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 Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
Thread started 20 Aug 2005 (Saturday) 05:58
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Bokeh -post your best pls (Part 2)

 
idsurfer
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,955 posts
Gallery: 90 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 3008
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Boise, Idaho
     
Aug 17, 2013 23:12 |  #3241

THese threads are really just dump yards. Yes, there are some really nice shots, but I really don't think many people here actually understand the true meaning of the word "bokeh". Bokeh does not equal the area within the frame that is out of focus relative to the subject that is in focus. Bokeh is the "quality" of the OOF area. Blur is just blur...if it is interesting and visually apealling, than it could be said to have good "bokeh". Bokeh is subjective.

For reference...
https://photography-on-the.net …p=16198392&post​count=3207


Cory
Sony ⍺6400 | Sigma 56/1.4 | Sony/Zeiss E 24/1.8 | Samyang 12/2
flickr (external link)
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
The ­ F ­ stops ­ here
Goldmember
Avatar
2,061 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Sep 2012
Location: San Jose, Ca
     
Aug 17, 2013 23:58 |  #3242

^^This is what i was getting at, there was some slight sarcasm in my post i admit, but i've always felt that "bokeh" referred to a specific style of shooting. I get that everyone may perceive it slightly different, I posted some images a few pages back that i felt followed the "bokeh style" but then all the pics being posted started confusing that idea :confused:


JD
Talent will get you far, but not as far as ambition
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/lenzfreak/ (external link)
Smugmug-primefocus.smugmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigLobowski
Goldmember
Avatar
2,394 posts
Gallery: 188 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 1297
Joined Sep 2012
Location: BC, Canada
     
Aug 18, 2013 02:20 |  #3243

The F stops here wrote in post #16217534 (external link)
^^This is what i was getting at, there was some slight sarcasm in my post i admit, but i've always felt that "bokeh" referred to a specific style of shooting. I get that everyone may perceive it slightly different, I posted some images a few pages back that i felt followed the "bokeh style" but then all the pics being posted started confusing that idea :confused:

idsurfer wrote in post #16217438 (external link)
THese threads are really just dump yards. Yes, there are some really nice shots, but I really don't think many people here actually understand the true meaning of the word "bokeh". Bokeh does not equal the area within the frame that is out of focus relative to the subject that is in focus. Bokeh is the "quality" of the OOF area. Blur is just blur...if it is interesting and visually apealling, than it could be said to have good "bokeh". Bokeh is subjective.

For reference...
https://photography-on-the.net …p=16198392&post​count=3207

Like a lot of things related to photography - and anything artistic in general - is that it's subjective. I think what really gets overlooked - is the thread title. I know every shot here isn't going to be Life Magazine cover shots, but people really need to ask themselves - "is what I'm posting, currently my best?"


- Ken
Gear List | Facebookexternal link | Flickrexternal link | 500pxexternal link | FeedBack |
GreyStoke Photographyexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dexter500
Senior Member
Avatar
357 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 62
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bosnia and Herzegovina
     
Aug 18, 2013 04:35 |  #3244

IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3732/9531460230_b749cdf570_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zllaja/95314602​30/  (external link)
Old man (external link) by zlatan_lipljanac (external link), on Flickr

https://www.facebook.c​om/zlatan.photo (external link)
http://500px.com/zllaj​a (external link)
https://www.instagram.​com/nature_by_zlatan (external link)
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zllaja/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snowyman
Goldmember
Avatar
3,738 posts
Gallery: 255 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1842
Joined Oct 2011
     
Aug 18, 2013 04:54 |  #3245

IMAGE: http://th06.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2012/178/1/2/my_green_heaven_by_snomanda-d552smb.jpg

IMAGE: http://th02.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2012/061/9/7/7_spot_ladybird_xxxi_by_snomanda-d4rh2er.jpg

Snowy's Gear
Deviant Art (external link)
Flickr (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idsurfer
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,955 posts
Gallery: 90 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 3008
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Boise, Idaho
     
Aug 18, 2013 09:26 as a reply to  @ Snowyman's post |  #3246

The F stops here wrote in post #16217534 (external link)
^^This is what i was getting at, there was some slight sarcasm in my post i admit, but i've always felt that "bokeh" referred to a specific style of shooting. I get that everyone may perceive it slightly different, I posted some images a few pages back that i felt followed the "bokeh style" but then all the pics being posted started confusing that idea :confused:

I totally got what you were saying and picked up on your sarcasm, I just continued the thought with my post. IMO, you are right on. Indeed, this is very subjective, what is appealing to one individual is not necessarily appealing to the next. But, the actual definition on the word "Bokeh" in not subjective. It has a very specific meaning and the meaning is not "blur". Blur is just blur. Just like the two shots above this post, while very nice marco shots, I really don't think there is any bokeh to speak of. The subjects are in focus and the background has been obliterated in to a blur. And yes, a very nice bokeh shot would probably take the foreground and background into consideration, toss them slightly out of focus, using that OOF area in an visually appealing and creative way, all the while framing the subject nicely and giving it a nice pop.


Cory
Sony ⍺6400 | Sigma 56/1.4 | Sony/Zeiss E 24/1.8 | Samyang 12/2
flickr (external link)
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snowyman
Goldmember
Avatar
3,738 posts
Gallery: 255 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1842
Joined Oct 2011
     
Aug 18, 2013 15:50 |  #3247

IMAGE: http://th08.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2013/230/9/9/img_6393_1_by_snomanda-d6ipmok.jpg

Snowy's Gear
Deviant Art (external link)
Flickr (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pkilla
Goldmember
Avatar
2,943 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Boston
     
Aug 18, 2013 16:48 |  #3248

IMAGE: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2866/9539574073_988db391ed_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/pkilla617/95395​74073/  (external link)
late night faded! (external link) by PJC Photography (external link), on Flickr

T3i griped - rokinon 8mm/rokinon 35 1.4/rokinon 85mm 1.4/
sigma 17-50/nikon 50mm 1.2 ai-s/nikon 28mm ai-s 2.8/
helios 40-2/helios 44-2/mir 1b 37mm 2.8/supertak 135/
trioplan/http://www.flickr.com/​photos/pkilla617/ (external link)
CHECK OUT MY BLOG PICS http://pkilla61.blogsp​ot.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
guitarjeff
Senior Member
671 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 19, 2013 08:10 |  #3249

idsurfer wrote in post #16217438 (external link)
THese threads are really just dump yards. Yes, there are some really nice shots, but I really don't think many people here actually understand the true meaning of the word "bokeh". Bokeh does not equal the area within the frame that is out of focus relative to the subject that is in focus. Bokeh is the "quality" of the OOF area. Blur is just blur...if it is interesting and visually apealling, than it could be said to have good "bokeh". Bokeh is subjective.

For reference...
https://photography-on-the.net …p=16198392&post​count=3207

Who decides the quality? That definition isn't a definition if it doesn't explain in detail. I may find a blurred area to be appealing and to have quality where you might not. For me, the obvious definition should be technical, and so bokeh to me is ANY oof area that is oof because of depth of field. Whether it is appealing is a personal thing and can't be defined. 20 people could look at the same pic and half could decide it doesn't have the "QUALITY" to be called bokeh and the other half could decide it does. Who is right? A definition can't really be a definition unless it covers every instance with no confusion, I would think, anyway.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
guitarjeff
Senior Member
671 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 19, 2013 08:21 |  #3250

The F stops here;16217534]^^

This is what i was getting at, there was some slight sarcasm in my post i admit, but i've always felt that "bokeh" referred to a specific style of shooting.

But here you should add what that style is. I am seeing some hints at what it isn't, yet no explanations on what it is. The style of shooting to me should mean the oof area due to depth of field. I wouldn't want the word limited to anything less than that because it would restrict the possibilities to me.

I get that everyone may perceive it slightly different, I posted some images a few pages back that i felt followed the "bokeh style" but then all the pics being posted started confusing that idea :confused

And this shows me that if there is confusion it is probably occurring just BECAUSE some folks want to cloud the issue with various, personal views instead of having a concise definition. A concise definition is any OOF area due to depth of field. Whether someone actually likes someone Else's oof area is in their own personal mind and should not have anything to do with the concise definition we should all have.

I'll go on and just GIVE THE ORDER for the definition to be
Bokeh--Any out of focus area in the frame that is due to the depth of field of a lens when it is focused on another part of the frame, even on just different parts of the same subject. To me, that's concise and doesn't depend on personal opinion.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
guitarjeff
Senior Member
671 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 19, 2013 08:41 |  #3251

idsurfer;16218171]

this is very subjective, what is appealing to one individual is not necessarily appealing to the next. But, the actual definition on the word "Bokeh" in not subjective.

it shouldn't be subjective. A proper definition should cover every instance or it isn't a definition at all.

It has a very specific meaning and the meaning is not "blur". Blur is just blur.

Says who? You?

Just like the two shots above this post, while very nice marco shots, I really don't think there is any bokeh to speak of.

You don't "THINK" there is any to speak of? And this is a concise definition? If there is a blurred area due to depth of field, to me, that's bokeh,and I say mine definition IS CONCISE. You appear to be trying to use your own personal likes as a definition of bokeh, which doesn't work for me. The macro shot has bokeh because it is focusing in the foreground and the depth of field "OBLITERATES" the background, I find that area interesting and I enjoy looking at it, that's bokeh to me. If it isn't to you, then that's opinion, not a definition. I might agree with your definition if you will give me one that IS ALWAYS definite and not subject to interpretation. In other words, how can we have a definition that is NOT DEFINITE?

