***Acurazine Photo Contest #17: BOKEH***
12-15-2007, 02:20 PM
#41
Senior Moderator
oi
12-15-2007, 02:24 PM
#42
This one time, at band camp.....
Okay....So I've pretty much always had at least one photo I could've entered for all of these AZ contests, but I've always felt weird about doing it. 
Here we are at contest #17, and with a lot of nudging (read: threats) from Dan, I'm throwing in a pic.
Click the picture for a larger version.
Here we are at contest #17, and with a lot of nudging (read: threats) from Dan, I'm throwing in a pic.
Click the picture for a larger version.
@ the title
12-15-2007, 10:32 PM
#44
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,247
Received 2,787 Likes
on
1,987 Posts
Originally Posted by EuRTSX
Money won't get you women Mizouse. At least not for you.
12-15-2007, 11:12 PM
#45
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,244
Received 4,912 Likes
on
2,614 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Bokeh actually refers to out of focus points of light, not just a generally blurred background. You want to see little airy disks floating in the scene for a "true" bokeh theme. 
12-15-2007, 11:21 PM
#46
Senior Moderator
Out of all the shots I've taken the last couple of days, only a handful have bokeh, and they're not that great. 
But SS, I must say, your entry is fantastic!
But SS, I must say, your entry is fantastic!
12-15-2007, 11:29 PM
#47
Senior Moderator
@ SS - 
12-16-2007, 05:40 PM
#48
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Bokeh actually refers to out of focus points of light, not just a generally blurred background. You want to see little airy disks floating in the scene for a "true" bokeh theme. Soopa's and Beelzebub's shots demonstrate Bokeh.
12-16-2007, 06:11 PM
#49
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,244
Received 4,912 Likes
on
2,614 Posts
Here is my entry.
It is from the 2nd Salton Series I shot, which I have to yet to finish processing and post. If some read my post in my salton thread they will know I went back a 2nd time, last week. I had intended to shoot reversal and have it cross processed at the lab. Well, due to a goof by the salesperson and my own negligence I didn't check the film and it was negative not reversal.
This photo is actually from my digital body (i brought both) and I used Lightroom to Cross Process the image using a preset from killer tips as a basis and tweaking from there. So, if I think the image is perfectly fine for submitting since its based on a photochemical process.
Should anyone take issue with this let it be known.
"Zombie UPS"
It is from the 2nd Salton Series I shot, which I have to yet to finish processing and post. If some read my post in my salton thread they will know I went back a 2nd time, last week. I had intended to shoot reversal and have it cross processed at the lab. Well, due to a goof by the salesperson and my own negligence I didn't check the film and it was negative not reversal.
This photo is actually from my digital body (i brought both) and I used Lightroom to Cross Process the image using a preset from killer tips as a basis and tweaking from there. So, if I think the image is perfectly fine for submitting since its based on a photochemical process.
Should anyone take issue with this let it be known.
"Zombie UPS"
12-16-2007, 06:24 PM
#51
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,244
Received 4,912 Likes
on
2,614 Posts
Its an out of focus lens flare with the background rolling off into soft focus.
Prior to this contest even starting I was told by another photographer that he loved the bokeh of the flare. So, I figured this was as good as any to enter.
If enough people want to object then I will change the entry.
Prior to this contest even starting I was told by another photographer that he loved the bokeh of the flare. So, I figured this was as good as any to enter.
If enough people want to object then I will change the entry.
12-16-2007, 06:24 PM
#52
Originally Posted by srika
While that is a specific definition, bokeh can also very generally refer to "background blur in out of focus areas". For our casual purposes, I don't think there's any reason to discriminate between the two.
A contest topic of 'background blur' would change things quite a bit and make things pretty simple, IMO; just choose any pic you've taken with a shallow depth of field.
12-16-2007, 06:34 PM
#54
Senior Moderator
I think we're complicating things. I would rather see more people participate based on their understanding and interpretation of "bokeh", than sweat the small stuff such as what it's technical definition is.
12-16-2007, 06:37 PM
#56
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,244
Received 4,912 Likes
on
2,614 Posts
I think that is up to wndrlst.
Not to piss anyone off or slam them, I've just never really subscribed to the whole idea of "bokeh" I've typically found most people who are really into it or try and talk about it to be real photography snobs. Which to me is a total turnoff.
Set the rules for the contest and let people learn from it. Rather then saying "bokeh is too hard and most people just wont get it"
Not to piss anyone off or slam them, I've just never really subscribed to the whole idea of "bokeh" I've typically found most people who are really into it or try and talk about it to be real photography snobs. Which to me is a total turnoff.
