Heh, your profile says you registered in 2005...but that doesn't compute with the statement above. :P
Yes indeedy I did register in 2005 and mostly stayed out of past arguments about it. But come on, this is getting ridiculous... certain people have completely skewered other people's perception on the matter. There often is circles, but there doesn't have to be for it to qualify as bokeh.
Ok, I had to laugh when I saw this one... I'll post the link because the wording is a bit racy and I'm not sure how that would be received here, but I'll say that it puts a whole new spin on bokeh. Man, I've been going about it all wrong!
Heh, your profile says you registered in 2005...but that doesn't compute with the statement above. :P
Yes indeedy I did register in 2005 and mostly stayed out of past arguments about it. But come on, this is getting ridiculous... certain people have completely skewered other people's perception on the matter. There often is circles, but there doesn't have to be for it to qualify as bokeh.
Don't worry, I quite agree with you. One of my entries has the little circles, one doesn't. Personally I don't think you need little circles, you just need some creamy gradients.
Ok, I had to laugh when I saw this one... I'll post the link because the wording is a bit racy and I'm not sure how that would be received here, but I'll say that it puts a whole new spin on bokeh. Man, I've been going about it all wrong!
//www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bokeh
Come to the little circles of light my little children! lol
My entry in the last bokeh challenge was a year ago. I think I had decent bokeh but the picture itself wasn't good.
So
We need good circles that are "creamy" or "milky"
We need good sharpness and exposure of the subject
I am going to take pictures of homeless people and utilize good bokeh. )(This is probably one of the few technical challenges where a homeless person HASN'T been photographed)
*sigh*. Time to go to bed before my posts get even weirder and Art Roflmao starts thinking I'm strange.
you'll find that many voters simply like a composition that makes good use of out of of focus areas to complement the in-focus areas.
If you search the Web, you'll find a kajillion people who support each definition so strongly that you'd never know there were another kajillion arguing equally fervently for the other interpretation. Interestingly, both of them will claim to go back to the person who coined the term.
The answer, Colorcarnival, is that there's no single accepted definition. Hence the title of this thread.
You'll get equally fervent arguments about whether the foreground can be out of focus or just the background.
My suggestion: study the high-scoring shots and emulate how they used whichever definition suits your fancy.
The only thing both groups agree on is that if your subject isn't the only thing that's sharp, you're out of luck. Oh, and that isn't a good example:
an older one from my portfolio but something like this would work just fine right? needs a little editing actually but as far as bokeh and subject this would do? Or something like it?
Oh goody! The same people who will vote DNMC on blurred shots without the visible circles are the same people would would vote DNMC in a "pixel challenge" if they can't see the tiny dots. Blur can't happen without bokeh so the only DNMC entries would be ones where everything is sharp. That's it! Argument ovah!
Yes, we've know we've all been at DPC too long, when a Bokeh challenge comes up, and we all say "Oh no, not this again. Ok, once again, let's pre-empt the arguments that are going to come up." :)
Actually, I had a good idea last time for bokeh, and I didn't have the equipment to pull it off, so I have to get my bum in gear and do it this time. Looking forward to the challenge...
Okay - but when does Bokeh just become plain out of focus???
Basically, to do well in the Challenge you need to have an in-focus subject with a pleasing bokeh background. Here are the results of the first three Bokeh Challenges.
