BOKEH BOKEH BOKEH - The Good and the Ugly

Flo, this one is for you...the Tui showing his white collar

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

You guys and gals are rocking it!

Jon

Flo wrote in post #10080101
Ok.so I wanna know.and I have read it all.what is ya'lls meaning of Bokeh.is it blur,creamy,blended. sparkly BG, dots,semi blurred, or semi faded Bg?

Good question Gail. While I like the way the aperture blades can create a nice effect when used with interesting lighting, for me it's more about how the BG blur adds to or enhances the image. I personally like the way a flower can have colors that I like or want to include, but doesn't have anything of visual interest otherwise (shapes, sizes, etc.) that I can melt into the image without making it the focal point.

So I'm more about the "creaminess." And I definitely like bokeh that "melts" from the foreground into the background (like Deb's flower or Tony's fern above, or, yes, my little macro lily.) And if it's too "blobby" or seems too large or unattractive, the other option is to burn it out and just isolate the subject in black - something I have no problem doing whatsoever - sometimes the result is much nicer anyway.

There's my interpretation of bokeh.

Deb, you totally nailed that flower shot -- beautiful!

So, when Pete started this thread, he actuall specified what I call the "broad" description of bokeh, meaning a nice creamy background that isolates the subject, and then he also introduced the "bad bokeh" example of a distracting background.

In the lens archive thread, occasionally someone pops up with a critique who points out the technical/"narrow" definition of bokeh, meaning the way "specular highlights" (points of light) are rendered when out of focus/depth of field -- round and smooth being "good bokeh", sharper edges or ones with "geometric shapes" from aperture design being "not so good". And they point out that simply having a "creamy background" does not show "good bokeh".

But, since Pete in the OP specified "pleasing background blur" rather than "good specular highlights", I'd say we are in the ballpark with "pleasing background whether it has specular highlights or not".

Maybe another thread might get traction from only specular highlight bokeh, but then there wouldn't be so many cool, creamy images to share!

Nice Jon^^^
Judging bokeh is like judging various forms of art....If bokeh is deemed good or bad or smooth or distacting, IMHO it's totally in the eye of the beholder....The lens archive has to get technical because that is what the lens archive is for....For me bokeh is all of what gail said, it's the background of your subject. (and how you compose it, plays a huge role too) I'm always trying to get my subject at the best angle, then see how it will look, composed with the BG bokeh.

Thanks, thanks and thanks

thatkatmat wrote in post #10075284
Wow, those are really cool....^^^

tonylong wrote in post #10075352
I agree! Methodical, I really like the composition of the second one!

Harleypugs wrote in post #10075353
Very cool.

Thanks everyone for the input! I know its a varying explanation, and it is as Matt suggested in the eye of the beholder.I like them all..

Ricado, now thats a handsome bird! This morning at 6 am. I was about to take a photo of a Great Horned Owl sitting in my birch tree and screaming its beautiful lungs out to its mate, it was still morning dark, and as soon as I pointed the camera through the windowfly by.....This thing has kept me awake for a month now.first time I saw it!

Deb, this is by far your VERY BEST!! Just stunning.

thanks Gail .everyone ~BOKEH ON ~

Buddha Macro Creamy

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

I kinda like the BG on this because it loosely follows the lines of the subject. Good? Bad?

^ Just lovely!

Flo wrote in post #10083310
^ Just lovely!

Agreed, I like it.