Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 06 May 2011 (Friday) 09:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Am I the only one that does not like Bokeh?

 
ilguercio
Member
204 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Southern Italy
     
May 06, 2011 15:44 as a reply to  @ post 12359351 |  #31

"Bokeh" doesn't mean "blur".
The blur is nice as it highlights the subject especially if the frame is busy with other things.
Our brain does not blur anything unless the object is very close to our eyes.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Copidosoma
Goldmember
1,017 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 69
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton AB, Canada
     
May 06, 2011 16:48 |  #32

WRAG wrote in post #12358649 (external link)
I have just started to try and take more advanced photos and been researching and learning a lot over the past few weeks. I have learned that photos with a blurred background, more DOF are considered better than photos where the entire scene is focused, at least for sports and portraits. Not so much for landscapes.

Am I the only one that does not think a blurred background is pleasing, in any setting? In my sports photos, I like to see the faces of the other people in the crowd, the other kids on the field etc. I think it adds to the excitment of the game. I do not like to have the main subject in focus and everything behind him blurry so you cannot even tell what is in the background. Maybe I will come around to appreciate the better quality of blurred background as I know the majority think it is better, but I just don't get it.

Anyone else had this thought when they first got into photos and then learned to appreciate the blurred backgrounds?

Personally, I think this photo:

IMAGE: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2242/2038435044_cb40a38e0e.jpg

wouldn't be as good if all of the vegetation in the background was in focus. So, I have to disagree. Blurry backgrounds have a place and look good in many cases.

Gear: 7DII | 6D | Fuji X100s |Sigma 24A, 50A, 150-600C |24-105L |Samyang 14 2.8|Tamron 90mm f2.8 |and some other stuff
http://www.shutterstoc​k.com/g/copidosoma (external link)
https://500px.com/chri​s_kolaczan (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
erinavery
Senior Member
Avatar
452 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
May 06, 2011 16:53 |  #33

tkadrum wrote in post #12358686 (external link)
I can give you an example of Bokeh.
Unfortunately, he uses Alien Skin Bokeh 2 software to recreate the effect.
But as you can see the diff. from the two. I personally like the Bokeh effect (imo)
http://rod.inception-imaging.com …wc6/0/XL/i-4T3wwc6-XL.jpg (external link)

nice example tho..

i love it when the background adds nothing or takes away from the subject...but if the background is part of the story obviously you'd want it shown.

i do portraits so for me it's great.


FACEBOOK (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
harcosparky
Goldmember
2,425 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 55
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Harford County - ( Bel Air ) Maryland
     
May 06, 2011 16:57 |  #34

Personally I think 'bokeh' is overrated, overused word.

Really, I mean you see conversations about " pleasing bokeh ".

What's so pleasing about something being " out of focus ".

When I look at an image, I am looking for a story .... the story is what's in focus.

If the entire image is in focus, it should be a landscape or the object of the story should be in the center of the image. Otherwise the story gets lost.

That's just my opinion.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,323 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 459
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
     
May 06, 2011 16:59 as a reply to  @ post 12358726 |  #35

^ Couldn't have said it better myself. A skilled photographer will decide beforehand what goal he or she has for the shot. If there's any cardinal rule about anything in life, it's that slavish adherence to a concept, like bokeh, limits one's horizons. The only reason for learning the "rules" in order to know when to break them. There are many ways to isolate a subject besides bokeh. And, as others have said, sometimes you choose not to, for example, if you want to establish a sense of place.

When I hear somebody get all glowy about bokeh, I have in my mind the same thought that I get when someone tells me that a movie had great special effects. It generally means that there's little else remarkable about it.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
erinavery
Senior Member
Avatar
452 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
May 06, 2011 17:04 |  #36

a hint of something can often be much more visually pleasing tho for some...its just one of many ways a photographer can choose to affect the feeling of the image.


FACEBOOK (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stax
Senior Member
Avatar
731 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Oakland
     
May 06, 2011 17:09 |  #37

DOF controll is just another tool in the box. Whether you need to use that tool is another matter.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/staxnet/ (external link)

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=865770

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
May 06, 2011 19:38 |  #38

harcosparky wrote in post #12361177 (external link)
Personally I think 'bokeh' is overrated, overused word.

Really, I mean you see conversations about " pleasing bokeh ".

What's so pleasing about something being " out of focus ".

When I look at an image, I am looking for a story .... the story is what's in focus.

If the entire image is in focus, it should be a landscape or the object of the story should be in the center of the image. Otherwise the story gets lost.

That's just my opinion.

