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?

 
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
May 08, 2011 17:01 |  #76

Bang Bang Boy wrote in post #12371396 (external link)
I don't think this shot would have been the same with less bokeh. It works in some shots, doesn't work in others.

Bokeh : Definition: a Japanese term for the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of a photographic image


After a little PP:

I don't think this shot would have been the same with less blur (more in focus) (i.e. greater DoF). Shallow DoF works in some shots, doesn't work in others.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Indecent ­ Exposure
Goldmember
Avatar
3,402 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
     
May 08, 2011 17:10 |  #77

:lol:

History and the fluidity of language are not on your side, my friend.


- 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 17:13 |  #78

Yup. When enough of them are wrong they're right!


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 17:13 |  #79

Too true.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bang ­ Bang ­ Boy
Goldmember
Avatar
1,347 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: South Africa
     
May 08, 2011 18:40 |  #80

Haha, sorry guys. Not my original language. I might screw up especially when I am tired and lazy.

If you wan't me to I can do it gramatically incorrect in three more languages?


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
icsDave
Junior Member
22 posts
Joined Jul 2005
     
May 08, 2011 22:30 as a reply to  @ Bang Bang Boy's post |  #81

This is very interesting :) Half of you are not understanding what the other half is saying.

For me bokeh is the feeling I get when looking at the oof area in front and behing the subject. In BBB's picture I dont like the bokeh, it is not smooth and pulls my attetion from the subject to the bad bokeh. In my view good bokeh, you have to look for it does not force itself on you, when you look past the subject then you can see it and it does not HURT your eyes. At least bad bokeh hurts my eyes :(

The canon 50mm 0.95 pics had some very bad bokeh, it really does hurt. The person taking the pics I think was making an art statement with the use of bad bokeh.

Dave


Dave Lee
:) 7D :) G1X :lol:
Canon 17-85, 40mm 2.8
Sigma 35mm 1.4 A DG HSM, 50mm 1.4 EX DG HSM, 24-70 2.8 EX DG HSM, 50-150 2.8 II EX DC HSM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,892 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2613
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 09, 2011 00:42 |  #82

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12371828 (external link)
:lol:

History and the fluidity of language are not on your side, my friend.

I do understand that commONality of usage of a term does change over time, so a word can acquire a new alternative definition eventually. Nevertheless, 'bokeh' has a very specific definition at present, even if newbies are starting to use it wrongly.

On the forum we attempt to have commonality of terms so that we all do not miscommunicate via one person meaning one thing while another person is using a totally different definition. So, when someone calls f/22 a 'large aperture', correction of that person is done so that they do not wrongly teach another newbie "Use a large aperture for maximum Depth of Field" simply because that is outright wrong. So why is there something wrong with letting someone know that similarly the misuse a term like 'boheh' ?!

You're a great gal, Indecent Exposure! -- 'gal' is the right term, isn't it? After all, you hear ladies address groups of ladies by 'you guys' so the term 'guy' and 'gal' must no longer have a connotation of gender, right? :confused::lol:


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonEOS
Senior Member
Avatar
700 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Going Home
     
May 09, 2011 01:07 |  #83
bannedPermanent ban

I can never understand why we need " bokeh" in pictures why don't you just take the main picture and just change the background in Photoshop I like all the picture to be in focus it's nice this way IMO.

Choderboy wrote in post #12366474 (external link)
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?

So if the human eyes can be fooled easy that explains why Canon,Nikon,Sony can fool us to beleve their cameras are 18 - 21.1MP? and are we to believe that the camera is better than the human eye, with a bokeh background!, the same for TV the moon landing was film in black & white. because it is easy to fool the eyes with only two colours!

So why are we force to see only Black text on white paper?

SkipD wrote in post #12365230 (external link)
Look carefully at ONE WORD on the screen in front of you. Stare at it while thinking about the surrounding words.

So your eyes are only focus on one Word what about the "surrounding" your eyes see wide not tunnel vision like cameras do, so you force your eye to see a Narrow Vision thorught one lens, but you look at the picture with two eyes? why not have just one eye than!

