It might be because it's stupidly early here, but I'm having a struggle getting my head around this challenge. Would this fit the bill? I know it's a shockingly not great photo.
[thumb]609966[/thumb]
Basically: get in close to whatever forms your bokeh, then focus on something far away?
It might be because it's stupidly early here, but I'm having a struggle getting my head around this challenge. Would this fit the bill? I know it's a shockingly not great photo.
Basically: get in close to whatever forms your bokeh, then focus on something far away?
well, I'd say you'd still need out-of-focus points of "light", not out-of-focus large, solid objects.
Yeah, it's sad. Such a beautiful challenge topic, and then to be scared of all the DNMC comments and be discouraged to enter .... Oh well.
Well, I completely agree. That's why I mention it; if it gets discussed enough maybe it won't happen. The thing of it is, in macro photography, which a bokeh challenge definitely encourages, there is always gonna be such a narrow zone of focus that bokeh will frequently exist on both sides, and I'm sure these will be some of the best pictures. This isn't the best example of "bokeh" IMO, but it's the sort of thing I'm talking about:
Challenge: Foreground Bokeh
Type: Exclusive Open Challenge
Rules: Basic Editing
Submission Deadline: Tuesday, November 13th, 2007
Description: Create a photo in which bokeh is effectively used, but the bokeh effect should be in the foreground of the image.
So long as an effort is made to use bokeh in the foreground, will be enough for me. Ideally, I'll be looking for images that are 'enhanced' by the bokeh.
And at the risk of the debate on 'the definition of bokeh' rearing it's head - I won't restrict bokeh to mean only oof circles of light - could be oof colored/toned 'shapes'... that's my take and I'm sticking to it.
edit:to add 'toned'
Not sure if this would be considered foreground bokeh. Might just be shallow dof.
Larger Version
Another, which I think does have foreground bokeh, though only a very little.
Larger Version
I believe I took the spider with a Sony DSC H1 with my close up lens attachment at aperture of about 6.0. The caterpiller I took with the Alpha A100, also with the close up lens attachment and an aperture of about 7.1. Both were focused past the foreground. I also used macro setting on both and I used my 18-70mm lens set at maximum. Wondering if experimentation with water droplets placed in front of the subject with backlit subject would give good foreground bokeh. Anybody have any suggestions?
Depth of field refers to the area of a photograph which is in focus. Bokeh refers to areas that are strongly out of focus and hence blurred in a specific way.
Deep Depth of Field Challenge, Bokeh IV Challenge.
what I am seeing is depth of field.. not bokeh. Can someone explain the difference?
Using Ursula as an example, the Queen of Macro & Bokeh, I think this is foreground,
[thumb]413256[/thumb]
and these are simply shallow DOF?
or are ALL these Foreground Bokeh?
IMO, the first one "looks like" foreground bokeh, but it isn't really, because it's a composite of five images. I think you could do something similar though without the composite, getting a very narrow field of focus, and out of focus droplets/spiderwebs in front, and also in back if you want (although the DNMC police might point out that the challenge topic says "in front", so you can't have any oof stuff in back; eh!).
The second one, the flower with the one drop, it relies on an in-camera double-exposure (not overlay as the spiderwebs image) for its impact - I think that picture was one of the images that precipitated the no double-exposures rules amendment, much to my great sadness.
The third one, "painted nails", to my mind is the best example of fore-bokeh of the three. It definitely was intended as fore-bokeh, I focused on the flower further back trying to get the shape/blur of the flower closer to the lens into the image for impact. That said, it doesn't have the little circles that people like to associate with bokeh, so it likely would get DNMC comments, even though it is very much fore-bokeh.
Here are 3 more that to my mind rely on foreground bokeh for at least part of their impact:
Yet, again, all three do not have the oof circles of light that people love to associate with bokeh. In my experience, it's much easier to get those oof circles of light in the background than in front of the subject.
What I like about foreground bokeh is that you can make a picture a little bit mysterious with it, like peeking at something through a little hole in a courtain.
I just wish there were no DNMC police. The topic of a challenge is very important, but in many cases you just got to leave room for different interpretations. Having just one interpretation (bokeh = oof points of light) makes for boring entries, and we miss out on a lot of good stuff because of it.
::gulp::...so I'm feeling particularly brave this week and submitted to this challenge (or more likely...I'm feeling particularly stupid...YIKES!), but my entry is IN!
::gulp::...so I'm feeling particularly brave this week and submitted to this challenge (or more likely...I'm feeling particularly stupid...YIKES!), but my entry is IN!
Good Luck Everyone!
We'll refer to you as "Hiho the Bold" from now on, unless you get the brown ribbon, then we'll refer to you as "Hiho the Rash." ;-)