The subjects are in focus and the background has been obliterated in to a blur.

And the blur to me is interesting to look at, so it's bokeh. It is oof because of the depth of field and he had EVERY intention to make it that way as part of the frame. My definition calls this bokeh, and mine is concise and will always be definable in a picture, no confusion ever.

And yes, a very nice bokeh shot would probably take the foreground and background into consideration, toss them slightly out of focus, using that OOF area in an visually appealing and creative way, all the while framing the subject nicely and giving it a nice pop.

Who decides whether it is in a "Nice way" or what is "Visually appealing"? No such thing as a definition that is not definite. If it isn't definite, it isn't a definition.
Bokeh is any oof area due to depth of field. If the photographer uses that dof knowing part of the frame will be oof, then he is taking a shot with bokeh in it, period. Whether someone finds that "Bokeh" to be appealing to them personally is up to them, but they don't get to decide whether it is actually bokeh or not. You don't get to decide that that macro shot above is NOT bokeh. I say it is, and it's up to me whether I LIKE the shot, same for you, but NOT up to you to decide it isn't bokeh unless you can give us a DEFINITE definition that can be used in all instances to clearly define what it is, and then we can all agree to it if it makes sense.

So the definition that I put forward, that can always be used is Bokeh--any oof area due to depth of field. Whether the photog wants to make a statement with it or not, whether someone likes it or not. My definition is, well, definite.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
guitarjeff
Senior Member
671 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 19, 2013 09:10 |  #3252

BigLobowski wrote in post #16217719 (external link)
Like a lot of things related to photography - and anything artistic in general - is that it's subjective. I think what really gets overlooked - is the thread title. I know every shot here isn't going to be Life Magazine cover shots, but people really need to ask themselves - "is what I'm posting, currently my best?"

But what if someone lies and says it is their best when they really think it is their second best, and what if you love their second best as if it is the best bokeh shot you have ever seen? What I am showing you is that the word best in this discussion really doesn't mean anything. My 4th best might be the best you ever saw, or my favorite might be the worst you ever saw.

I am seeing a lot of concepts that are simply opinions being offered as real definitions. What possible meaning could the words "best" have if what I think is my best may be horrible to you, or what I consider my worst may be stunning to you? This shows that what I think is my best is basically meaningless.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idsurfer
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,955 posts
Gallery: 90 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 3008
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Boise, Idaho
     
Aug 19, 2013 10:16 |  #3253

Well Jeff, you are right, it is all very very subjective and at this point it is just a matter of semantics. This is why in my original post on the subject I said I wasn't going to open this can of worms, but it looks as if have. Sure, any burred out area of a photo due to shallow Dof and not due to a miss focus could indeed possess to some degree a level of bokeh, if an individual finds it to be visually appealing. However, another way for me to describe how I see it is this way....if you were to take the same shot with the same camera with the same settings (aperture wide of course) with two different lenses (same FL...say 85mm), the stage would be set for a debate over which had a higher quality or pleasing area of OOF/blur. To me, this is the heart of the meaning of the word bokeh...the quality of the oof area due to shallow Dof. Again, you are right, this is very very subjective. But, I still do not agree that "blur = bokeh". That is too cut and dry, it is a much more abstract concept than that.

Now, I am leaving to go camping right now for a few days. I hope to have some nice blurry photos to share when I come back. :D Cheers!


Cory
Sony ⍺6400 | Sigma 56/1.4 | Sony/Zeiss E 24/1.8 | Samyang 12/2
flickr (external link)
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
guitarjeff
Senior Member
671 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 19, 2013 10:31 |  #3254

And this appears to agree with me. It says "Of the oof areas". "Visual quality" is up for interpretation. OOF areas is NOT up for interpretation. OOF areas are OOF areas, period. When we discuss what "visual qualities" that oof area has that's the personal opinion part. "Visual quality" is NOT a definable THING. I think the definition is the same as mine. The oof areas ARE BOKEY, just like in the macro shot, and the meaning of that is to then DECIDE if the visual quality is to your LIKING!! But clearly the oof area is bokeh, simple as that and this definition says the same thing i am saying. It doesn't tell you a certain KIND of oof area, it just says oof area. It doesn't say that oof area that is completely destroyed as in the macro shot is NOT bokeh, in fact, it says it IS bokeh in that shot.

The mere fact that I could ask a dozen questions about that shot shows that it's better to consider ANY oof area as bokeh.

