Bokeh -post your best pls

[izthistaken]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/3542877885_51a9090fd8_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3542877199_9b77ca65a1_b.jpg

[izthistaken]

Here's one of our dogs Taylor

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/3543689612_293b7f5e44_b.jpg

[Jman13]

Not a good shot, but I was just screwing around with my Sigma 50, and this shot exemplified why I like this lens. Such beautiful bokeh, and rich color. Wide open:

http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/50_bokeh.jpg

[Spacemunkie]

Old Nikon 50 1.4 AIS, 40D

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3371/3530731390_c4b76b9264_o.jpg

[TweakMDS]

Some colored glass in the Prague Cathedral as a background for the Canon 100mm macro :)

(clickable for bigger version)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3546/3513677898_a37d539900.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3546/3513677898_bbea28426a_o.jpg)

[Bobster]

some great shots in this thread :D
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/103733145.jpg

[tupper]

Big Bokeh.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3367/3544918899_09aa7cb856.jpg?v=0

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ewantupper/3544918899/

[mono55]

Actually, this wasn't taken with a Canon camera, but meh...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v437/monokatt/P1040965.jpg

[luvsadog2]

Nice shots everyone!! Carla

[M3Rocket]

Was just uploading some shots of flowers onto my album and found these that should fit in this thread:

#1.
http://iluk.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p1023746183-5.jpg


#2.
http://iluk.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p801841149-5.jpg


#3.
http://iluk.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p716970342-5.jpg

[Svetlana]

Was just uploading some shots of flowers onto my album and found these that should fit in this thread:

#1.
http://iluk.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p1023746183-5.jpg





This looks like a painting!! BEAUUUUTIFUL!

[airbutchie]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2434/3545419779_b0402c873c_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3630/3526714106_9a5730cf49_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3227/3486269982_56eff7a9d9_b.jpg

- airbutchie :)

[Svetlana]

I want to play, too! Here's a recent shot from British Columbia.

[RIgnacio]

A couple more...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2391/3544473447_7dfcfb0389.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3317/3545281206_320bcddd2f.jpg?v=0

[malcolm027]

Using a Pentax 50mm f/2.0 lens w/ EOS adapter
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a307/malcolm027/IMG_1932.jpg
There is a very cool difference between f2 and f5.6 (I believe)
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a307/malcolm027/IMG_2021.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a307/malcolm027/IMG_2033.jpg

[mehran.mo]

some great shots in this thread :D
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/103733145.jpg

Thats a really cool shot.

[airbutchie]

Just two...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3601/3552175309_8dc9f263ba_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3374/3552175837_f2a3cb8658_b.jpg

- airbutchie ;)

[izthistaken]

That first shot is very interesting. I would have never thought to shoot that. Good work!

[luvsadog2]

Couple more floral shots ..

[jameschen]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3623/3552863973_9c459f09e2_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3552863883_0f03ef5216_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3621/3548221966_c2f7e58b81_o.jpg

[SBPhoto]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2461/3552228561_e81e73ea67_o.jpg

[anorphirith]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3635/3552916133_c32c4b465e.jpg

[Bobster]

Thats a really cool shot.
thanks, from a wedding i shot last year :)

[investorguy]

I suppose this more illustrates DOF than bokeh, but it shows you what 1.2 is like. This a moth that landed on my porch.

http://www.pbase.com/investorguy/image/112667386.jpg

[Paul Li]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3367/3473619450_c22c1262d2.jpg?v=0

[Eagle]

I suppose this more illustrates DOF than bokeh,
Some people think they are one and the same.

[A.Christopher]

What do you do when you mount a 85 1.2L mkII for the first time....:shock: you check out the creamy bokeh goodness of course!!

Only minutes out of the box, heart racing, hands trembling, I just had to check out the legendary subject isolation at f/1.2 (no editing, straight out of camera)

http://www.adamchristopher.net/img/v6/p25262065-4.jpg

[AiGTs]

One from Italy.

[investorguy]

Some people think they are one and the same.

really? do you? I tend to think of bokeh as the visually please effect of a shallow DOF. In the moth pic there is nothing visually pleasing about the blur, it merely serves to isolate the subject.

[Eagle]

No, so far I fell two possible three of the pics on this page have some bokeh, the other ten just have oof background/foreground.

