| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/03/2005 12:25:31 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by brianlh:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I think the key is to have a spotted or dappled background rather than merely out of focus. |
this was always my understanding of bokeh as well. after all the posts to this thread though, i was starting to think that maybe i was just severely mistaken. |
FWIW, I totally agree with Shannon -- spotted or dappled backgrounds are a key way to analyze the "quality" and "feeling" of a particular lens' bokeh, and will be what folks look for when voting. |
I hadn't realised this was the case...
I only recently came across the term and it was explained then as simply the use of shallow DOF areas of an image to add impact - no mention of dappled effect.
Interesting...
THANKS folks for the food for thought.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 12:29:22 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by gaurawa:
How do I get this? |
Wide open (or nearly so) aperture with a fast lens for shallow depth of field. The quality of bokeh is largely determined by the shape and number of blades in your lens. Your background should be well-lit and have some contrasty details. Increasing the distance between subject and background (with a shallow DOF) will make the background blurrier (if it's too blurry, you won't get the contrasty shapes or spots you're looking for).
Message edited by author 2005-01-03 12:39:16. |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 12:30:30 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by gaurawa:
Now I am going to ask you about the technical aspects of this. How do I get this ? Any aperture range that works well ? Do I need some backlit ? any relation between distance to foreground and distance from foreground to background ? I know there won't be one answer, but what does your experience say ? |
The larger the aperture (smaller the f-stop number) the more pronounced the bokeh is. A photo at f/1.8 or f/2.8 will demonstrate the bokeh of a lens more prominently than say an f-stop of f/5.6. Faster glass (lower f-stop numbers) and more round apertures make for better presentations of bokeh. In the Canon line the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L or 70-200 f/2.8 L (there have been numerous discussions as to the stats on the two iterations of this lens) both produce great bokeh. Basically, the more expensive the glass, the more pronounced the bokeh that you can produce in images (go ahead and roll out the flamethrower for me on that one - hehe).
Kev |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 12:34:08 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by gaurawa:
Now I am going to ask you about the technical aspects of this. How do I get this ? Any aperture range that works well ? Do I need some backlit ? any relation between distance to foreground and distance from foreground to background ? I know there won't be one answer, but what does your experience say ? |
i believe it often comes from point sources of light, although i may be mistaken. i suppose that it could be accurate to say somewhat backlit, but not entirely sure. generally smaller apertures will produce better bokeh. i assume that the distance between bg and fg is mostly dependent on the aperture that you choose to use, since of course f/1.8 will produce better bokeh up close but will not render anything very far away.. and f/5.6 may produce bokeh on far away subjects, but of course will render anything closer somewhat in focus. i actually have hardly any experience with bokeh and all that i'm spouting out is from things i have read and observed in pictures online - hope it helps (and i hope that i'm accurate)
edit: everytime i type a response like this, people always beat me to it!
Message edited by author 2005-01-03 12:34:59.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 12:39:49 PM · #80 |
Ask Gordon - He knows everything.
 |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 12:41:16 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by emorgan49:
Ask Gordon - He knows everything.
|
I adore that one...
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 12:46:18 PM · #82 |
We seem to be confusing large apertures vs large numbers, and vice versa. LARGE apertures generate bokeh, SMALL numbers equal large apertures. So the following is misleading:
generally smaller apertures will produce better bokeh
Rephrase it, "generally larger apertures will produce better bokeh." This is the conventional terminology; a wide-open lens is using its largest possible aperture, not its smallest possible one, even though the number is smaller; f:2.8 vs f:22, for example ΓΆ€” f:2.8 is a large aperture.
For what its worth, the "number" is the ratio of the diameter of the aperture to the focal length of the lens: a 25 mm aperture on a 50 mm lens would be f:2.0, while a 25mm aperture on a 200 mm lens would be f:8.0. Therefore, on zoom lenses, where the physical size of the aperture remains constant, the nominal size gets "smaller"; a given physical diameter generates a greater ratio as the zomm is extended.
Robt.
edited for typos
Message edited by author 2005-01-03 12:58:16.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 12:50:12 PM · #83 |
And there I was yesterday, taking a whole bunch of bokeh photos without even knowing it ... all before the challenge was announced. I'm not sure if I'll have time to go back to the same place before going back to Japan.
