| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/29/2007 10:03:40 AM · #51 |
why not just use the instruction of the initial, II, and III versions:
"Description: 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."
Seems like verbage that covers the territory.
Desired: subject "enhanced" by the "quality and feel of the out of focus foreground or background elements" of the photo.
Subject important - yes.
Positive aesthetic impact of bokeh important - yes.
Circles required - no. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:14:34 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by bob350:
why not just use the instruction of the initial, II, and III versions:
Seems like verbage that covers the territory. |
If the territory was covered we wouldn't have had multiple threads bantering about the "correct" definition of bokeh last time this challenge ran (and the time before that, etc...). :D
Hey. No description, no need to define it. :P Just shoot and go. If you need to figure out what bokeh is, visit the library or google it. ;) |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:23:42 AM · #53 |
I am going to give anything with circles in it a 5.
Seriously, bokeh is not abouth circles, it is just that those 'circles' are a good way to see how good the bokeh of a lens is. You can have circles and blur, but the bokeh might still be crap.
On the other hand, if you want to score high here at Definition Perfectionists Challenge you better make sure you have lotsa circles and blur the hell out of them.
 <- bokeh sucks
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:34:58 AM · #54 |
Other shapes have rights too. Bokeh isn't about circles. It is about the appearance or quality of the out of focus regions of an image. Points of light happen to take on the characteristic shape of the aperture of the lens, hexagonal, pentagonal, donut or circular.
Circles in the backround is a visible and unsubtle example of bokeh, but it doesn't really encompass what 'good' or 'bad' bokeh is about. (Though it does mean that bright out of focus points of light is the de facto high voting approach for bokeh in dpc)
Circles are one way to go.
So are stars.
Or hearts.
All bokeh.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:35:55 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
... if you want to score high here at Definition Perfectionists Challenge ... |
LOL! :) |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:41:11 AM · #56 |
yes? |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:42:51 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Errr...what is bokeh again...hehehehe!! |
Bokeh is acheived when you CAREFULLY drive a 1/2" drywall screw into the center of your lens -- or off-center if you believe that rule of thirds nonsense. Use tape to prevent fracturing. Duct tape preferred. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:43:34 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by jschro:
Hey, new here...but not to photography. Bokeh is the OOF area often with circles. To get the perfect circles you need to shoot wide open, otherwise the shapes start to look like hexagons (not as pleasing to the eye)
Here's my example...not too many circles but I think overall nice bokeh.  |
Wouldn't that be "bouquet"? |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:44:48 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by jschro:
not that it's the end all of definitions but check wikipedia |
Wikipedia is accurate because anyone from anywhere in the world can put in anything. (to paraphrase Michael Scott) |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 10:54:39 AM · #60 |
| Y'all go ahead and argue. I'm going to stare a hole in the clouds till the sun comes out and then go play with my camera!! I know I'm going to like this shot and I don't even know what the subject is yet ;-))) |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:27:16 PM · #61 |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:47:53 PM · #62 |
Other than the purple fringing on the first picture(I know, sucky glass). Would these be considered bokeh?
 |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:49:09 PM · #63 |
I'd say all of them show bokeh. However, the question I would ask is, does the bokeh enhance the image or is it just there? |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 01:49:20 PM · #64 |
Yes but this is the best example. The BoKeh is very pleasing and helps the subject to "POP".
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:04:08 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by alexjack:
Originally posted by lovethelight:
yes? |
To my eye, yes this has bokeh. honesty I don't think many of the other pictures do though, an out of focus background due to shallow DOF, in my mind, is not bokeh.
Here's one I think does
and another...
Jack |
Well, in my mind that last shot you posted is lens FLARE not bokeh. Circles don't make bokeh. An OOF background is how you get bokeh, some just have more than others.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:04:44 PM · #66 |
Ummmm, nice creamy bokeh :-)
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:08:49 PM · #67 |
| So OOF means out of focus!! I just thought people on here didn't know how to spell off. I saw coments saying, this is a little OOF, haha. Forget the definition to bokeh, I am glad I know what OOF means now!! |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:17:36 PM · #68 |
Well, in my mind that last shot you posted is lens FLARE not bokeh. Circles don't make bokeh. An OOF background is how you get bokeh, some just have more than others. [/quote]
I'll give you that on the second shot, wasn't sure myself. But I dont agree that oof is the same as bokeh. Actually I think, but I'm not certain is that you need (or its helpful) to have multiple pinpoint (or small) light sources (reflected or not) that are oof, this gives the small circles that are seen in the background. Again, this is my understanding, not what is necessarily true, and probably not the voters perspective if you look at the top ten photos of bokeh III
Jack |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:23:09 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Moatz:
So OOF means out of focus!! I just thought people on here didn't know how to spell off. I saw coments saying, this is a little OOF, haha. Forget the definition to bokeh, I am glad I know what OOF means now!! |
See! DPC IS a learning site. :D |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:37:21 PM · #70 |
In my mind, something like this would qualify.
 |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:39:21 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by alexjack:
I'll give you that on the second shot, wasn't sure myself. But I dont agree that oof is the same as bokeh. Actually I think, but I'm not certain is that you need (or its helpful) to have multiple pinpoint (or small) light sources (reflected or not) that are oof, this gives the small circles that are seen in the background. Again, this is my understanding, not what is necessarily true, and probably not the voters perspective if you look at the top ten photos of bokeh III
Jack |
So we're basically at the beginning. Bokeh....circles/no circles. Look at my daisy shot I posted earlier, tell me that's not bokeh. Oh...and my apologies for posting larger images, I wasn't sure how to post the small thumbnails yet, but now I see how. I didn't mean to slow things down or anything. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:45:42 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
In my mind, something like this would qualify.
|
Yes, certainly would qualify, although I think the specular highlights in the center of the pic are a bit distracting.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:47:32 PM · #73 |
In Bokeh III, I actually set out to create a DPC friendly image (which I'm wont to do, on occasion). I read all the threads and looked up all the definitions. In the end, I decided I didn't need to know what Bokeh actually is, but rather what the average voter thinks it is and can recognize in a couple of seconds.
The result? A score of 6.3 and my 6th best.
 |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:48:58 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by jschro:
So we're basically at the beginning. Bokeh....circles/no circles. |
It's not [just] circles. It's ...
Originally posted by Gordon:
about the appearance or quality of the out of focus regions of an image. Points of light happen to take on the characteristic shape of the aperture of the lens, hexagonal, pentagonal, donut or circular. |
The problem is that many at DPC equate circles with bokeh, and the voting/recognition goes accordingly, so photographers feel obligated to enter more images with even more circles, and pretty soon everybody is confused.
No circles bokeh:
Challenge bokeh:
Message edited by author 2007-08-29 14:52:37. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 02:51:37 PM · #75 |
| i do my best bokeh when i dont try. :p |
|