[Eagle]

How to See Bokeh
In Existing Images
Look for points of light in the background. Perfect subjects for this are distant points of light at night or sometimes light shining through leaves or specular reflections in daylight.
If they all blend together nicely, that's nice bokeh. If they are perfect little circles, then that's neutral bokeh. If they are all swimmy and look little little rolled up condoms or donuts, then that's bad bokeh.
If they all are regular polygons that tells you the shape of the lens diaphragm. Yes, you can actually tell how many blades the lens's diaphragm had!
If they are perfectly round in the middle of the image and oval or lentil shaped at the sides that tells you the image was probably shot at full aperture.
If they are all flattened ellipsoids (vertical ovals about twice as tall as they are wide) then that tells you that the image was shot with an anamorphic lens. You'll see this in cinemascope motion pictures, not in still photographs.

Taken from this site: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm (yeah that guy, at least he can explain this one)

[AttenOke]

My own additions...

http://www.reasonandreflection.net/images/phocagallery/Flora/thumbs/phoca_thumb_l_inspire.jpg

http://www.reasonandreflection.net/images/phocagallery/Flora/thumbs/phoca_thumb_l_dandelion.jpg

[investorguy]

How to See Bokeh


In Existing Images


Look for points of light in the background. Perfect subjects for this are distant points of light at night or sometimes light shining through leaves or specular reflections in daylight.


If they all blend together nicely, that's nice bokeh. If they are perfect little circles, then that's neutral bokeh. If they are all swimmy and look little little rolled up condoms or donuts, then that's bad bokeh.


If they all are regular polygons that tells you the shape of the lens diaphragm. Yes, you can actually tell how many blades the lens's diaphragm had!


If they are perfectly round in the middle of the image and oval or lentil shaped at the sides that tells you the image was probably shot at full aperture.


If they are all flattened ellipsoids (vertical ovals about twice as tall as they are wide) then that tells you that the image was shot with an anamorphic lens. You'll see this in cinemascope motion pictures, not in still photographs.


Taken from this site: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm (yeah that guy, at least he can explain this one)

Rockwell is meh.

I completely disagree w/ his idea of what defines "good" bokeh. I think it the background blur does more than merely isolate the subject, that is bokeh. The more it adds to the overall beauty of the pic, the better it is. I don't care much what shape the points of light are... that seems a bit of an odd thing to care about.

[Eagle]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

Circles

[Eagle]

http://www.diyphotography.net/diy_create_your_own_bokeh

http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html

[Eagle]

Rockwell is meh.

I completely disagree w/ his idea of what defines "good" bokeh. I think it the background blur does more than merely isolate the subject, that is bokeh. The more it adds to the overall beauty of the pic, the better it is. I don't care much what shape the points of light are... that seems a bit of an odd thing to care about.
Pleasing or not is everyones interpretation of good and bad, but read all the definitions and descriptions of bokeh and they all talk about those points of light, circle of confusions, the odd thing for you to care about. These are what is bokeh, creamy, smooth, silky just defines OOF. I love OOF backgrounds that make a subject stand out.

All Bokeh is OOF, but all OOF is not Bokeh.

[Celestron]

Would this qualify as good Bokeh ?? I've never really understood Bokeh but some of the images in this section are awesome and i'd like to learn how they were done .

[luvsadog2]

No, so far I fell two possible three of the pics on this page have some bokeh, the other ten just have oof background/foreground.

so which of the photos on that page had bokeh per your definition?

[Eagle]

so which of the photos on that page had bokeh per your definition?These
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3621/3548221966_c2f7e58b81_o.jpg

One from Italy.http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=7972136&postcount=6328

[majipoor]

My bokeh... good or bad?

This one with a 350D and Sigma 18-200:
http://araminta.net/data/fm/wDK07_0003_01_FLOWERS.JPG

And this one with a 5DmkII and Canon 70-300:
http://araminta.net/data/fm/wDK09_0011_03_FLOWER.JPG

[single_track]

Most definitions are consistent that bokeh is the aesthetics of the oof points of light, not oof background details. Bokeh is subjective, of course, since it is the pleasing appearance of points of light. Either way, the term is wildly overused, in my opinion, and over-valued. In the end, who really cares if a photo has good bokeh, bad bokeh or no bokeh if it is a good shot that people like. Some shots here have no background detail at all with everything way oof. Nice shots, but not bokeh in my opinion.

