Bokeh -post your best pls (Part 2)

5D3 with 135L at F2, pictures of my daughter yesterday taken in our front yard

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rzJF​8b

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/sf7L​5Y

1DMKII + 135 f2L + 20mm Kenko Tube

I like this one. Not the easiest to get this kind of bokeh on a moving 2 year old with 24mm f/2.8 lens on a aps-c sensor

Does this qualify? Still trying to understand bokeh. Besides, I HAD to post this spider somewhere.

"The only real purpose a love bug has."

I see these all over the place. I live on a wooded lot and these things make webs everywhere. What kind of spiders are these?

icopus wrote in post #17550643
Does this qualify? Still trying to understand bokeh. Besides, I HAD to post this spider somewhere.

"The only real purpose a love bug has."

Bokeh is just the parts of the photo that are out of focus like the background and or the foreground as long as the subject in the photo is in focus. The more blur and out of focus the background is the greater the bokeh. I honestly am not sure what was in the background of your spidea so it looks like bokeh to me.. if I could clearly and sharply make out the background along with the spider and victim then it would not be bokeh. P.S. Nice spider but I'd totally personally wanna stay away from it

All I know about spiders is this one is an orb weaver... I think. lol.

Peekaboo (-keh)

icopus wrote in post #17550643
Still trying to understand bokeh. Besides, I HAD to post this spider somewhere.

"The only real purpose a love bug has."

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Bokeh says:

"In photography, bokeh (Originally /ˈboʊkɛ/,[1] /ˈboʊkeɪ/ boh-kay — also sometimes pronounced as /ˈboʊkə/ boh-kə,[2] Japanese: [Boke]) is the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in the out-of-focus parts of an image produced by a lens.[3][4][5] Bokeh has been defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light".[6] Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting—"good" and "bad" bokeh, respectively.[7] Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. "

The stuff perceived as IN FOCUS is inside the Depth of Field (DOF).
The stuff which is perceived as OUT OF FOCUS is outside the DOF, or foreground blur and background blur, and is not 'bokeh' per se.

The quality or the charactertistics of the out-of-focus blur is what is 'boheh'

Bokeh is very much a misunderstood and misused term by all too many folks. Folks will say the above 'is all wet'. Will they dispute what ZEISS (the optics company) says on the topic?! http://www.zeiss.com …_en_web_special​_bokeh.pdf on page 25

"Bokeh – properties of blurriness "

Therefore mine fails because there's no 'quality' to it. I get it now. Thanks.

icopus wrote in post #17552012
Therefore mine fails because there's no 'quality' to it. I get it now. Thanks.

no, there is no background 'blur', your photo has only uniformity of b/g...and with no blur, the blur cannot have any bokeh -- the blur has no characteristic of being pleasant or unpleasant, harsh or disturbing in its presentation.

http://davidnbrooks.co​m …-conversation-about-bokeh

the article shows examples of bokeh in highlights, but you need NOT have any highlights to have good or bad looking bokeh

p 41 and 42 of the Zeiss papers depict how overcorrection of spherical abberations during a lens' design can have bad results in out of focus details.

500mm v1

IMAGE LINK: http://www.mikeswildli​fe.com/Other/Birds/i-SbhZCVx/A