| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/29/2007 01:22:00 AM · #26 |
Definition: a Japanese term for the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of a photographic image
From dictionary.com. Says nothing about circles. Argument solved! |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:28:28 AM · #27 |
BoKeh is also Japanese for "Idiot" or "Fool"! :-P
No kidding...
Message edited by author 2007-08-29 01:28:50. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:34:01 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Atropos:
Argument solved! |
Heh, your profile says you registered in 2005...but that doesn't compute with the statement above. :P |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:37:14 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Atropos:
Argument solved! |
Heh, your profile says you registered in 2005...but that doesn't compute with the statement above. :P |
Yes indeedy I did register in 2005 and mostly stayed out of past arguments about it. But come on, this is getting ridiculous... certain people have completely skewered other people's perception on the matter. There often is circles, but there doesn't have to be for it to qualify as bokeh.
Message edited by author 2007-08-29 01:37:34. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:37:33 AM · #30 |
not that it's the end all of definitions but check wikipedia
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:43:30 AM · #31 |
Ok, I had to laugh when I saw this one... I'll post the link because the wording is a bit racy and I'm not sure how that would be received here, but I'll say that it puts a whole new spin on bokeh. Man, I've been going about it all wrong!
//www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bokeh |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:46:25 AM · #32 |
| Bokeh is Itlaian. I just had pizza and spaghetti at the local Bokeh di Beppo restaurant. ...and I didn't see any little circles of light. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:48:32 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Bokeh is Itlaian. I just had pizza and spaghetti at the local Bokeh di Beppo restaurant. ...and I didn't see any little circles of light. |
Odd, I just wolfed down some pizza tonight and I've been seeing little circles ever since. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:53:50 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Atropos:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Atropos:
Argument solved! |
Heh, your profile says you registered in 2005...but that doesn't compute with the statement above. :P |
Yes indeedy I did register in 2005 and mostly stayed out of past arguments about it. But come on, this is getting ridiculous... certain people have completely skewered other people's perception on the matter. There often is circles, but there doesn't have to be for it to qualify as bokeh. |
Don't worry, I quite agree with you. One of my entries has the little circles, one doesn't. Personally I don't think you need little circles, you just need some creamy gradients. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:56:54 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by jschro:
Ok, I had to laugh when I saw this one... I'll post the link because the wording is a bit racy and I'm not sure how that would be received here, but I'll say that it puts a whole new spin on bokeh. Man, I've been going about it all wrong!
//www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bokeh |
Come to the little circles of light my little children! lol
My entry in the last bokeh challenge was a year ago. I think I had decent bokeh but the picture itself wasn't good.
So
We need good circles that are "creamy" or "milky"
We need good sharpness and exposure of the subject
I am going to take pictures of homeless people and utilize good bokeh. )(This is probably one of the few technical challenges where a homeless person HASN'T been photographed)
*sigh*. Time to go to bed before my posts get even weirder and Art Roflmao starts thinking I'm strange.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:57:11 AM · #36 |
Oh, brother. Routerguy666 talks like he has the only possible answer. Apparently, he'll nail you if you don't show little circles. And he's not alone.
But if you'll check high-scoring entries from:
Bokeh III
Bokeh II
Bokeh
you'll find that many voters simply like a composition that makes good use of out of of focus areas to complement the in-focus areas.
If you search the Web, you'll find a kajillion people who support each definition so strongly that you'd never know there were another kajillion arguing equally fervently for the other interpretation. Interestingly, both of them will claim to go back to the person who coined the term.
The answer, Colorcarnival, is that there's no single accepted definition. Hence the title of this thread.
You'll get equally fervent arguments about whether the foreground can be out of focus or just the background.
My suggestion: study the high-scoring shots and emulate how they used whichever definition suits your fancy.
The only thing both groups agree on is that if your subject isn't the only thing that's sharp, you're out of luck. Oh, and that isn't a good example:
Message edited by author 2007-08-29 02:00:52.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:01:25 AM · #37 |
Hmm...according to Wikipedia the "donut" bokeh that is generated in mirror lenses is considered unpleasant. Thank god I know that!
*sigh*...k...really off to bed now.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:07:03 AM · #38 |
an older one from my portfolio but something like this would work just fine right? needs a little editing actually but as far as bokeh and subject this would do? Or something like it? |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:07:43 AM · #39 |
One more thing: I found this really cool link -
Camera Aperture Simulator
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:10:31 AM · #40 |
| I really "L O V E" Bokeh, so bring it on....... |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:18:13 AM · #41 |
boke simply mean blur, actually.
photographers (note, not photography) has made the word so sophisticated, lol
Message edited by author 2007-08-29 02:18:28. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:25:33 AM · #42 |
Oh goody! The same people who will vote DNMC on blurred shots without the visible circles are the same people would would vote DNMC in a "pixel challenge" if they can't see the tiny dots. Blur can't happen without bokeh so the only DNMC entries would be ones where everything is sharp. That's it! Argument ovah!
Message edited by author 2007-08-29 03:23:30. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 08:57:28 AM · #43 |
Yes, we've know we've all been at DPC too long, when a Bokeh challenge comes up, and we all say "Oh no, not this again. Ok, once again, let's pre-empt the arguments that are going to come up." :)
Actually, I had a good idea last time for bokeh, and I didn't have the equipment to pull it off, so I have to get my bum in gear and do it this time. Looking forward to the challenge...
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 09:02:32 AM · #44 |
Ive shot so many of these not knowing what bokeh was lol :P
Hmm..I hope I do find something interesting to shoot this weekend :)
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 09:07:25 AM · #45 |
ok that is a sweet link...that might finally help my wife understand aperature. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 09:16:57 AM · #46 |
Time to dust off the dead horse LOL :)
 |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 09:24:08 AM · #47 |
| I'm staying away from this challenge, there is no way my average score could withstand the fall out |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 09:52:00 AM · #48 |
Okay - but when does Bokeh just become plain out of focus???
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 09:57:30 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by codfish:
I'm staying away from this challenge, there is no way my average score could withstand the fall out |
Bah. Live a little! Who looks at avg scores anyway? Or am I missing something - there's prizes for the best avg score now?! :)
Go for it. Have FUN! |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 09:57:56 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by robs:
Okay - but when does Bokeh just become plain out of focus???
|
Basically, to do well in the Challenge you need to have an in-focus subject with a pleasing bokeh background. Here are the results of the first three Bokeh Challenges.
Bokeh I
Bokeh II
Bokeh III |
|
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: 03/15/2025 05:14:05 AM EDT.