Suggestion: I think we should start a thread for pure bokeh (where point of lights are rendered with smooth, pleasing circles), and a thread for subject isolation with oof backgrounds.

As an example, these shots of mine have bokeh, in my opinion. Not crazy bokeh like we sometimes see from the 85L or 200L, but some bokeh. The important point, for me, is the nice shots rather than the perfect example of bokeh. Again, just my opinion. Both shot with the brick which I think can produce bokeh.

Of course, many, many members here can produce much better shots and much better bokeh than me.

[izthistaken]

Judging by the description that was posted, that seems like that would be perfect bokeh...?

[olelovold]

Taken with the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro, wide open.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2128/3534138064_e25519cc03_o.jpg

[Eagle]

Suggestion: I think we should start a thread for pure bokeh (where point of lights are rendered with smooth, pleasing circles), and a thread for subject isolation with oof backgrounds.
Good idea but people would still post each type in both threads just like they are now. And it seems that some how most people think OOF backgrounds are Bokeh. They don't get the "points of light" and circle parts of bokeh.

[izthistaken]

Suggestion: I think we should start a thread for pure bokeh (where point of lights are rendered with smooth, pleasing circles), and a thread for subject isolation with oof backgrounds.
Good idea but people would still post each type in both threads just like they are now. And it seems that some how most people think OOF backgrounds are Bokeh. They don't get the "points of light" and circle parts of bokeh.
We all thought that they were. Sorry captain 'I know everything'. There are alot of people still learning on this site that dont know much. Please try and remember this. Maybe some constructive critisizm would help everyone out instead of bashing them instead of saying that isn't bokeh? I for one thought a 'creamy' oof background was good bokeh. Apparently I still have a lot to learn.

I come here to learn new techniques and try to hone my photography skills. Someone with your knowledge would help me greatly I'm sure.

[Pixel Pete]

http://peterphun.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/rebeccav1.jpg
Here's one for bird lovers.

http://peterphun.com/blog/2008/06/27/a-lady-falconer/

[bohdank]

I can't remember if I posted this here.....

[wimg]

I can't remember if I posted this here.....
Very impressive!

Did you use any image stacking or partial sharpening?

Kind regards, Wim

[bohdank]

I brought the black level up and applied 200/.3/0 unsharp mask In CS. Landscape in ACR.

This is the original, using Landscape in ACR.

Might be slightly different crop.

[wimg]

I brought the black level up and applied 200/.3/0 unsharp mask In CS. Landscape in ACR.

This is the original, using Landscape in ACR.

Might be slightly different crop.
Ah, ok, thank you! How much of a crop ( I was wondering about the DoF, as I don't normally get that much this close-up at 200 mm F/4 :D).

Great shot and good processing!

Kind regards, Wim

[bohdank]

Just to get it to 600 x 800. Here is the uncropped, unedited. EXIF should be there.

[wimg]

Just to get it to 600 x 800. Here is the uncropped, unedited. EXIF should be there.
Thank you again! And as I mentioned, looks stunning!

Kind regards, Wim

[bohdank]

Thanks. I was very pleasantly surprised when I first opened it in ACR.

[M3Rocket]

This looks like a painting!! BEAUUUUTIFUL!

Thanx Svetlana! I'm discovering that I really like the rendering style of the 35L. It's one heck of a lens.

Here are some just taken this past Friday on the 35L:
#1
http://iluk.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p625063223-5.jpg


#2
http://iluk.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p1046796742-5.jpg


#3
http://iluk.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p1019666524-5.jpg

[amd is the best]

70-200 f/2.8l

http://www.pbase.com/amdisthebest/image/112914851large.jpg

[felixapproach]

85mm f1.8

[Salma]

Haven't posted in here for a while, here are some glitter droplet and feather shots I got. :D

http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww119/GFX-Kuri/11-3.jpg

http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww119/GFX-Kuri/10-3.jpg

http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww119/GFX-Kuri/9-7.jpg

http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww119/GFX-Kuri/5-11.jpg

[Garry Gibson]

Here is one today from the Pelican Island Sanctuary.
The oldest Federal Sanctuary in the US I might add.