So why invent wide screen TVs, PC monitors wide screen laptop, and the IPad, if are eyes only see narrow Vision. or one focus.

george m w wrote in post #12365252 (external link)
True statement. Anybody that thinks they are able to focus on all subjects in the field of view, with the human eye, needs to do a little reading on how the human eye and vision works.

So when you are walking do you only use one eye?, so if you see a bus do you only focus on that one bus but don't see the cars when you cross the road? but most people can see with two eyes in wide vision so we force one eye to see all maybe you need to read on the human eye too.

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

The Bokeh don't mean is a good picture and some prople don't want blur backgrounds in their pictures, the term comes from the Japanese word boke (暈け or ボケ), so why change the name to 'Bokeh' in English? adding the 'h' letter. when we didn't invent it?


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DonSantos
Member
249 posts
Joined Jan 2011
     
May 09, 2011 01:32 as a reply to  @ CanonEOS's post |  #84

A little bg blur is very nice. Blurring to smithereens is unnatural looking.


On a different note. What do think about vignetting?


Current Gear: 5Dc | Canon 20-35mm | Canon 35mm 2.0 | 85mm 1.8 | 420EX
Previous Gear: 40d | 50d | Tokina 19-35mm | Sigma 30mm | Canon 50mm 1.4 | Canon 50mm 1.8 | 135L
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
apersson850
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,114 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 335
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Traryd, Sweden
     
May 09, 2011 01:58 |  #85

WRAG wrote in post #12358649 (external link)
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.

It's the other way around. Blurred background implies less depth of field, not more.

As I think some others have commented on, bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the amount. Different lenses are more or less good at creating pleasing blur.


Anders

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonEOS
Senior Member
Avatar
700 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Going Home
     
May 09, 2011 02:01 as a reply to  @ post 12366771 |  #86
bannedPermanent ban

In photography and optics, (from French "vignette", pronounced /vɪnˈjɛtɪŋ/) but in English we change it again to vignetting its a problem that often arises in the creation of panoramic photographs from many individual shots is vignetting. this is an optical defect of camera lenses vignetting is not much an issue in single photographs

DonSantos wrote in post #12374216 (external link)
A little bg blur is very nice. Blurring to smithereens is unnatural looking.
On a different note. What do think about vignetting?


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
melcat
Goldmember
1,122 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
May 09, 2011 02:49 |  #87

CanonEOS wrote in post #12374119 (external link)
...so if you see a bus do you only focus on that one bus but don't see the cars when you cross the road?

This is indeed an actual problem in road safety, and the reason why riding a motorcycle is dangerous. It's the visual cortex in the brain that is synthesizing the scene from the constantly changing feed of hi-res images from the foveon, and if the saccades are too slow it will actually synthesize a scene with missing objects. The careless driver who "didn't see the motorcyclist" really didn't - but we prosecute them because they should have paid more attention, i.e. used more frequent saccades.

There are also dedicated detectors for shapes and for moving shapes, and they work well at the periphery. It is an extremely complex system, and not analagous at all to a simple lens.

Even if it were, there's no reason in the world why photos should mimic it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alpha_1976
Goldmember
Avatar
3,960 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2009
Location: USA
     
May 09, 2011 07:34 |  #88

I am really surprised that some people don't like "bokeh" and background blur at all! I don't even know how it is possible but it is certainly good for your pocket.


I know more about gear than I know about photography :p
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,182 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5930
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
May 09, 2011 07:39 |  #89

Now this is taking blur just a bit too far! :) :lol:

But it shows how you can use it for some sort of creative effect.

IMAGE: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Still-Life/Macro-Magic/0V3J9756/646192382_9ogYY-XL.jpg

I can dig out my pics from a mirror lens if we want to see very disturbing bokeh. Yummy! :D

Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bang ­ Bang ­ Boy
Goldmember
Avatar
1,347 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: South Africa
     
May 09, 2011 08:48 |  #90

Bokeh is the OOF areas, not the quality of the OOF?

Atleast thats how I have been taught and thats how the talk goes between me and my photography friends. There is ofcourse good and bad bokeh, but it all comes down to what you like. I love a small DOF on my portraits as it gives me the ability to convey to the viewer where to look.


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)

23,818 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 Karammel
742 guests, 262 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.