It's certainly one of the least understood words for many photographers. Here' a good link (external link) to learn about bokeh.
You can have two lenses of the same focal length set to the same aperture and take a picture from a fixed spot with shallow DoF : the same areas will be out of focus in both images but they will look different - the quality of the OOF areas can be described as pleasing or neutral or harsh etc. It's a subjective evaluation of how the blur is rendered not a description of the amount that is out of focus or how much it is out of focus. Liking or disliking images that have some parts out of focus is a completely separate issue!


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
oyster_photos
Member
156 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: canada
     
May 06, 2011 20:24 |  #39

joedlh wrote in post #12361186 (external link)
^ Couldn't have said it better myself. A skilled photographer will decide beforehand what goal he or she has for the shot. If there's any cardinal rule about anything in life, it's that slavish adherence to a concept, like bokeh, limits one's horizons. The only reason for learning the "rules" in order to know when to break them. There are many ways to isolate a subject besides bokeh. And, as others have said, sometimes you choose not to, for example, if you want to establish a sense of place.

When I hear somebody get all glowy about bokeh, I have in my mind the same thought that I get when someone tells me that a movie had great special effects. It generally means that there's little else remarkable about it.

...but what if the photographer's goal is slavish adherence to a concept (bokeh)? Does that limit one's horizons? lol jk :lol:


Gear: Camera Lens Light Trigger Tripod Bag Computer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
May 06, 2011 21:01 |  #40

oyster_photos wrote in post #12362068 (external link)
...but what if the photographer's goal is slavish adherence to a concept (bokeh)? Does that limit one's horizons? lol jk :lol:

But if some of the image is out of focus, wouldn't you want that part to be pleasing and not distracting from the "subject" (aka the part that is in focus)?. Ugly OOF areas can be distracting. Wanting the bokeh to be nice is not the same as not/wanting to have stuff out of focus.

Always wanting to have something out of focus, or to have a narrow depth of field, is not the same concept as "wanting bokeh" all the time.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkadrum
Goldmember
Avatar
2,300 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 216
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Outdoors/Indoor
     
May 06, 2011 21:11 |  #41

I have here a photo that I cropped for viewing.
I didn't want the surrounding to be in focus, because I was trying to capture the people in the center.
What do you think of this?

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Yes, you can call me Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
icopus
"the creep following them around taking pictures"
Avatar
2,859 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 899
Joined Dec 2010
Location: In the shadows of Houston
     
May 06, 2011 21:24 as a reply to  @ post 12359351 |  #42

That's a great shot, tkadrum! Beautiful example of excellent DOF for a desirable effect! It appears you got the focus beginning at the people in the center and carried to the background. Well done!

There are pictures that benefit from the amount or lack of DOF. It's the mindset that it's required that upsets me.

RE: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1013930

I almost but 'IMHO', but decided against it. As an average person who admires photography, my opinion is valid and will therefore no longer be defended except on the before mentioned grounds.


It's my life and I'll get pissed if I want to.
"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar." - E.R. Murrow

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
May 06, 2011 21:28 |  #43

tkadrum wrote in post #12362276 (external link)
I have here a photo that I cropped for viewing.
I didn't want the surrounding to be in focus, because I was trying to capture the people in the center.
What do you think of this?

The image needs to be leveled and, in this case, the first "frame" needs to be centered in the frame horizontally. That still will leave a "flaw" since you weren't standing directly in the center of the "frame".

Well, you asked ;-)a


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Photon ­ Phil
Goldmember
Avatar
1,763 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Capturing Photons in Wisconsin
     
May 06, 2011 21:30 |  #44

This DOF is like B&W to me, it's really just a creative option. And a very powerful one. You know there are some artists who shoot B&W exclusively. And do we say, "Darn, he'd be much better if he tried a new thing called color!"....perhaps we do. I'd argue that it's healthy to overdo a good thing sometimes. Haven't we all? (Chocolate, sleeping, hugs)


Bodies: SONY A850 / Pentax K100D / D70 (18-55VR, 55-200)
Primes: Minolta 28 ff2.8 / Minolta 50 f1.7 / Minolta 50 f2.8 Macro
Zooms: 35-70 f4 / 100-200 f4.5 Lights: AB800 / AB400 & CSRB's
Classics:
Pentax Super Tak 50 f1.4 / Pentax SMC 50 f1.4,f1.7,f2.0

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkadrum
Goldmember
Avatar
2,300 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 216
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Outdoors/Indoor
     
May 06, 2011 21:30 |  #45

bohdank wrote in post #12362347 (external link)
The image needs to be leveled and, in this case, the first "frame" needs to be centered in the frame horizontally.

Well, you asked ;-)a

Yes I did, and you are right about the horizontal.


Yes, you can call me Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

23,810 views & 0 likes for this thread
Am I the only one that does not like Bokeh?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is lf_alex
1103 guests, 325 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.