The old 100-400 came through..

GG

[jolyn928]

Haven't posted in here for a while, here are some glitter droplet and feather shots I got. :D

http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww119/GFX-Kuri/11-3.jpg

http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww119/GFX-Kuri/10-3.jpg

http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww119/GFX-Kuri/9-7.jpg

http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww119/GFX-Kuri/5-11.jpg


I squealed when I saw these...lol. The colors are fabulous!!!

[Salma]

I squealed when I saw these...lol. The colors are fabulous!!!
Haha thankyou :D

[Ace83]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2352/3545732234_194735b1e5_b.jpg

[fireplug]

Sigma 1.4 50mm:
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/418/img5136t.jpg

[pridash]

With 100mm macro: -
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2468/3562486013_f9ba47c72c_o.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/memorial%20weekend%2009/IMG_3520.jpg

[jmilphoto]

Flaaars! LOL
368028

368027

[pridash]

^^^love that first (tulip?) shot! Was that with the 100mm?

[jmilphoto]

Yes it's a Tulip! 100mm f/2.8 macro.

Thanks!

[jmilphoto]

And we use weed killer on these!

[Treat me like a tourist]

Examples from two different schools of bokeh. Both taken on a 5d.

70-200F4L with 1.4x Converter
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3412/3557907590_3bb7bb5773.jpg

85mm1.8
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3438/3361539166_fecdb86f01_o.jpg

[RIgnacio]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3414/3564644696_1ec1f0e5bc_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3184/3563828189_caaa0bb0de.jpg

[luvsadog2]

Recent shots from a hike above Malibu yesterday

[Asian Jul]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/3137901370_c4bb92bd28_o.jpg

[johneone]

Lucy and Rose

[reza187]

with 135L
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3376/3490523543_96257a603b_b.jpg

[bohdank]

Now THAT is nice bokeh.

[Asian Jul]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3565/3554928765_57c29dd2bb.jpg

[Treat me like a tourist]

5d and 35L @1.4 = lush :)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3375/3188560782_1e1a7a9b9e_b.jpg

[thrash_273]

wedding band ideas.=D cc
5D 70-200 2.8IS

[Cotmweasel]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3238/3564518027_b26789d22d_b.jpg
Taken with a Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.7 (at f/1.7)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3350/3565411696_83a9dda3db_b.jpg
Taken with 100mm Macro
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3643/3564596805_52f3853caa_b.jpg
Taken with 100mm Macro

[guitarman2977]

With a rented 24-70 2.8L... 70mm, f/2.8, 1/400th sec, ISO 100.

[Salma]

With a rented 24-70 2.8L... 70mm, f/2.8, 1/400th sec, ISO 100.
Gorgeous:D

[kitacanon]

Good idea but people would still post each type in both threads just like they are now. And it seems that some how most people think OOF backgrounds are Bokeh. They don't get the "points of light" and circle parts of bokeh.

I made the same point a few weeks ago...

"Can some posters explain their view of bokeh as they relate to the photos here...the widipedia has this to say about bokeh:
Bokeh (derived from Japanese, a noun boke 暈け, meaning "blur" or "haze") is a photographic term referring to the appearance of point of light sources in an out-of-focus area of an image produced by a camera lens using a shallow depth of field.[1] Different lens bokeh produces different aesthetic qualities in out-of-focus backgrounds, which are often used to reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject.

When I first posted a shot with bokeh it related to the first part of the definition, that being the out of focus points/sources of light, but it seemed that just out of focus backgrounds/foregrounds used to "reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject" had become accepted...so I started shooting for that...but...

Has the definition of bokeh changed so that the background itself can be the primary subject?"

...no one commented then about bokeh (linking it to wikipedia) and whether bokeh was to complement the subject or WAS the subject, so I let it go...after not coming back in a while I saw your post so thought...
anyway...here are a couple I posted a while back....the circles complemented the eyes I thought...

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/3281/mg1705ucj2srvb6.jpg

...and a simple out of focus background that I think enhanced the subject...
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6958/squwk.jpg

[single_track]

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6958/squwk.jpg

great capture and timing.

[kitacanon]

Thanks S_T...got two...one with mouth closed and "cowlick" slicked back, and this...got it and just walked away knowing when to quit :D

...and...nice shot guitarman...the OOF AND color really do the flower justice...

