can guarantee it had a background....that'show I formed all those vewwwwwy big circles...lol!

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747714.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747714.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


My appologies Judi, I didnt notice the background component at first, it appeared to be a shot almost entirely composed of the flower at first glance, Its a great shot, though a little dark for my personal taste, I was much more drawn to the focused edge of the flower and the small drops on the leaves.
12/27/2008 03:38:27 PM · #18
Originally posted by chromeydome:

Originally posted by Judi:



My image was 15th....and I can guarantee it had a background....that'show I formed all those vewwwwwy big circles...lol!

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747714.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747714.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


And a well-deserved top twenty placing BOKEH image it is, ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Judi. :-)


I second that!
12/27/2008 03:18:59 PM · #19
Originally posted by Judi:



My image was 15th....and I can guarantee it had a background....that'show I formed all those vewwwwwy big circles...lol!

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747714.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747714.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


And a well-deserved top twenty placing BOKEH image it is, ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Judi. :-)
12/27/2008 12:06:33 PM · #20
Originally posted by rdebruyn:

jhomrighaus so far you've shot down anyone else's views in preference to yours. You've avoided a true arguement by not citing alternate sources. Your main arguement in this regard is "your source isn't definitive". OK show us a source that is.

If you don't want to have a productive discussion of bokeh, then perhaps the rest of us do. I suggest you work up a nice bokeh shot of sour grapes and post it for the rest of us as an example.


I posted some other links in the other discussion of Bokeh that is out there right now. If you had read my comments in this and in the other discussion you would see that I have not done as you have said but rather have tried to define a larger concept. You like many have simply stated that Bokeh is the OOF area of a shot. Others have come back to that it is something in the lens(and so something that is not controlled by the photographer) some say it has to do with circles of light(which comes from another internet source).

What I have said is that Bokeh is all of these things and more, perhaps much more, this is where i have tried to discus the Quality and the Use of Bokeh. The items that you refer to(and the majority of the links in Wiki) are almost entirely related to the Quality of Bokeh, How it is formed, what causes it, what it looks like when its present. What few of those links discuss how ever is what you DO with bokeh, how you USE it to create photographs that are interesting and Unique specifically because they have Bokeh by design and choice.

I would like you to show me where I have told every one else that they are wrong or that my idea is the only one that is right, I have stated many times that "FOR ME" or " IN MY OPINION" or "THE WAY I SEE IT" etc. this is how I view the subject, that does not negate your view, it simple challenges it and challengesa you to investigate the concept more deeply as well as think critically about what you are reading beyond what others wrote. Such actions are not required of you, they are not a condition of your membership and you are welcome to your limited view of the subject.

here are some links since you are apperently not able to use google to search the internet as I recommmended before

Google result #7
Google result #8
Kens site which many use(incorrectly) to link points of light to Bokeh
One of many to discuss the technical aspects of bokeh Quality
Lots of discussion and links of many aspects of Bokeh(lots of food for thought)

Here are some additional links found on the SECOND page of the google search for Bokeh;

Extensive comparison of different lenses and types of bokeh
More technical aspects of Bokeh
Very detatiled discussion of Bokeh technical
More on optics and Bokeh

I could go on like this all day, or you could just search on google and look beyond the first link that is shown(that would be Wikipedia of course)
12/27/2008 11:22:24 AM · #21
jhomrighaus so far you've shot down anyone else's views in preference to yours. You've avoided a true arguement by not citing alternate sources. Your main arguement in this regard is "your source isn't definitive". OK show us a source that is.

If you don't want to have a productive discussion of bokeh, then perhaps the rest of us do. I suggest you work up a nice bokeh shot of sour grapes and post it for the rest of us as an example.
12/27/2008 05:47:52 AM · #22
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:



As to the Top 20 images 10 of them are Wildlife shots with nothing really interesting going on in relation to the background, one of them appears to have scored well based solely on the fact that it was a neat shot of a wild animal that is not commonly seen otherwise it has almost none of the qualities of Bokeh discussed by anyone. Several of the shots are much more DOF shots rather than Bokeh shots as they don't really seem to have backgrounds to speak of.

These are just My OPIONIONS so take it for what its worth but you asked.

1) Wildlife Macro
2) Wildlife
3) Flower with Blah BG
4) Bokeh Shot
5) DOF
6) Wildlife Shot
7) Wildlife Shot with Bokeh BG
8) Bokeh Shot
9) Bokeh but really tacky(its Gold on sparkly gold for Christ's sake)
10) Wildlife
11) Wildlife Macro
12) Bokeh Shot
13) DOF
14) Wildlife
15) DOF
16) Bokeh Shot
17) ????????? Its a Fish Motion Shot..... WHere is the Bokeh? the background? ??????
18) Wildlife Shot
19) DOF
20) Wildlife with no Bokeh at all??


My image was 15th....and I can guarantee it had a background....that'show I formed all those vewwwwwy big circles...lol!

