DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Let's argue about Bokeh for the fourth time
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 155, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/30/2007 03:56:55 AM · #126


Hekob! HEKOB!!
 08/30/2007 04:45:49 AM · #127
boke = blur

mommy, why are all these sane adults arguing about what exactly is a "blur" ?
 08/30/2007 05:27:29 AM · #128
Originally posted by crayon:
boke = blur

mommy, why are all these sane adults arguing about what exactly is a "blur" ?

"I don't know, dear, I'm a little fuzzy on that myself."
 08/30/2007 01:30:19 PM · #129
Originally posted by jschro:

Then I guess I'll just have to break out the christmas lights early, otherwise my submission won't meet your standards. By the way, clearly defined circles are considered neutral bokeh, blurred circles are considered GOOD bokeh. Keep that in mind when you vote.


Good is a really subjective term though, particularly to use in any sort of definition. I know it gets used for a perfect Gaussian distribution to the blur fall-off, but even that is only occasionally good.

An example of the really 'bad' kind of bokeh is mirror lens donuts, but if you used that as a background for a Homer Simpson portrait, it may well be good, or perhaps perfect bokeh for that image.

The original meaning of the word was 'fuzziness' which seems to perfectly define its subsequent redefinition too.
 08/30/2007 01:49:45 PM · #130
never mind the bokeh, here's the Sex Pistols.
 08/30/2007 01:58:15 PM · #131
Naw, the original definition of the word bokeh is "little circles of light in the background." Or maybe that word is hekob?
 08/30/2007 02:00:02 PM · #132
Here's a question: what is the right size for the little circles of bokeh? smaller than the subject, probably, but if they're too small then they might look like a technical problem.
 08/30/2007 09:58:27 PM · #133
I'm just working up a shot taken at f/13. Looks nice. :) The true way to get bokeh is to work on your ratio of lens-to-subject:lens-to-background.

Maybe I should just go with this one to beat Router and his f/2.8. ;P

Message edited by author 2007-08-30 21:58:51.
 08/30/2007 10:06:42 PM · #134
Bokeh yes, or Bokeh no ?


08/30/2007 10:13:18 PM · #135
fuzzy circles = bokeh. Yes.

Fuzzy bunny = inanimate representation of life (like Woodies) = bring on the trolls. ;-)
 08/30/2007 10:14:25 PM · #136
Howzis????

Message edited by author 2007-08-30 22:19:12.
 08/30/2007 10:34:31 PM · #137
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
fuzzy circles = bokeh. Yes.

Fuzzy bunny = inanimate representation of life (like Woodies) = bring on the trolls. ;-)


Bah - it was a "children's toy" challenge. Hence Fuzzy Bunny.

Fuzzy circles were apparently just a bonus.
 08/30/2007 10:35:11 PM · #138
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Howzis????


This is preference, but I don't like bokeh "lines". I try to avoid them.
 08/30/2007 10:38:40 PM · #139
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is preference, but I don't like bokeh "lines". I try to avoid them.



08/30/2007 10:39:21 PM · #140


This then ? More like dots ?
 08/30/2007 11:09:28 PM · #141
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is preference, but I don't like bokeh "lines". I try to avoid them.




That does work nicely. Still tend to avoid them though...
 08/30/2007 11:10:04 PM · #142
08/31/2007 04:04:33 PM · #143
This thread is wonderful - I've read a variety of descriptions for bokeh and now have a more focused understanding of the definition. I took my bokeh shot yesterday and I was laughing because there they were - a whole bunch of little circles that I really never paid attention to before. So although there is not a 100% agreement in this thread about the definition of bokeh, you did help me learn something new lol. Thanks!
 08/31/2007 04:22:52 PM · #144
I just love how various people claim to have the "original" definition, and they differ with each other.

He said.
She said.
No, I said.
You said.
NO YOU $^@#$&* IDIOT.

:)

All I know is don't focus so much of your energy on getting the blur to match one definition or another that you ignore little things like, oh, lighting, composition, subject, etc.

Oh, and I'll be in the Power challenge.
 09/03/2007 09:05:56 PM · #145
Another bokeh link
This one had some pretty good examples of poor, neutral and good bokeh.
 09/04/2007 06:13:33 AM · #146
I have gone through whole thread, reading various points of view. My understanding (before reading thread and now), is that bokeh is just inability of lens to focus. Thus it is out of focus part. Now it is up to the photographer to use it for his advantage (that is to get beautiful results).
And by seeing the examples posted here all I can say is my entry is pretty good. So lets wait for challenge to start.
 09/04/2007 07:04:06 AM · #147
Originally posted by Marjo:
Another bokeh link
This one had some pretty good examples of poor, neutral and good bokeh.


ah, then my entry, according to that Pleasehelpkenrockwell.com site, has poor bokeh. I'd better withdraw from the Challenge.... :-(
 09/04/2007 12:24:32 PM · #148
I'm in - serious dilemma as to which one to submit: one is characteristic to the point of being boring. Gorgeous bokeh, planty and nice composition. The other is a real whacky chance ... but I had to go with my heart, so I've selected the outside contender and will have to cross my fingers and not cry at the 5.6 score it's likely to get :-(

09/04/2007 12:37:27 PM · #149
now i understand 'circle of confusion'... i was all messed up before ;}

then again i always thought bokeh was a meatless burger...

Originally posted by ursula:
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.


Message edited by author 2007-09-04 12:40:10.
 09/04/2007 12:49:06 PM · #150
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm just working up a shot taken at f/13. Looks nice. :) The true way to get bokeh is to work on your ratio of lens-to-subject:lens-to-background.

Maybe I should just go with this one to beat Router and his f/2.8. ;P


That's the way I go too.

However... what's with the comment that longer lenses get more bokeh? I thought bokeh was only in proportion to background/subject/lens ratio?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/15/2025 05:13:16 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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 05:13:16 AM EDT.