[kandyredcoi]

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs098.snc1/4735_1047485316881_1518132283_30105603_481623_n.jp g

[M3Rocket]

with 135L
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3376/3490523543_96257a603b_b.jpg

Very, very nice! The 135L lives up to it's legendary reputation in this shot! Fantastic first post--hope to see more of your shots.

[Martin.D]

These where shot with my old Sigma 17-70 lens..


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3414/3481220514_f5a8d7eff8.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/3481220514/sizes/o/)



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3342/3481220512_aaf6cae2af.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/3481220512/sizes/o/)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3610/3552519034_4365bb16cd.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/martins_album/3552519034/sizes/o/)

[stepineden]

Okay Bokeh?

[leppikallio]

Very nice shots so far, I hope my take fits in the category as well. 1D mk2n + 24-105/f4 L.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2445/3570270740_d84f493249_o.jpg

[stepineden]

Luvsabokeh2 (tribute to Carla)

[LWC]

368593

Taken with my "antique" 70-210 f/4

[nyrk]

So I read the very interesting discussion of what is bokeh and what is not. Since I thought it was just Japanese for fuzzy background :o let me see if now I understand..:confused:

this is (may be) bokeh:
http://nyrk.smugmug.com/photos/533018732_58zm9-M.jpg

this is oof:
http://nyrk.smugmug.com/photos/543806510_HvQYL-L.jpg

this is borderline:
http://nyrk.smugmug.com/photos/547587015_rLxuJ-L.jpg

thank you :)

[M3Rocket]

"Can some posters explain their view of bokeh as they relate to the photos here...the widipedia has this to say about bokeh:
Bokeh (derived from Japanese, a noun boke, meaning "blur" or "haze") is a photographic term referring to the appearance of point of light sources in an out-of-focus area of an image produced by a camera lens using a shallow depth of field.[1] Different lens bokeh produces different aesthetic qualities in out-of-focus backgrounds, which are often used to reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject.

When I first posted a shot with bokeh it related to the first part of the definition, that being the out of focus points/sources of light, but it seemed that just out of focus backgrounds/foregrounds used to "reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject" had become accepted...so I started shooting for that...but...

Has the definition of bokeh changed so that the background itself can be the primary subject?"

...no one commented then about bokeh (linking it to wikipedia) and whether bokeh was to complement the subject or WAS the subject, so I let it go...after not coming back in a while I saw your post so thought...


I like this site's clear explanation of bokeh, and how that relates to blurring:
http://bokehtests.com/Site/About_Bokeh.html

I think it is a misnomer to define bokeh as just "the appearance of point of light sources in an out-of-focus area." To properly evaluate bokeh performance, I believe you need elements in the photo that show the transition of foreground blur to background blur (in front of DOF and behind DOF).

A sharp object isolated on a blurred background of a mostly monochromatic and low contrast background doesn't tell me much about the the len's bokeh. As CyberDyneSystems said in the second page of this thread:
Great Idea.. and some great shots!
.. but I think some are confusing "bokeh" with simple DOF/selective focus. Of course it was said up front by an enlightened individual so maybe I should keep my opinions to myself :lol:

#1. Good bokeh here? While it's great subject isolation and background blur, I can't tell whether the bokeh is any good! But the subject isolation is nice.
http://iluk.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p438371228-4.jpg


#2. More interesting background, but again, perhaps still a little hard to tell the bokeh rendering of the lens.
http://iluk.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p286022823-4.jpg


#3. Pretty points of light. This one tells me something about the bokeh as far as specular highlight rendering is concerned.
http://iluk.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p984507935-5.jpg


#4. This, OTOH, tells me lots about the lens bokeh performance.
http://iluk.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p883630274-5.jpg

[tonylong]

Just two bits from my morning thoughts here:

The discussions about bokeh do crop up here periodically, and are informative.

That being said, I think that for all practical purposes, this thread is about both bokeh when it applies, and about demonstrating narrow depth of field/subject isolation/nice creamy background.

The reason why I suggest some "leniency" is that the specifics of "bokeh quality" are pretty much related to lens aperture as much as any skill/technique. So to limit sharing to just "good bokeh" could be slanted toward the idea of "don't bother sharing unless you have a high quality lens".

