| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/04/2005 04:22:06 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Absolutely! |
So a B&W photo, or sepia photo can still have good bokeh then? I understand the whole smooth sepherical background thing, but I also read in one of the posts here about the colors in the background complimenting the subject. Which made me think that a B&W wouldn't do as well in this type of challenge. Am I then wrong in thinking this? Does it have more to do with the smoothness of the background then the actual colors?
Hope this isn't a silly question as I had no idea what Bokeh meant before this challenge, though I've heard it used alot here. :-) Thanks! |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 05:04:18 PM · #152 |
| It's simply a matter of having pleasing, soft shapes in the background- circles, patterns, large areas of dark and light, etc. Color or B&W doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 05:15:37 PM · #153 |
The leaf picture posted earlier by scalvert is a great example of what I perceive the challenge to be about.
Good Bokeh with complimenting colors. This image is certainly improved by the effect of Bokeh rather just exhibiting it. I think that this will likely be a deciding factor for me during voting.
Chris
Originally posted by scalvert:
|
|
|
|
|
01/04/2005 05:28:42 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's simply a matter of having pleasing, soft shapes in the background- circles, patterns, large areas of dark and light, etc. Color or B&W doesn't matter. |
Good to know, thanks.
And that Leaf picture is Beautiful, btw! :-) |
|
|
|
01/05/2005 12:06:46 PM · #155 |
found this great site with good explanation of bokeh,
if anyone is interested
//www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html[/url] |
|
|
|
01/05/2005 12:59:33 PM · #156 |
|
|
|
01/05/2005 01:16:02 PM · #157 |
|
|
|
01/05/2005 01:25:39 PM · #158 |
Compacts can do it....this was done on a fujifilm even though I didn't know my bokeh from my behokeh at the time. I guess maximum zoom, biggest hole at the pointy end of the camera and luck to get the right relative positions between the camera, the subject and background (unfortunately I lost the original + exif in a hard drive death). Ben. |
|
|
|
01/05/2005 01:35:16 PM · #159 |
How's this for bokeh?
I'd really appreciate it if someone could identify this little guy for me.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2005 01:36:44 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
How's this for bokeh? |
Pretty good. That's a chickadee. |
|
|
|
01/05/2005 02:40:13 PM · #161 |
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 |
Yes it is possible for PS cameras to acheive bokeh. I did with my little oly 520 PS
|
|
|
|
01/05/2005 02:48:42 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
How's this for bokeh?
I'd really appreciate it if someone could identify this little guy for me. |
That bird is called a black-capped chickadee. |
|
|
|
01/05/2005 03:06:00 PM · #163 |
Ok, This is not bokeh ! but I see many very similar backgrounds here and nobody has said yes or no ? I am totally confused, should we be seeing outlines of the lens in the background or just nice blurs ? or am I missing the point altogether ?
Sorry if I am being dumb,
Paul.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2005 03:08:52 PM · #164 |
Try reading this and see if it makes any sense to you
BTW Thanks for the link goodman (just to prove I ain't a complete meanie)
|
|
|
|
01/05/2005 03:11:59 PM · #165 |
Try reading this and see if it makes any sense to you
BTW Thanks for the link goodman (just to prove I ain't a complete meanie)
you're welcome, you can call me les, or lesley if you like :) |
|
|
|
01/05/2005 03:17:34 PM · #166 |
I think I have a better understanding now,
Thanks guys.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2005 11:46:41 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
That bird is called a black-capped chickadee. |
Thanks so much Judith. Bird identification is difficult for me and I admire those who are good at it.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 11:16:08 AM · #168 |
I think that it is strange to discuss, like some people seem to do, bokeh as a technique or thing. Like that article in Lelsley's link says;
Bokeh essentialy stands for [b["the aesthetic quality of the blur"[/b].
You try to create a photograph with shallow dof. The out of focus parts are blurred. That blur can be good bokeh or it can be bad bokeh, but it is stil blur.
For this bokeh challenge it doesn't matter if you've got bad or good bokeh, spherical objects or whatever. Shoot shallow dof and you have something that can be described with bokeh. How you try to arrange the out of focus parts is of more importance to your composition. Here is where you are starting to put in spherical stuff, contrast, blurred telling objects and lines, shadows and lights. The quality of how all that stuff is optically rendered by the lens is described by bad, neutral or good bokeh. The quality of how it looks in your composition is just what it is, the quality of your composition.
It is not a matter of putting a circular point of light in the background, blur the heck out of it and KAZZAAAAM: you have created bokeh! No, you just added something to your out of focus background to enhance or blow your composition. How that point of light looks is bokeh, not the use of the point of light itself.
I could put up a photo with great bokeh but with a composition (in focus and out of focus pars) that sucks. I don't expect that to win though.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 12:15:23 PM · #169 |
I sure hope nobody goes out and buys a lens that has good, bad, or neutral bokeh just for this challenge. From the discussion on this very interesting thread I sort of get the idea if you use a lens with bad or very defined circular bokeh you will do better in the challenge. Who would really want that? In most pictures wouldn’t it be distracting to the main subject?
I read each of the excellent links that have been added to the thread and come to the conclusion that lens makers try to manufacture their lenses so they have the smoothest blurring in the out of focus areas of the picture. Did I misinterpret this, or am I just stuck with the idea of old fashioned photography? Don’t ask me to explain what Old Fashioned Photography might be; because that might be as elusive what good bokeh might be in a poor photograph. I guess my point is that if the image is not interesting nobody cares about the Bokeh.
Dick
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 12:24:59 PM · #170 |
Why does the Challenge Details state foreground or background in one sentence, then leave foreground out of the next?
Technique Challenge: Loosely defined, bokeh is the quality and "feel" of the out-of-focus foreground or background elements of a photo. It isn't very interesting by itself, but take a photograph whose subject is enhanced by the bokeh of the background.
Bold emphasis added.
I thought bokeh could be foreground as well as background - yes? |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 12:28:31 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I thought bokeh could be foreground as well as background - yes? |
It's the quality of any out of focus element... foreground, background, playground... whatever. |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 12:30:48 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Why does the Challenge Details state foreground or background in one sentence, then leave foreground out of the next?
Technique Challenge: Loosely defined, bokeh is the quality and "feel" of the out-of-focus foreground or background elements of a photo. It isn't very interesting by itself, but take a photograph whose subject is enhanced by the bokeh of the background.
Bold emphasis added.
I thought bokeh could be foreground as well as background - yes? |
It very well can be both, but as you point out the challenge only wants you to use it in the background. Hey nobody ever reads the fine print. Don't you know that? :<)
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 12:31:55 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I thought bokeh could be foreground as well as background - yes? |
It's the quality of any out of focus element... ... whatever. |
what about the Ford Focus? :) |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 12:32:21 PM · #174 |
That's the qualifier, the background bokeh.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 12:33:06 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by Artan:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I thought bokeh could be foreground as well as background - yes? |
It's the quality of any out of focus element... ... whatever. |
what about the Ford Focus? :) |
yes, but only on the fairgrounds
|
|
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 08:53:36 AM EDT.