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747714.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/964/120/747714.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
12/27/2008 12:27:35 AM · #23
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

I would hardly consider wikipedia the definitive source on anything, but hey that's just me, I suppose I could run over there and just delete everything that is there and replace it with my own description then we would both be on the same page(you know that's how wiki works, right?).

Perhaps I wasn't clear before, but if you dig a little deeper into the subject, beyond the open source encyclopedia and a selective read of my postings, you might learn a little more about that which you speak.

My overall effort here was to try and observe that when one is evaluating the entries for a Bokeh Challenge, that perhaps the focus should have been on the WAY the photographer USED Bokeh to create a unique image not just that the image had a smooth OOF background. We can run over to the Last Macro or wildlife challenge for 100s of examples of Bokeh if that is your only criteria, hell for that matter we can pretty much look at all the images on this site and probably 95% of them have Bokeh in them, so whats the point of having a challenge in the first place if 95% of images already have Bokeh in them right out of the gate?

I posit again that for this challenge we might have wanted to look beyond the simple fact that the background is blurry and instead seek a more sophisticated interaction between the Fuzzy and the Focus to find something really interesting and unique(and dare I say Challenging), instead we end up with more wildlife shots(which incidentally usually have Bokeh in them because the distances involved and the natural light lend themselves to producing smooth OOF backgrounds, not because one is skilled at producing good Bokeh images) and I can almost guarantee that most of those Wildlife shots were not taken with the interaction of the background and subject as the main consideration, but rather to image the animal.

As irritating as all the Christmas shots became, most of those photographers understood the concept of USING Bokeh, they searched out an image idea in which the Background was an active player in telling the photos story, they took the image specifically BECAUSE the background would impact the subject and create a deeper more sophisticated image and that is what is interesting about Bokeh as a technique, That is what makes it an Art, a concept, a CHALLENGE to be faced and in time understood or even for a select few mastered.

No wiki not definitive on anything but it does illistrate that there are difrfrent views on bokeh more than the circles or lense baby craetive apature kit shots. bottomline Bokeh means blurry or fuzzy just like everyones ideas on what the heck it should mean
12/27/2008 12:01:28 AM · #24
I would hardly consider wikipedia the definitive source on anything, but hey that's just me, I suppose I could run over there and just delete everything that is there and replace it with my own description then we would both be on the same page(you know that's how wiki works, right?).

Perhaps I wasn't clear before, but if you dig a little deeper into the subject, beyond the open source encyclopedia and a selective read of my postings, you might learn a little more about that which you speak.

My overall effort here was to try and observe that when one is evaluating the entries for a Bokeh Challenge, that perhaps the focus should have been on the WAY the photographer USED Bokeh to create a unique image not just that the image had a smooth OOF background. We can run over to the Last Macro or wildlife challenge for 100s of examples of Bokeh if that is your only criteria, hell for that matter we can pretty much look at all the images on this site and probably 95% of them have Bokeh in them, so whats the point of having a challenge in the first place if 95% of images already have Bokeh in them right out of the gate?

I posit again that for this challenge we might have wanted to look beyond the simple fact that the background is blurry and instead seek a more sophisticated interaction between the Fuzzy and the Focus to find something really interesting and unique(and dare I say Challenging), instead we end up with more wildlife shots(which incidentally usually have Bokeh in them because the distances involved and the natural light lend themselves to producing smooth OOF backgrounds, not because one is skilled at producing good Bokeh images) and I can almost guarantee that most of those Wildlife shots were not taken with the interaction of the background and subject as the main consideration, but rather to image the animal.

As irritating as all the Christmas shots became, most of those photographers understood the concept of USING Bokeh, they searched out an image idea in which the Background was an active player in telling the photos story, they took the image specifically BECAUSE the background would impact the subject and create a deeper more sophisticated image and that is what is interesting about Bokeh as a technique, That is what makes it an Art, a concept, a CHALLENGE to be faced and in time understood or even for a select few mastered.

Message edited by author 2008-12-27 00:24:09.
12/26/2008 10:50:36 PM · #25
I think we were seeing the same words in my wikipedia quote. I guess you don't believe them.

Originally posted by wikipedia:


...out-of-focus backgrounds, which are often used to reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject...


Originally posted by jhomrighaus:


As to the recent challenge there are a big bunch of wildlife shots in which the backgrounds are just backgrounds and don't really do a lot to change the nature of the shot in any appreciable way IMHO, hence I don't really see them as Bokeh Shots from that perspective the backgrounds are not a significant component of the shot from what I can see.


If it was just a background you would see detail like branches twigs leaves etc which can add noise and draw the eye away from the subject. The fact that the background detail is blurred removes the noise and the distractions. That makes most of what you call wildlfe and wildlife macros also bokeh shots.

Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 02/22/2020 02:21:33 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 02/22/2020 02:21:33 PM EST.