I'd just say let people share their attempts at nice background effects, whether it be with the 50 f/1.8, which will produce not-so-good bokeh, or the 50L, which is, of course, capable of world-class bokeh.

Periodically, a post like M3rocket's above is helpful and instructional. Posts which make some mention of the qualities of bokeh can point people in the right direction. What I'd suggest we stay away from is discouraging people who are learning from sharing their shots in which they managed to get what they consider a cool narrow DOF effect, even if it didn't show "cool" specular highlights.

In other words, I think this thread in practice has room for both. What do you think?

[Cotmweasel]

Just two bits from my morning thoughts here:

The discussions about bokeh do crop up here periodically, and are informative.

That being said, I think that for all practical purposes, this thread is about both bokeh when it applies, and about demonstrating narrow depth of field/subject isolation/nice creamy background.

The reason why I suggest some "leniency" is that the specifics of "bokeh quality" are pretty much related to lens aperture as much as any skill/technique. So to limit sharing to just "good bokeh" could be slanted toward the idea of "don't bother sharing unless you have a high quality lens".

I'd just say let people share their attempts at nice background effects, whether it be with the 50 f/1.8, which will produce not-so-good bokeh, or the 50L, which is, of course, capable of world-class bokeh.

Periodically, a post like M3rocket's above is helpful and instructional. Posts which make some mention of the qualities of bokeh can point people in the right direction. What I'd suggest we stay away from is discouraging people who are learning from sharing their shots in which they managed to get what they consider a cool narrow DOF effect, even if it didn't show "cool" specular highlights.

In other words, I think this thread in practice has room for both. What do you think?

I agree.

[deci]

+1 :)

[Eagle]

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/3281/mg1705ucj2srvb6.jpg

Loved this one when I first saw it and still do.

[stepineden]

I agree.

I think y'all are way to nice :-)

[Cl!ckFoto]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3625/3492492492_831cce56a0_b.jpg

[stepineden]

So does the red geranium in the lower left corner of "Bunny into the Bokeh" fall into bokeh or is it oof? I'd love to here some opinions.

[kitacanon]

Just two bits from my morning thoughts here:

The discussions about bokeh do crop up here periodically, and are informative.

That being said, I think that for all practical purposes, this thread is about both bokeh when it applies, and about demonstrating narrow depth of field/subject isolation/nice creamy background.

The reason why I suggest some "leniency" is that the specifics of "bokeh quality" are pretty much related to lens aperture as much as any skill/technique.

I'd just say let people share their attempts at nice background effects, whether it be with the 50 f/1.8, which will produce not-so-good bokeh, or the 50L, which is, of course, capable of world-class bokeh.

In other words, I think this thread in practice has room for both. What do you think?

In my post I suggested just that...the factual definition of Bokeh may be re(de)fined to include THE SKILLFUL USE OF OUT OF FOCUS backgrounds (and.or foregrounds) to enhance the subject...hence my inclusion of photos with significant out of focus elements that are not strictly bokeh...but I don't call it bokeh...

...to call such OoF elements in shots "bokeh" (be they good, bad, or ugly) is to perpetuate a falsehood, pure and simple...leniency in the service of ignorance does nothing to educate or increase the skill of those trying to create it...

...nor is bokeh expected to be the principal subject viewers focus on...bokeh is expected to serve the subject, not the other way around....I'm not talking about a subjective evaluation but simply whether something is, or is not, bokeh...

still....and more importantly, as you suggest....

...to limit "good bokeh" to the quality of the lens rather than to the qualities of the photographer would discourage anyone from trying to create or seek out the lighting circumstances that is "bokeh"...and that is not the purpose of any forum...getting us to seek out and create what is commonly understood around the world to be bokeh is what this thread ought to be about...

...nevertheless, if this thread is about out of focus qualities that enhance that part of the subject in focus, fine.....and let it continue as such...but call it what is, and more accurately...not the best bokeh photos, but the best use of out of focus elements in a photo...

p.s. I LOVE the shot by LWC at the top of this page...

[Rachellebee27]

Some people tend to love this.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa193/mommy2_2monkeys/IMG_1919-Version2.jpg

[Eagle]

So does the red geranium in the lower left corner of "Bunny into the Bokeh" fall into bokeh or is it oof? I'd love to here some opinions.
Bokeh .... yes, as well as the greens up the middle and to the right on top.

