Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,533   Posts: 1,572,702   Online: 822
      
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 130
  1. #101

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    771
    "Bokeh", "ThreeDeeNess". All Pukeh to me.

  2. #102

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,580
    Quote Originally Posted by GarageBoy View Post
    Back in the 90s, 50 1.8s and 50 1.4s were the kit lenses. They were on the camera because they were cheap

    Now everyone fawns over them like its the second coming of Jesus
    I used a 50 1.4 wide open for my Junior High photos of all my friends because it was too dark in the cafeteria and classrooms for anything slower

    I wish I could have closed down for some of the group shots
    In the 60s, 70s, and 80s the "kit" lens was a 50mm f: 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, or 2.0. The upgrade lens was the 1.4, the deluxe lens was 1.2. When at age 17 I got a brandy-new OM-2 I went for the 50/1.4. The lens just plain sucked any farther open than 2.8, and I now use 50mm/2.0 Nikkor H lenses from the 60s, which are useable wide open and just stunning at the other apertures.

    I'm a watch collector and have never heard of "Wabi". I'm quite certain I don't need to. Today I'm carrying a Waltham 23j Vanguard (with diamond endstones throughout the escapement) 16s made the year the Titanic had that problem. Most modern watches are junk jewelry when compared to a decent RR watch anyway.

  3. #103
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,332
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    ... - the combination of youthful ignorance, inexperience, and absolute certainty.
    A common affliction, followed some years later with a tendency to roll the eyes and smile wryly when reminded of it.
    My 21st birthday. I may have had an attitude, or at least my family was trying to tell me something ...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails twenty one med.jpg  

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    28
    Images
    1
    Can somebody explain me when an out of focus image is considered beautiful and when it is not?

    I use shallow DoF when I want to make attention onto the subject, who is usually my wife or my child . I usually don't take too much attention about the out of focus image (background).

    So when bokeh is beautiful?

  5. #105

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    318
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by pcsaba1981 View Post
    Can somebody explain me when an out of focus image is considered beautiful and when it is not?

    I use shallow DoF when I want to make attention onto the subject, who is usually my wife or my child . I usually don't take too much attention about the out of focus image (background).

    So when bokeh is beautiful?
    I think it is considered as "beautiful" when it is not distracting... To me the concept is meaningless as I consider a picture as a whole and I am not willing to detail one part of it or an other unless the picture has no interest (but in this case I switch to something else).
    Last edited by Dali; 08-21-2013 at 07:27 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    "The problem with photography is that it only deals with appearances." Duane Michals

    "A photograph is a secret of a secret. The more it tells you the less you know." Diane Arbus

  6. #106

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by David Brown View Post
    My 21st birthday. I may have had an attitude, or at least my family was trying to tell me something ...
    I LOVE This!!

  7. #107
    swittmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    156
    Images
    3
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima

    I love this guy's work.

    Shallow DOF alone certainly does not make a good photo, agreed, but if it's used wisely and creatively - like in this case - I think it's great.

  8. #108
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,503
    Images
    299

    She says 1.4 bohka "is the best". ----

    Quote Originally Posted by swittmann View Post
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima

    I love this guy's work.

    Shallow DOF alone certainly does not make a good photo, agreed, but if it's used wisely and creatively - like in this case - I think it's great.
    I have no opinion of his work, but will just comment that I think when photography becomes about something technical framework, and that is used as an idea to create work, (wide open apertures is one of those technical things), then the photographer is on thin ice. That's a poor platform to base work on.

    I'm not against someone using large or small apertures. But when I hear talk about it as if it's the whole idea of their work, then I very much mind. Surely there are better things to focus on, literally.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #109
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,045
    The fastest 50mm standard lens I own is a Canon FD 50 f1.4 and I have no desire for a 50mm lens that's any faster, however I do have a Canon FD 85mm f 1.2L portrait lens because portraits are my main interest that I bought new in the 1980's that I rarely use at full aperture because I.M.O. no lens gives it's best performance wide open it's against the laws of physics.
    Ben

  10. #110

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I have no opinion of his work, but will just comment that I think when photography becomes about something technical framework, and that is used as an idea to create work, (wide open apertures is one of those technical things), then the photographer is on thin ice. That's a poor platform to base work on.

    I'm not against someone using large or small apertures. But when I hear talk about it as if it's the whole idea of their work, then I very much mind. Surely there are better things to focus on, literally.
    Using a wide aperture gives shallow DOF. The design of the lens determines the character of the out-of-focus areas ('OOFAs'). These are two different things. Since most all 50s for 35mm are double-Gauss designs, their OOFAs will be similar; differences will be due to the optimisation chosen as well as the degree of "retrofocality" of the lens in question. Lastly the shape of the aperture will determine the shape of out-of-focus highlights.
    Usually when I hear or read someone babbling mindlessly about the "great bokeh" their lens has I translate it thusly:"I can't take a decent picture to save my life, so I read some nonsense on the internet and bought this lens which I'm now making an a$$ of myself with".

    I learned that a wide aperture was useful to separate the subject from it's surroundings/background, as well as taking photos in poor light. But that was a long time ago, much has changed in 40 years.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin