Does the intern have a drug habit, or brain damage, or something?
My last post... I have some technical certifications, a bachelor degree in photojournalism, and 3/4 of a Master's in Art... and never was the word Bokeh uttered till 2007 or so.
She spoke about wanting to get Photoshop (complained it's too expensive) but want's to do "tilt shift" in photoshop....
Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh
......ANd she says she doesn't like JAZZ either... I listen to it all day.....
........ at least my 17 year-old and I have 1950-1970's Jazz, Steely Dan, Rush, and Yes in common.
Good point. Those using it as a crutch, though, often focus haphazardly, writing it off to bokeh.
Originally Posted by Fixcinater
They even sell filters to create shaped bokeh, for instance, hearts. At least the folks who buy those, usually have some idea of what they're trying to do. I've seen some folks who do nice work, especially around the holidays using bokeh as an element of their composition.
When folks just want to copy something or use it as a crutch, though, it ends up not quite so nice. Often, even a casual observer can tell.
@jstout... the aperture assembly is probably the least expensive component of a lens.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
me too, far out man
Originally Posted by vpwphoto
Now *that* is unforgivable. You should start playing John Zorn or Derek Bailey for her benefit.
Originally Posted by vpwphoto
(Note: I love most of Zorn's work and find Bailey interesting if bewildering, but for someone in the "doesn't like jazz" camp, they'd be the soundtrack of hell.)
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
One thing often missed is what the actual size of the aperture is what determines the depth of field, regardless of focal length. 35mm lens at f/1.4 has the same depth of field as a 50mm at f/2 or a 150mm lens at about f/5.6 (f/6 is you wanna be picky). (35/1.4=25 and 50/2=25). So to say that everything is better at f/1.4 means absolutely nothing. Just as an aside.
I like to photograph portraits at medium distance using that 25mm aperture, but it's too shallow when moving close, so I stop down. Or I don't freaking care and just shoot at an aperture that is practical, based on the lighting.
As far as 'bokeh' is concerned - I absolutely hate all discussions about it. I start to itch all over and basically have to leave since I don't want to break out in the hives. I had better go, cause I can feel a severe rash coming on...
Last edited by Thomas Bertilsson; 03-22-2013 at 03:13 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"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
Too many folks talking about it in our modern world!
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
She says 1.4 bohka "is the best". ----
I know a guy who fancies himself a bird photographer. He's not bad, actually.
He showed me some photos of a fairly rare bird, in these parts. (Trumpeter swan. Itinerants that don't usually nest here.)
It was a pretty good photo.
But I took one look at it and asked him if he used a catadioptric lens.
"Catadioptric... Like a miniature telescope. With a mirror inside"
"How did you know?"
I told him that those mirror lenses are known to produce ring-shaped halos around highlights.
"Oh, you mean bokeh," he said, "I thought that was cool."
The guy knows his birds, though. Better than anybody else I know.
Last edited by Worker 11811; 03-22-2013 at 02:04 PM. Click to view previous post history.