[single_track]

...nevertheless, if this thread is about out of focus qualities that enhance that part of the subject in focus, fine.....and let it continue as such...but call it what is, and more accurately...not the best bokeh photos, but the best use of out of focus elements in a photo...

p.s. I LOVE the shot by LWC at the top of this page...

well said and I agree completely. This is why I was suggesting two threads; bokeh and oof backgrounds for subject isolation. The oof thread would be, in large part, the current bokeh thread, which is fabulous. I don't think we should call all of these great shots bokeh just because it is a confusing concept.

[Kamik636]

http://www3.telus.net/dmk61/bokeh/img060.jpg
http://www3.telus.net/dmk61/bokeh/img069.jpg

[Gibbo]

I'll play...

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u197/gibbo182/IMG_8665.jpg

[TeeBoi]

Definately some nice work in here. I need to get out and shot more.

-tyler

[Spacemunkie]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/3103355743_1325b42158_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3150/3084766463_35c3e33e8f_o.jpg

[KenjiS]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_9269-Edit.jpg

100-400 at f/8 :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_8845.jpg

100-400 at f/10 :)

Sorry couldnt pick 1!

[Salma]

I'll play...

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u197/gibbo182/IMG_8665.jpg
That's seriously beautiful.

Can I ask which lens you used? :D

Salma.

[hlaricca]

Here is a fun shot. I was playing around with the nifty fifty and some extension tubes.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2446/3571206883_a4f9d53d8f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/laricca/3571206883/)

[nyrk]

Very cool, hlaricca. Can I ask you what is it?

[In2Photos]

A couple from the Sigma 24-60.

1DMKII, 52mm, f/5.6, 1/1250, ISO 100
http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/113060320/original.jpg

1DMKII, 60mm, f/5, 1/1000, ISO 100
http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/113060321/original.jpg

[Cotmweasel]

With my Carl Zeiss 50mm

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2473/3576377159_33feff5b52_b.jpg

100mm Macro

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3197/3577185436_57318c1ebd_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3557/3573878656_bf1c9598d9_b.jpg

[hlaricca]

Very cool, hlaricca. Can I ask you what is it?

You sure can. It's a rubber foot of a windup toy. The toy itself is the "AWIKA!". You can go look at the following website: www.kikkerland.com (Products > Windups > Awika!) The rubber foot itself is about half a centimeter long in real life. That shot was not cropped or post processed in any way.

[burgerdude]

Here's one from the backyard, about 6 feet away.http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e197/burgherdude/Backyard/IMG_1369.jpg

[balian67]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3546/3474026504_ec8a744906_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3518591926_55346d613e_b.jpg

[jameschen]

Fantastic thread, enjoying it very much. Lots of fine examples and good write up on the meaning of bokeh here, keeps me coming back for more.
Here's one to share, lunch today at local korean restuarant;

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/3578021718_fc9f010163_o.jpg

[Salma]

A couple from the Sigma 24-60.

1DMKII, 52mm, f/5.6, 1/1250, ISO 100
http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/113060320/original.jpg

1DMKII, 60mm, f/5, 1/1000, ISO 100
http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/113060321/original.jpg
Awesome photography :D
With my Carl Zeiss 50mm

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2473/3576377159_33feff5b52_b.jpg

100mm Macro

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3197/3577185436_57318c1ebd_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3557/3573878656_bf1c9598d9_b.jpg

Here's one from the backyard, about 6 feet away.http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e197/burgherdude/Backyard/IMG_1369.jpg
Great photos guys :D

[Candor]

One from earlier today.

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee117/mdavies_01/IMG_2931.jpg

[kandyredcoi]

love the water drop picture

from today with the 5d2 and the "dust pump"
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/fluxmr2spyder/100-400mm%20L/IMG_8106.jpg

[airfrogusmc]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_9609.jpg

[luvsadog2]

Playing with the 100mm f/2.8

[Cl!ckFoto]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3664/3573729832_620375469d_b.jpg

[The Fox]

Taken with the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro, wide open.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2128/3534138064_e25519cc03_o.jpg
That is the best example of Bokeh that I have seen in a while. What is it?

Here is one of mine.

http://fc06.deviantart.com/fs45/f/2009/148/e/3/Sex_by_Thy_Fox.jpg
Mamiya RB67
90mm F3.8
1/250th @ F3.8
Ilford Delta 100ISO

Nick

[amd is the best]

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6120/spoon.jpg

[Switchfoot004]

http://http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3406/3332972202_27786e4f3e_b.jpg
Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel
Exposure: 1/40
Aperture: f/4.0
ISO Speed: 100

=[ someone help me embed. i searched but it doesn't seem to let me upload from flickr

[izthistaken]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/17293144@N06/3332972202/sizes/l/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3406/3332972202_27786e4f3e_b.jpg

Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel
Exposure: 1/40
Aperture: f/4.0
ISO Speed: 100

=[ someone help me embed. i searched but it doesn't seem to let me upload from flickr
If you're using firefox, right click on the picture and hit 'copy image location' then come here and hit the ^yellow box where you get paste into here tags.

If using explorer right click picture: properties: then copy the URL, then paste in between tags.

[mehran.mo]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3664/3573729832_620375469d_b.jpg

sweet! What lens is this?

[Cl!ckFoto]

5D w/ canon 100/2 @ f2

[hlaricca]

Here is some more fun with extension tubes (XTi + 70-200 f/4 L USM + full 68mm of extension tubes):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/3582026976_2b9fa5ab24_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/laricca/3582026976/)

Mod Edit: Image too large, converted to link.

[mehran.mo]

5D w/ Helios 44-2 58mm f2

http://fc09.deviantart.com/fs49/f/2009/151/b/8/b89ea9da4b5702de5d78b4b50122ef7f.jpg

[Jman13]

Quick bokeh example from my Zeiss 85 f/1.4 Planar @ f/1.4:

http://www.jordansteele.com/forumlinks/pinecone.jpg

[85lesabre]

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii82/scsuperfan/_D7E0811-2.jpg

[heishiro]

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj298/heishiro_PPC/bees.jpg

[stepineden]

got to play today! Using the 70-200/2.8

[stepineden]

The bees were harvesting big time

[shooter mcgavin]

not smooth, but still neat.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/2829413965_ed3d828dab.jpg

[stepineden]

Shooter, posted this in the 5d2 thread the otherday. Think it is smooth and neat. I'd say yours was edgy and cool, in a neat sort a way:)

[AgeP]

The bees were harvesting big time

That's bokeh!

[mikeivan]

Have been tuning up some old gems. This is from a while back, showing the 400DO "funky bokeh".

369984
I like it, YMMV, bokeh is some funny stuff.

[mehran.mo]

Stitch of 40 pictures with the 100mm f2.8 macro

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4329/96862731.jpg

[ed.]

Here's mine :)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2434/3581690940_231a6240b4_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3297/3501092578_efbb6c1602_b.jpg

[Louis Abate]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2474/3568558942_38f9330d9b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/louisabate/3568558942/)

[SeattleSpeedster]

more 85L

http://www.vispoint.com/album/Spring%20Flowers%20II/slides/_MG_2623.jpg

[mehran.mo]

This one is made up of 147 pics with the 100mm f2.8

http://fc06.deviantart.com/fs48/f/2009/153/0/5/057b3f6072cbc43d698e69769b5ced9d.jpg

[X-Warrior]

Stitch of 40 pictures with the 100mm f2.8 macro

This one is made up of 147 pics with the 100mm f2.8

Okay... but why ? Can't you just get these with one shot ?
Or did you shoot them 1:1 and actually have them in ultra-mega-harddiskfull-size ?

[mehran.mo]

well... in my case, I cannot get them with one shot, impossible to get that DOF with 100mm f2.8 lens.

The first one is equivalent of 50mm f1.2ish.(FF)
Second one is equivalent of something like a 28mm f1.2ish.(FF)

If you are very patient you can get effects of 12mm f/0.7 (FF) if you wanted.

[single_track]

Must be me because it certainly seems one could accomplish this with a single exposure. I am not sure what DOF characteristics could not be acheived with a single exposure. I guess the FOV is limiting with a single exposure but 40 and 147, WOW.

[mehran.mo]

This is more about the DOF effect than the FOV. It's a technique used to get very thin DOF with a wide FOV using a tele lens.