| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/06/2005 10:18:09 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by CeeDeez:
Is this acceptable or is the foreground subject too shallow. Don't have a DSLR just a point and shoot. So no lens like Jacko. In fact no camera for a few weeks as I dropped it and its being repaired, but would still like to learn about this great photo style:(! |
Either (or both) FG or BG is enough. Apparently next to impossible to get good bokeh in both.
Cool photo, and nice effects in BG. Do they work with, against or neutral to subject. Neutral I think, don't do anything for the feather, but do not subtrackt either IMO.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 10:27:22 PM · #202 |
WOW! I think these just scared me right out of the challenge. Even my best idea pales in comparison.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 10:44:56 PM · #203 |
Just outta curiosity, would this count as a foreground bokeh?
There's probably not enough definition in the treeline, but would it serve as an example different from all the b.b. shots?
Cheers
Stu
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 02:39:43 AM · #204 |
Okay, my turn to ask/offer examples. Am I right in thinking these all qualify?
  
 
 
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 02:52:01 AM · #205 |
From my portfolio - Would these be good examples of bokeh?
 
 
Message edited by author 2005-01-07 08:18:15.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 03:15:05 AM · #206 |
AmiYuy, I think that the Spiders web would most suit the current challenge as the Bokeh effect compliments the main subject.
SDW65, I think you mean 'bokeh' and IMO the flower would be the best example for this challenge.
Of course this is just my opinion! :-)
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 04:09:32 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
Originally posted by ltsimring:
I guess I am still confused about what bokeh is.
So you think this is NOT bokeh? |
That most definitely is bokeh. Though as I understand it, if you can see sides to your out of focus circles, it isn't "high quality" bokeh- I think expensive lenses produce nearly perfectly round out of focus circles with no hard outlines. But the challenge isn't to make high quality bokeh ;) |
It is not only about out of focus circles but also about the overal smoothness and background contrasts at macro- and microlevel.
You don't need to have circles to show a certain quality of bokeh.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 04:13:56 AM · #208 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
From my portfolio - Would these be good examples of broken?
|
They all have a for/background blur.
The flower and the butterflies have what I would consider a good quality bokeh, combined with a well chosen background to show it.
The goose bokeh is of a lower quality and the background content sucks because it is to busy.
I like the butterflies the most.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 08:16:53 AM · #209 |
Took this one not so long ago!
Would have worked for bokeh. Right?
Would have bin perfeckt for Serendipity :)
 |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 09:31:45 AM · #210 |
I think most of these shots really don't meet the challenge that well. In my mind Bokeh should be smooth and most importantly attractive. In essence attractive DOF.
Some of these are just usual blurred backgrounds.
Also with others there is such little emphasis on Bokeh and all the shot focuses on is the subject.
I think it should enhance your photograph rather than just being an accidental happening.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 10:38:01 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I think most of these shots really don't meet the challenge that well. In my mind Bokeh should be smooth and most importantly attractive. In essence attractive DOF.
Some of these are just usual blurred backgrounds.
Also with others there is such little emphasis on Bokeh and all the shot focuses on is the subject.
I think it should enhance your photograph rather than just being an accidental happening. |
Uhhh. Now i´m lost.. Can you give us exampel? |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 10:48:48 AM · #212 |
There have been plenty of excellent examples posted:
      
All of these would get very high scores from me (and some already did). Note that in every case, the background isn't just out of focus- it's smooth and pleasing and adds something to the photo. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 10:59:05 AM · #213 |
Of the photos posted above, these I think are good examples of bokeh that enhances the images.
  