Set the rules for the contest and let people learn from it. Rather then saying "bokeh is too hard and most people just wont get it"
12-16-2007, 06:39 PM
#57
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,244
Received 4,912 Likes
on
2,614 Posts
Nice badboy! I like the colors a lot. Great catching the aperture shape in your xmas tree lights.
12-16-2007, 06:43 PM
#58
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by srika
I think we're complicating things. I would rather see more people participate based on their understanding and interpretation of "bokeh", than sweat the small stuff such as what it's technical definition is.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but if we make the theme "landscapes" and someone posts a picture of their cat, we wouldn't allow that. I think if the theme is bokeh, we should have shots of bokeh.
We should just change the theme to make it a little easier and encourage more posts.
A limited depth-of-field theme would still allow the bokeh shots that have been posted, but it would be easier for those who don't have the gear to get nice diffuse OOF specular highlights.
12-16-2007, 06:48 PM
#59
Senior Moderator
lets see what ms. wndrlst thinks
12-16-2007, 06:53 PM
#61
Just take a look a the links she used to give everybody to figure out the subject.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/bokeh_/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
http://www.flickr.com/groups/bokeh_/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
12-16-2007, 07:01 PM
#62
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,244
Received 4,912 Likes
on
2,614 Posts
http://www.flickr.com/groups/bokeh_/...7594069632479/
This has always been my understanding of the term bokeh.
Which means to me, there is a lot of open interpretation of what a true bokeh image is. And people who are into bokeh beleive there is "good" and "bad" bokeh it usually refers to the quality of the "image blur" caused by the lens abberation.
Most people into bokeh are trying to achieve a stylistic form of shallow depth.
This is why I believe most people touting bokeh are photo snobs. And I honestly dont put much stock into the whole thing to begin with.
Bokeh is the term used to desribe the quality of background blur in a photo,
i.e. how pleasing the blur looks. Since the softness of the background blur is usually more important than how the foreground items are blurred, bokeh usually relates to the background blur.
Bokeh describes the rendition of out-of-focus points of light.
Bokeh is different from sharpness. Sharpness is what happens at the point of best focus. Bokeh is what happens away from the point of best focus.
Differing amounts of spherical aberration alter how lenses render out-of-focus points of light, and thus their bokeh. The word "bokeh" comes from the Japanese word "boke" (pronounced bo-keh) which literally means fuzziness or dizziness.
i.e. how pleasing the blur looks. Since the softness of the background blur is usually more important than how the foreground items are blurred, bokeh usually relates to the background blur.
Bokeh describes the rendition of out-of-focus points of light.
Bokeh is different from sharpness. Sharpness is what happens at the point of best focus. Bokeh is what happens away from the point of best focus.
Differing amounts of spherical aberration alter how lenses render out-of-focus points of light, and thus their bokeh. The word "bokeh" comes from the Japanese word "boke" (pronounced bo-keh) which literally means fuzziness or dizziness.
Which means to me, there is a lot of open interpretation of what a true bokeh image is. And people who are into bokeh beleive there is "good" and "bad" bokeh it usually refers to the quality of the "image blur" caused by the lens abberation.
Most people into bokeh are trying to achieve a stylistic form of shallow depth.
This is why I believe most people touting bokeh are photo snobs. And I honestly dont put much stock into the whole thing to begin with.
12-16-2007, 07:01 PM
#63
Photography Nerd
Here's another page that might give some insight to some: http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm
Although that page is more about the quality of the bokeh for certain lenses, it might be interesting to a few people. We're certainly not going to be judging people on the quality of their bokeh though.
Although that page is more about the quality of the bokeh for certain lenses, it might be interesting to a few people. We're certainly not going to be judging people on the quality of their bokeh though.
12-16-2007, 07:04 PM
#64
Originally Posted by technoviking
Not to piss anyone off or slam them, I've just never really subscribed to the whole idea of "bokeh" I've typically found most people who are really into it or try and talk about it to be real photography snobs. Which to me is a total turnoff.
No offense.
12-16-2007, 07:09 PM
#66
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,244
Received 4,912 Likes
on
2,614 Posts
Originally Posted by Street Spirit
Kinda like how you are with videography a lot of the time?
No offense.
No offense.
I'll act "snobby" on that right now. I'm not into videography. I'm into cinematography. I deal with motion picture FILM just as much and more then I deal with video. I just happen to know about both.
So, if you're going to try and prove my point about being snobby, at least get it right
I also don't see anyone else on the boards in my specific line of work. But I do see TONS of talented photographers on this site.
12-16-2007, 07:16 PM
#67
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 62
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a cool shot, TV, but I gotta go with Dan on this, it looks like lens flare to me and that's the first thing I thought of when I saw it.