For instance, if you say the destroyed blur is NOT bokeh, then I ask, well what if there was a the shape if a stick in the blur that you can make out as a stick, but completely unintended by the photog, yet someone finds that stick appealing? What about color? many times I am moved by the color of an oof area, so are you saying that if it's just blur, that even if I am moved by the color of it and it's appealing that it still isn't bokeh? We could micro-analyze this forever.

So bokeh SHOULD (and now does because I am now making it clear to everyone) mean any oof area due to depth of field, even if the photog had no care about that area, that doesn't mean I can't find something I like about that area, like the color or a blurry stick that I can make the shape out. In other words, it's up to me whether I find something in the blurred area that appeals to me, so we can't use a definition that ISN'T DEFINITE. If it isn't definite, it isn't a definition.

But I do agree with the definition you posted the way I perceive what it says, an oof area. That definition is NEVER up for interpretation or confusion. Any oof area in frame due to depth of field is BOKEH, and that is a real definition that needs no confusion or value judgments. You can like or not like it if it appeals to you or doesn't. The macro shot has bokeh and I like that bokeh, for whatever reason. You don't, but the fact you don't doesn't mean it's NOT bokeh. You just don't LIKE the bokeh and it doesn't move you for whatever reason.

idsurfer wrote in post #16198392 (external link)
It's not just OOF or Blur...

Definition of bokeh in English
bokeh
Syllabification: (bo·keh)
Pronunciation: /bōˈkā/
noun
Photography
the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens:a quick, visual survey of the foreground and background bokeh of a variety of lenses


Origin:
from Japanese

Oxford Dictionary (American English). 2013. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://oxforddictionar​ies.com …on/american_eng​lish/bokeh (external link) .




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
guitarjeff
Senior Member
671 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 19, 2013 10:54 |  #3255

idsurfer;16221145]

Well Jeff, you are right, it is all very very subjective and at this point it is just a matter of semantics.

And that's why there should be a REAL definition that leaves no room for subjectivity. The subjectivity part IS IN THE REALM of opinion, that can't be a definition or you will have everyone arguing about what it means.

Sure, any burred out area of a photo due to shallow Dof and not due to a miss focus could indeed possess to some degree a level of bokeh, 

"Some degree of bokeh"? See what I mean? What if you say it only has a small degree and I say it is the most moving blurred area due to depth of field I have ever seen? The point is, it's not for me or you to say what SOME DEGREE is.

if an individual finds it to be visually appealing. However, another way for me to describe how I see it is this way....if you were to take the same shot with the same camera with the same settings (aperture wide of course) with two different lenses (same FL...say 85mm), the stage would be set for a debate over which had a higher quality or pleasing area of OOF/blur.

The debate would be SUBJECTIVE, which cannot be used as a DEFINITION. A definition needs to be DEFINITE!! We would be debating which of the two BOKEH SHOTS was more appealing, that's not the same as saying one IS BOKEH and the other IS NOT bokeh. That's a completely different thing. This would not be a real definition of bokeh.

To me, this is the heart of the meaning of the word bokeh...the quality of the oof area due to shallow Dof. 

That is not the meaning. The "QUALITY" can be debated, but that doesn't mean that the blur area of either lens is NOT bokeh, it just means that YOU MAY PREFER one over the other. My definition is a real definition that is NOT up for interpretation, and that is required for a definition to be definite.

Again, you are right, this is very very subjective. But, I still do not agree that "blur = bokeh".

Then after saying this you should be able to give me a REAL definition of what it is, yet every time you attempt to explain it you describe VALUE judgements that others might not agree with.

That is too cut and dry, it is a much more abstract concept than that. 

A definition is never abstract. Whether you personally find it appealing is abstract, and that should be in the realm of opinion. A definition needs to be cut and dried, then within that cut and dried definition we can discuss whether a bokeh shot holds any appeal to you or me. So any oof area due to dof is bokeh, that's easily definable, cut and dried, very clear and understandable, always the same for EVERY photog in every situation, it's a definition everyone can be equal in and then we discuss the value of that bokeh and whether it moves us or not.

Now, I am leaving to go camping right now for a few days. I hope to have some nice blurry photos to share when I come back. :D Cheers![/QUOTE]

And I may find them the best bokeh shots I have ever seen, you may find them very LOW on your list of your best. If we both agree that the oof areas are bokeh, then we are on equal footing with a clear definition, then we can discuss how much I love your bokeh shots and why.

Wow, camping, my goodness, I haven't been camping in years. Darn, I want to go and take my 5D2. That makes me want to just get my family together and just say, WE ARE GOING CAMPING DARNIT!!!

Really, we love photography, enjoy your camping my friend, wish I could go.



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

1,473,798 views & 3,471 likes for this thread
Bokeh -post your best pls (Part 2)
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
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 dayuan99
864 guests, 324 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.