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?

 
Stump
Senior Member
Avatar
772 posts
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Knoxville TN
     
May 07, 2011 13:14 |  #61

Yeah, it was definitely photoshopped. Look at the first subjects feet, blurred. But his shirt is in focus. Just sayin.


6D - 50 1.8 - 50 1.4 - 70-200F4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
May 07, 2011 15:33 |  #62

Ya, I noticed the feet but let it slide.


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
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
6,022 posts
Gallery: 122 photos
Likes: 4221
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
May 07, 2011 17:32 |  #63

CanonEOS wrote in post #12365056 (external link)
In fact the human eye can see more than A million Billion megagpixels in colours so why is the DSLR camera campanries holding back on the MP cameras today?

Our eyes can see 0fps, 24fps, 1200fps, 600fps or 1,000,000fps, but we are made to use only 30fps? in vdeo?.

The human brain is the most complex thing in existence (so far). It can make 100 trillion calculations per second,

The eye can see in practice, objects 0.04mm wide also human eye see about a a 160 degree wide

So you are telling me when you walk or drive your eyes only see one subject? No camera is better then a human eye.


What about a bazillion gazillion let's not get too carried awayillion?

However advanced you judge the human eye, it can also be fooled by somebody putting a pencil between their fingers - "look, a rubber pencil!"

What about the moon illusion? Fools the human eye but not a half megapixel camera?


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agiaco
Senior Member
Avatar
917 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 10
Joined May 2010
Location: Milwaukee, WI
     
May 07, 2011 17:54 |  #64

to each their own


Anthony
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cputeq007
Senior Member
Avatar
570 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Albuquerque, NM
     
May 07, 2011 18:00 |  #65

talk about a thread bomb! OP got 5 pages out of one post.


Flickr (external link)
I own camera stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Indecent ­ Exposure
Goldmember
Avatar
3,402 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
     
May 07, 2011 18:36 |  #66

Bokeh has come to mean blur. Old fogies are just gonna have to learn to deal.


- James -
www.feedthewant.com (external link)
500px (external link)
Gear List and Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lungdoc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,101 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
     
May 07, 2011 19:56 |  #67

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12366771 (external link)
Bokeh has come to mean blur. Old fogies are just gonna have to learn to deal.

So what term will we then use for the quality of the out of focus areas, young master of all language? I presume we'll need a new one.

Just because a number of people on a forum use a term incorrectly does not make that incorrect usage the standard. By the way although I am *gasp* about to turn 45 (and presumably an old fogey??) I only heard the term bokeh for the first time about 2006 when I got a DSLR, it is not an old term -- dates to circa 1997 per Wikipedia at least in English usage. Given that the word dates to the late 90's your statement about age is ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Bokeh (external link)


Mark
My Smugmug (external link) Eos 7D, Canon G1X II, Canon 15-85 IS, Canon 17-85 IS, Sigma 100-300 EX IF HSM, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 50-150 2.8, Sigma 1.4 EX DG , Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22, Canon 430EX,

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,511 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 280
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
May 07, 2011 20:01 |  #68

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?

Get UWA lens, set it to f8 or higher, prefous at something nearby and get close to our main object. Everything, more less, will be in focus.

Don't like blur background ? Well, it is natural. Same as our vision do. This is why I like to use shallow DoF for landscapes often. Represents how I see it naturally.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
May 08, 2011 13:46 |  #69

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12366771 (external link)
Bokeh has come to mean blur. Old fogies are just gonna have to learn to deal.

I expect you also spell "too loose" as "to lose"? :D

Even dictionary.com (external link) knows about this word :D

Main Entry: bokeh
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a Japanese term for the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of a photographic image
Example: The bokeh, or quality of the blurred image in the photograph, was described and discussed.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Indecent ­ Exposure
Goldmember
Avatar
3,402 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
     
May 08, 2011 13:47 |  #70

Sorry, I don't make the rules. I'm just reporting them. Don't shoot the messenger. But if you do shoot the messenger, make sure the pic has tons of bokeh.


- James -
www.feedthewant.com (external link)
500px (external link)
Gear List and Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
May 08, 2011 13:50 |  #71

All you are reporting is a few folks who broke the rules :D:D


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Indecent ­ Exposure
Goldmember
Avatar
3,402 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
     
May 08, 2011 13:52 |  #72

;)

3


- James -
www.feedthewant.com (external link)
500px (external link)
Gear List and Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Indecent ­ Exposure
Goldmember
Avatar
3,402 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
     
May 08, 2011 14:03 |  #73

As much fun as it is to have the debate on the changing definition of the term bokeh with the proprietors of the English language, another point of the conversation seems like it could use a little clearing up. Some have said that blurring backgrounds and leaving the subject in focus best approximates how the human eye perceives the world. Are we sure this is true? Wouldn't an effect more similar to what a Lensbaby does be more in line with how we actually perceive the world? The actual point of focus and attention of the human eye seems to be very small, and it certainly doesn't seem to follow DoF rules.


- James -
www.feedthewant.com (external link)
500px (external link)
Gear List and Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
May 08, 2011 14:26 |  #74

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12370960 (external link)
As much fun as it is to have the debate on the changing definition of the term bokeh with the proprietors of the English language, another point of the conversation seems like it could use a little clearing up. Some have said that blurring backgrounds and leaving the subject in focus best approximates how the human eye perceives the world. Are we sure this is true? Wouldn't an effect more similar to what a Lensbaby does be more in line with how we actually perceive the world? The actual point of focus and attention of the human eye seems to be very small, and it certainly doesn't seem to follow DoF rules.

Good points.

It's definitely not as simple as describing the optical features of lenses and formulas for DoF, without regard to how the information is processed by the lens, iris, retina, optic nerve and brain together.

The brain does not get a separate signal from each rod or cone in the retina, there is a substantial amount of processing that the retina and its nerve layers do before any information goes down the optic nerve to the brain. In some ways it seems to be akin to mpeg processing - watch the road in front of you after stopping on the freeway after a stint of high speed driving : the road seems to recede from you for a few seconds - the eye has "adapted" to the constant motion of incoming objects in the field of vision and that becomes the new "baseline" ; then you stop and it's the wrong baseline and it makes stationary objects seem to move away from you.

Where we expect things to be in focus is also affected by how our eyes converge to a point and other things are not as well perceived, so we actually don't really know how well they are focused. All the "DoF in a photograph" discussions should be around looking at a print and assessing how sharp something appears and how the sharpness is lost when it gets blurred in different ways by being out of focus (by different lenses with different bokeh :D)


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bang ­ Bang ­ Boy
Goldmember
Avatar
1,347 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: South Africa
     
May 08, 2011 15:45 |  #75

I don't think this shot would have been the same with less bokeh. It works in some shots, doesn't work in others.

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

Lots of old stuff but hey I am a student
Photojournalist in Johannesburg.

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

23,809 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 KopiLuwak
1017 guests, 263 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.