12-16-2007, 07:19 PM
#68
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,244
Received 4,912 Likes
on
2,614 Posts
Originally Posted by waTSX
That is a cool shot, TV, but I gotta go with Dan on this, it looks like lens flare to me and that's the first thing I thought of when I saw it.
And since I believe "bokeh" is an interpretation and a very subjective topic I think it very much follows the "out of focus floating points of light" especially because of the way the flare catches the shapes of my len's aperture.
But as I said, if enough people make a stink I'll change. Wouldn't want to upset the "pros"
12-16-2007, 07:23 PM
#70
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 62
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by technoviking
And since I believe "bokeh" is an interpretation and a very subjective topic I think it very much follows the "out of focus floating points of light" especially because of the way the flare catches the shapes of my len's aperture.
But as I said, if enough people make a stink I'll change. Wouldn't want to upset the "pros"
But as I said, if enough people make a stink I'll change. Wouldn't want to upset the "pros"
I still like the shot, and, really, it's up to wndrlst to say yay or nay, as far as I'm concerned.
12-16-2007, 07:24 PM
#71
Senior Moderator
***Acurazine Photo Contest #17: Something Blurry***
12-16-2007, 07:30 PM
#73
Originally Posted by technoviking
So, if you're going to try and prove my point about being snobby, at least get it right
And there's a difference between being snobby and passing on knowledge, as you seem to have eluded to in your response. You tend to pass on knowledge a lot too, as many of the members do here, in this sub-forum, as well. So maybe you need to lighten up on us "snobs" sometimes too.
Anyway, :ibWndrlstfreaksOutatThechaosthisthreadhasbecome:
12-16-2007, 07:35 PM
#75
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,244
Received 4,912 Likes
on
2,614 Posts
Originally Posted by waTSX
I ain't no pro and never will be, but the OOF floating points of light in your shot are caused by stray light bouncing around in the lens, not shallow depth of field, which I believe is a primary criteria for bokeh.
I still like the shot, and, really, it's up to wndrlst to say yay or nay, as far as I'm concerned.
I still like the shot, and, really, it's up to wndrlst to say yay or nay, as far as I'm concerned.
But these is nothing specifically stating shallow depth is a primary point for bokeh, just how you deal with points of non-focus. The best examples of course being highly shallow shots. I know I had a lens flare in my frame when I took the shot. It wasnt an accident.
As such, I also know I could have focused on the flare making it sharp and my subject soft. What I wanted was the main subject of my photo in focus with a lens flare. The soft flare to me is a form of bokeh. Its out of focus, and dealing the shape of my aperture. And that was a choice I made when I shot it.
Like I said before. I think the whole bokeh thing is highly subjective. Unless your some diehard who thinks they a photo god. Bokeh to me is a theory and set of guidelines and ideas to give a photographer something else to think about when they are shooting. But it is by no means some kind of set in stone law upon which someone can be judged. This is why I say people who make such strict and point of fact comments regarding bokeh are typically snobs or come off as snobs.
12-16-2007, 07:36 PM
#76
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,244
Received 4,912 Likes
on
2,614 Posts
Originally Posted by Street Spirit
I have no doubt I probably didn't get it right, as I generally don't make it a point to keep up with your life and its specifics -- I've more important people in my life to care about.
And there's a difference between being snobby and passing on knowledge, as you seem to have eluded to in your response. You tend to pass on knowledge a lot too, as many of the members do here, in this sub-forum, as well. So maybe you need to lighten up on us "snobs" sometimes too.
Anyway, :ibWndrlstfreaksOutatThechaosthisthreadhasbecome:
And there's a difference between being snobby and passing on knowledge, as you seem to have eluded to in your response. You tend to pass on knowledge a lot too, as many of the members do here, in this sub-forum, as well. So maybe you need to lighten up on us "snobs" sometimes too.
Anyway, :ibWndrlstfreaksOutatThechaosthisthreadhasbecome:
I said MOSt people who talk about it are snobs. I never sighted or eluded to anyone in particular, nor was I trying to in any backhanded manner.
But hell, if the shoe fits...
12-16-2007, 07:38 PM
#77
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,247
Received 2,787 Likes
on
1,987 Posts
/me sets Tv to 1second for this contest
12-16-2007, 07:39 PM
#78
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by Street Spirit
Anyway, :ibWndrlstfreaksOutatThechaosthisthreadhasbecome:
or something.
I watched Ten Commandments recently..
12-16-2007, 07:50 PM
#79
Senior Moderator
incredible shot badboy
12-16-2007, 07:50 PM
#80
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 62
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by srika
***Acurazine Photo Contest #17: Something Blurry***
That seems general enough to allow every entry in this thread to be counted in the contest.