If you've just stepped out of a Ford Focus, are you then just Out of Focus?
Then, of course, you've got Focus in the Background, so-called Back-focus, which can be a problem :)
And since the Japanese prolly own Ford by now, the next series will be called Ford Bokeh ;)
If you've just stepped out of a Ford Focus, are you then just Out of Focus?
Then, of course, you've got Focus in the Background, so-called Back-focus, which can be a problem :)
And since the Japanese prolly own Ford by now, the next series will be called Ford Bokeh ;)
and how would you describe the bouquet of a Ford Bokeh?
The tiger shot is very good too, but it's not the best blur of the background, although under the circumstances it probably was impossible to do better.
Originally posted by daninbc:
So, do any of you think this might qualify as bokeh?
Of course, but i would venture to guess that it wouldn't do too well in the challenge, because of misconceptions a lot of people seem to have about the subject in my opinion.
This may be a little late, but I just found this on the WWW. If this has already been linked, sorry. I'm not about to go through 8 pages of this thread to check. Besides, Ken has a nice gallery of images to look at, not to mention a ton of info!
Well, I entered the challenge. I hope it does well, I really like it. Lucky I now have a camera that uses interchangeable lenses, cause I never saw bokeh before with my 5700! Here is a shot I took while testing out my bokeh. Not interesting enough for the challenge but certainly was fun learning!
Well, I entered the challenge. I hope it does well, I really like it. Lucky I now have a camera that uses interchangeable lenses, cause I never saw bokeh before with my 5700! Here is a shot I took while testing out my bokeh. Not interesting enough for the challenge but certainly was fun learning!
I guess I am still confused about what bokeh is.
So you think this is NOT bokeh?
Shots like this are easily taken by a fixed lens camera like my G6.
I guess I am still confused about what bokeh is.
So you think this is NOT bokeh?
That most definitely is bokeh. Though as I understand it, if you can see sides to your out of focus circles, it isn't "high quality" bokeh- I think expensive lenses produce nearly perfectly round out of focus circles with no hard outlines. But the challenge isn't to make high quality bokeh ;)
As far as I can understand it, this would NOT be considered bokeh because it isn't pretty in bokeh-world. Too obvious sides to the CoC's (circle of confusion) and sharp outer lines.
This is just as far as I've managed to understand this, but I've only studied bokeh for 3 days now, so I ain't no expert.
Very nice picture BTW and I like the BG blur.
Something tells me this will be a hotly contested challenge ;)
I think you're right! I was just getting ready to post a comment contrary to simplistic.
What you want is for the b.b. to complement and not distract. Simplicity is always better.
hhmmmm...I want to explore that statement, Graphicfunc, just a little.
Most of the backgrounds in the photos from the links about bokeh were very involved, almost busy backgrounds that complimented and enhanced. A lot going on in them. I wouldn't say they were simple. That's what made them so interesting to look at, whether good, neutral or bad bokeh. ? You kind of glance at the subject and then explore the background in depth and come back to the subject, again.
Sounds kind of like personal preference. :D
sp. :(
Is this acceptable or is the foreground subject too shallow. Don't have a DSLR just a point and shoot. So no lens like Jacko. In fact no camera for a few weeks as I dropped it and its being repaired, but would still like to learn about this great photo style:(!
