Bokeh -post your best pls

Dave__C wrote in post #5056797
Thanks for the clarification. Slightly subtle, but I see the point now.

Heh! Sometimes I throw out a pic which is not really evident as far as what I am "seeing", mistakenly assuming others will "see" what I do! sorry for the lack of "inside information"!

how about the super fast snail =)

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

That Snail shot is Quality!

MannP, I have to LOL! I can see my boys doing something like that with their toys.

willy b wrote in post #5058477
That Snail shot is Quality!

thanks very much, was taken with my nifty fifty....as most of you can tell from the hairline DoF.

Seems a lot of folks have a different idea of what bokeh is than I do. That's apparent based upon the submissions in this thread.

I've always felt that bokeh isn't just an out-of-focus foreground/background, but more a melange of unrecognizable shapes or objects or colors in the background (or foreground) which are so out of focus that they sort of merge to form a smooth / cloudy / dreamy effect, relative to the pinpoint and shallow plane of focus as produced with a wide aperture lens.

This may not be the dictionary definition, but it's how I perceive of bokeh.

If everyone agreed with me then this thread would be much shorter!

b.d.bop wrote in post #5061841
Seems a lot of folks have a different idea of what bokeh is than I do. That's apparent based upon the submissions in this thread.

I've always felt that bokeh isn't just an out-of-focus foreground/background, but more a melange of unrecognizable shapes or objects or colors in the background (or foreground) which are so out of focus that they sort of merge to form a smooth / cloudy / dreamy effect, relative to the pinpoint and shallow plane of focus as produced with a wide aperture lens.

This may not be the dictionary definition, but it's how I perceive of bokeh.

If everyone agreed with me then this thread would be much shorter!

Well said.
There's a lot here that are just OOF B/G.

It's the same sort of misconception that some people have about HDR processing IMO.

b.d.bop wrote in post #5061841
Seems a lot of folks have a different idea of what bokeh is than I do. That's apparent based upon the submissions in this thread.

I've always felt that bokeh isn't just an out-of-focus foreground/background, but more a melange of unrecognizable shapes or objects or colors in the background (or foreground) which are so out of focus that they sort of merge to form a smooth / cloudy / dreamy effect, relative to the pinpoint and shallow plane of focus as produced with a wide aperture lens.

This may not be the dictionary definition, but it's how I perceive of bokeh.

If everyone agreed with me then this thread would be much shorter!

Thinly veiled slam against a lot of great photos that have been posted here. That is the kind of post you might think about - but not really post. I think that there are different LEVELS of bokeh and that is what you are seeing in this thread.

I think that the thread is the perfect length as is, personally. If everyone agreed with you I think that the forum could be a very boring place.

b.d.bop wrote in post #5061841
Seems a lot of folks have a different idea of what bokeh is than I do. That's apparent based upon the submissions in this thread.

I've always felt that bokeh isn't just an out-of-focus foreground/background, but more a melange of unrecognizable shapes or objects or colors in the background (or foreground) which are so out of focus that they sort of merge to form a smooth / cloudy / dreamy effect, relative to the pinpoint and shallow plane of focus as produced with a wide aperture lens.

This may not be the dictionary definition, but it's how I perceive of bokeh.

If everyone agreed with me then this thread would be much shorter!

I believe everyone has a different eye and when some looks great to one person can look awful to another. However, you have to remember...most of us are new, so we try to add to the forum topic...not just cause we know, its also cause we dont know =)

The forums are here for everyone, if they are noobs or a career photography...which makes this board the great place it is =)

bauerman wrote in post #5063127
Thinly veiled slam against a lot of great photos that have been posted here. That is the kind of post you might think about - but not really post. I think that there are different LEVELS of bokeh and that is what you are seeing in this thread.

I think that the thread is the perfect length as is, personally. If everyone agreed with you I think that the forum could be a very boring place.

Well now. There's a whopper of a distorted misinterpretation if I ever saw one.
The fact is there was no slam - veiled nor blatant - intended by my post at all, despite your inferences - I simply put forth my perception of what I feel represents bokeh, contrasted with what others (yourself included) may see as qualifying for the term; and that would apparently be a much broader definition than mine.

Finally there was no complaint inherent in my post regarding the length of this thread, nor any aspersions made as to the quality of the images posted. The reference to thread length was made in reference to my posited definition.

But I think you knew all that.

I submit we'd be best served by attributing the misunderstanding to the lack of nuance and inflection on an internet forum, lest we now begin to disagree on bore vs. boor.

I also like this one very much

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Almost threw it away, until I realised - what nice bokeh! (imho anyway)

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE