Well, I am going to be the first to bring up controversy and then step aside. I wish (and hope) that the powers that be make a change to the bokeh challenge. They should state that both having a soft, out of focus background or foreground or having the OOF rings are both acceptable interpretations. that way no one will be voting down one or the other just because of their personal opinions. The OOF background/foreground is the generally accepted usage of the term. the oof rings is a very technical (and correct) definition of the term. So please, powers that be, put it in the explanation of the challenge that both are acceptable for the purpose of this challenge and save a ton of arguing.
Well, I am going to be the first to bring up controversy and then step aside. I wish (and hope) that the powers that be make a change to the bokeh challenge. They should state that both having a soft, out of focus background or foreground or having the OOF rings are both acceptable interpretations. that way no one will be voting down one or the other just because of their personal opinions. The OOF background/foreground is the generally accepted usage of the term. the oof rings is a very technical (and correct) definition of the term. So please, powers that be, put it in the explanation of the challenge that both are acceptable for the purpose of this challenge and save a ton of arguing.
thanks.
Thank you! What I learned from reading the forums during the previous Bokeh challenge is that you are probably doing it wrong, and that there are experts who feel it is their duty to lowball photos with OOF circular lights in the background, because that is the amateur's misunderstanding of bokeh.
Well, I am going to be the first to bring up controversy and then step aside. I wish (and hope) that the powers that be make a change to the bokeh challenge. They should state that both having a soft, out of focus background or foreground or having the OOF rings are both acceptable interpretations. that way no one will be voting down one or the other just because of their personal opinions. The OOF background/foreground is the generally accepted usage of the term. the oof rings is a very technical (and correct) definition of the term. So please, powers that be, put it in the explanation of the challenge that both are acceptable for the purpose of this challenge and save a ton of arguing.
thanks.
Thank you! What I learned from reading the forums during the previous Bokeh challenge is that you are probably doing it wrong, and that there are experts who feel it is their duty to lowball photos with OOF circular lights in the background, because that is the amateur's misunderstanding of bokeh.
Cant wait to start handing out 1s & 2s to all those OOF circular lights... BRING EM ON!!! Rich and creamy - thats the ticket!
That depends on who you ask, which is why I sent a ticket to SC asking for them to clarify in the description of the challenge. Personally I think that both are correct.
I think what most people with narrow minds fail to grasp is that it is not the shape of the OOF blur, it is the QUALITY of that OOF blur, and that it should compliment the primary subject by making it stand out better to improve the photo. So that could be either a totally soft blurred background which isolates the subject, or it could be some of those OOF rings IF they help to improve the isolation of the primary subject, instead of detracting from it. :)
You could have a soft blur background which is in a colour/tone which is too similar to the primary subject so that it does not improve the photo and it would be bad bokeh. Same as if you had the oof rings but they were distracting the viewer's attention from from your primary subject...that too would be bad bokeh. It is quality, not shape that counts in my books.
BoKeh can have OOF points of light defined by the circles of confusion or be smooth as silk but understand this BoKeh is a concept not a technique. BoKeh is not just circles of confusion.
There are CoC in that image but they are very subtle the creamy-ness of the BoKeh smooths them out. CoC is a function of the lens and the number of aperture blades.
I approach the concept of BoKeh by how well the subject is isolated, how the BoKeh in image compliments the subject and how it adds to the overall feel of the composition.
There are CoC in that image but they are very subtle the creamy-ness of the BoKeh smooths them out. CoC is a function of the lens and the number of aperture blades.
I approach the concept of BoKeh by how well the subject is isolated, how the BoKeh in image compliments the subject and how it adds to the overall feel of the composition.
Well, not really, because that's almost a textbook example of "bad bokeh" in both the technical sense (it's blotchy, muddy, and posterized) and in the aesthetic sense (it overwhelms the image completely). I suppose others may disagree, but that's at best a 4 from me. For whatever it's worth :-)
Well, not really, because that's almost a textbook example of "bad bokeh" in both the technical sense (it's blotchy, muddy, and posterized) and in the aesthetic sense (it overwhelms the image completely). I suppose others may disagree, but that's at best a 4 from me. For whatever it's worth :-)