Message edited by author 2005-01-05 02:16:47. |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 12:50:46 PM · #84 |
The shot Kavey just commented upon, the blade of tall grass, is fantastic bokeh; it would probably ribbon IMO.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 01:02:56 PM · #85 |
oops, typing without thinking.. i'll blame it on the fact that i only got 5 hours of sleep last night (early morning appointment) :p
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 01:03:20 PM · #86 |
How's this?
Or...do I need more in the background? I dont think this will work on second though.....after re-reading the challenege....the out of focus background should somehow play a part in enhancing the subject.
Message edited by author 2005-01-03 13:05:22. |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 01:07:44 PM · #87 |
Also important is the number of blades in the lens diaphragm.
Generally speaking:
more blades = a more circular aperture = smoother bokeh.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 01:27:10 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by heida:
would this be right for the challenge?
or does something have to be out of focus in the foreground too? |
I think this is an awesome example of awesome bokeh. |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:15:27 PM · #89 |
Ok, I hope I'm beginning to understand this.
So in the following example there is a very shallow DOF but not much of interesting bokeh?
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:23:09 PM · #90 |
Gauti, That's the way I see it. Yes to shallow dof. No to bokeh.
I don't think Heida's is bokeh, either. Both hers and yours are awesome, though.
Gordon's is the best!
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:23:59 PM · #91 |
Correct, Gauti. Borderline.
I'm coming to see that "my" definition of bokeh as an artistic impulse isn't gonna fly. So this challenge will be RULED by those who have DSLRs and BIG glass, I think. Gotta have recognizable artefacts, I think, in this one...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:24:11 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Gauti:
Ok, I hope I'm beginning to understand this.
So in the following example there is a very shallow DOF but not much of interesting bokeh? |
I actually like how the rightmost and farthest away geese are blurred. |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:25:01 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Marjo:
Gauti, That's the way I see it. Yes to shallow dof. No to bokeh.
I don't think Heida's is bokeh, either. Both hers and yours are awesome, though.
Gordon's is the best! |
What do you mean it's not bokeh? What is it then? |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:26:33 PM · #94 |
A big THANK YOU to everybody who has
a) posted an example, and/or
b) commented on one.
Those examples are helping many of us to better understand the concept, which will be very necessary both for taking our own photos, and for voting competently. |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:31:15 PM · #95 |
Some point and shoot digicams have macro mode! Use that :) I have achieved bokeh with my olympus stylus 300. Just use your zoom (even if it's only 3x) and get close enough to the subject so that the background gets blurry...
Originally posted by RHoldenSr:
Touche! :)
Originally posted by faidoi:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I think we need a moment of silence for those with point-and-shoot digicams -- we basically left them out of this one.
|
 :P |
|
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:31:28 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
What do you mean it's not bokeh? What is it then? |
It's a gaggle of geese. Geez... do we have to explain EVERYTHING? |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:42:07 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
What do you mean it's not bokeh? What is it then? |
Maybe we both should go back and read all the posts and then read the informative links that were provided before we submit a challenge photo. |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:48:34 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Marjo:
Gauti, That's the way I see it. Yes to shallow dof. No to bokeh.
I don't think Heida's is bokeh, either. Both hers and yours are awesome, though.
Gordon's is the best! |
Thank you.
There is, of course, some bokeh in that picture, but not terribly interesting. I think there are some streetlights I could use as pointy lightsources for interesting bokeh.
I might use the geese for the next shallow DOF challenge, since that type of challenge should be recycled every now and then.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:48:48 PM · #99 |
Let's stop debating and start taking some peekchas!
Ahh... who am I kidding, I love reading this stuff.
I didn't have a clue what bokeh was until very recently, which is slightly embarrassing considering I speak Japanese. |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:51:43 PM · #100 |
one thing just occured to me. since extention tubes let you get closer to your subject, will they help with bokeh? (I had problem with the geese coming too close in the photo posted before).
|
|
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: 03/12/2025 04:01:45 PM EDT.