Message edited by author 2005-01-07 11:00:09.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 11:33:35 AM · #214 |
I think Scalvert, has truly hit the nail on the head with these - all perfect.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 12:19:14 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I think Scalvert, has truly hit the nail on the head with these - all perfect. |
Thank you.
Not for self promotion, but as a slightly different example, please note that in this image the elements closest to the camera, that normally would constitute foreground, are also out of focus, intentionally, and are intentionally in the way to create the blurred atmosphere. You can blur not only the background.
As far as blurred circles of light, that some people seem to confuse with 'bokeh', i would actually rate higher pictures without those, but, as scalvert mentioned, with uniform and overall smooth and nice blur contributing to the picture. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 12:44:28 PM · #216 |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 01:15:41 PM · #217 |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 01:20:51 PM · #218 |
I would like to thank you all for your explanations, I think I have a pretty good idea now.
But I still think that is going to be pretty tough to cast the votes in this one ... and very easy to be unfair |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 01:21:39 PM · #219 |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 01:24:21 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
As far as blurred circles of light, that some people seem to confuse with 'bokeh', i would actually rate higher pictures without those, but, as scalvert mentioned, with uniform and overall smooth and nice blur contributing to the picture. |
To each his own; without the "blurred circles of light" this would be just another "Shallow DOF" challenge (which we've already had). The "blurred circles of light" can help tell you something about the equipment behind the picture that simple shallow DOF cannot... and the term "bokeh" is closely related to the equipment used... you'll often hear comments from photographer's talking about the "nice bokeh" and asking what lens was used.
I don't have a thumb, but to me, this portrait (warning: large; 250K) is more than just simple "shallow DOF" because of the bokeh / "blurred circles of light" visible in the background... those characteristic "circles" are part of what I'll be looking for when voting... along with the overall "smoothness"...
Message edited by author 2005-01-07 13:32:40. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 01:31:47 PM · #221 |
Thanks! I wasn't sure, but that makes it clearer...I'll rethink my idea to make it right. (with a better accenting background and the "blurred circles of light")
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 01:36:33 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
The "blurred circles of light" can tell you something about the equipment behind the picture that simple shallow DOF cannot... and the term "bokeh" is closely related to the equipment used... you'll often hear comments from photographer's talking about the "nice bokeh" and asking what lens was used.
I don't have a thumb, but to me, this portrait (warning: large; 250K) is more than just simple "shallow DOF" because of the bokeh / "blurred circles of light" visible in the background... those characteristic "circles" are what I'll be looking for when voting... |
Point taken, and to be fair i wouldn't vote down that portrait just because the blurred circles of light are present in it or are not sufficiently blurred, in this case they add something to the picture.
Regarding shallow dof and bokeh, i think, and i think i mentioned that in this thread earlier, that those are indistinguishable. If you have a shallow dof, like it or not, you will have bokeh as well. With or without the circles of light, depending on what is not in focus.
Now, whether that adds to the picture or not is a totally different and very subjective question, which, i think, is what ought to be judged in this challenge. If subjectively you feel the circles of light add to the picture, then by all means rate it high. But i have also seen a lot of shots where the circles of light are either insufficiently blurred or are too harshly defined (too bright perhaps) and, thus, are distracting from the main subject instead of framing, balancing and underlying it nicely.
edit: forgot to mention, to appreciate the artistic quality of an image, personally, i don't need to know anything about the equipment it was produced with, and whether your camera's diaphragm has 6, 8 or more blades. So, in my eyes, it is not needed to go out of the way to make sure the blurred circles of light are sharp hexagons. I'm exaggerating of course.
Message edited by author 2005-01-07 13:39:41. |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 01:37:35 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
Now, whether that adds to the picture or not is a totally different and very subjective question, which, i think, is what ought to be judged in this challenge. If subjectively you feel the circles of light add to the picture, then by all means rate it high. But i have also seen a lot of shots where the circles of light are either insufficiently blurred or are too harshly defined (too bright perhaps) and, thus, are distracting from the main subject instead of framing, balancing and underlying it nicely. |
Agreed! =] |
|
|
|
01/07/2005 01:43:29 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
Now, whether that adds to the picture or not is a totally different and very subjective question, which, i think, is what ought to be judged in this challenge. If subjectively you feel the circles of light add to the picture, then by all means rate it high. But i have also seen a lot of shots where the circles of light are either insufficiently blurred or are too harshly defined (too bright perhaps) and, thus, are distracting from the main subject instead of framing, balancing and underlying it nicely. |
I now know that this part- how a photo is perceived- varies wildly from viewer to viewer. I really like my entry and hope it will do very well. Based on my current standing in Reolutions, the voters may think I'm totally off base ;) That will especially be the case if there are a hundred entries like Gordon's "Refraction", which to me is about a 15 on a 1-10 scale in a bokeh challenge.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2005 02:12:33 PM · #225 |
If the light is fairly uniform behind the subject, doesn't that mean that the 'circles of light' will blend together making them indistinguishable one from another (assuming the bokeh is of good quality)?
...which I also thought lead to effectively smoother bokeh which often enhances the appeal of the photo?
I'm just worried that people are going to be looking for 'circles' in the background when they may not be there...
|
|
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 10:00:27 AM EDT.
