Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,058   Posts: 1,561,545   Online: 786
      
Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 130
  1. #71
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,681
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Does the intern have a drug habit, or brain damage, or something?
    Worse- 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.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,503
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Worse- 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.
    (Rolls eyes and grimaces)

  3. #73
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    762
    Quote Originally Posted by vpwphoto View Post
    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.
    The English spelling 'bokeh' was popularized in 1997 in Photo Techniques magazine, when the editor Mike Johnston commissioned three papers (Grad, Merklinger, Kennerdell) on the topic for the March/April 1997 issue.

    Unfortunately now, so many very wrongly use the word (which actually is the QUALITY of the out-of-focus blur) to mean the out-of-focus area itself (vis a vis the in-focus area within the DOF zone). Ironically many dispute their wrong use, when the correct definition of 'bokeh' (the QUALITY) is supported by famous optics companies like Zeiss' paper on the subject of DOF in-focus areas and Out-of-focus blur and bokeh quality characteristics of the blur.

    Photos seeking to use razor thin DOF, particularly so-called 'portraits' in which one eye is in focus and the tip of the nose and the ears are out of focus, fail to appeal to me. There is an inordinate amount of attention on this use, when large apertures original were intended to get photos when there simply was not enough light for the limited ISO (ASA) film speeds.
    Last edited by wiltw; 03-23-2013 at 01:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #74
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,681
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    (Rolls eyes and grimaces)
    Yeah, that too.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by jstout View Post
    Good point. Actually, I was kidding about making the 50/1.2 Nikons and others, and selling them stripped down. Kind of like a nokton barrel lens.
    I once knew a photographer who was probably drinking Rodinal straight up when I was still wetting my nappies, and he always used to rag on Leitz because the aperture on the Noctilux went past f/4. Of course he wasn't concerned about any damned bokay but that the Noct. was corrected for wide open. Why in the world would you use it at f/11? That's why you have an Elmar (or whatever).

    s-a
    I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
    - Garry Winogrand

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,614
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by vpwphoto View Post
    She spoke about wanting to get Photoshop (complained it's too expensive) but want's to do "tilt shift" in photoshop....

    ......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.
    she could get a lensbaby and do tilt-shift on camera with out the need of the program
    unless she wanted to tilt shift on the camera, and UNtilt-shift in PS ...
    sounds like fun ... like putting the heat and ac on at the same time and seeing which one wins !

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    St. Paul, MN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    I have a lens with a malfunctioning diaphragm which won't close, so it always produces "brokeh".

    I thought "brokeh" was what you became after you bought a Canon 85 1.2 L or an Aero Ektar.

  8. #78
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,620
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
    The English spelling 'bokeh' was popularized in 1997 in Photo Techniques magazine, when the editor Mike Johnston commissioned three papers (Grad, Merklinger, Kennerdell) on the topic for the March/April 1997 issue.

    Unfortunately now, so many very wrongly use the word (which actually is the QUALITY of the out-of-focus blur) to mean the out-of-focus area itself (vis a vis the in-focus area within the DOF zone). Ironically many dispute their wrong use, when the correct definition of 'bokeh' (the QUALITY) is supported by famous optics companies like Zeiss' paper on the subject of DOF in-focus areas and Out-of-focus blur and bokeh quality characteristics of the blur.

    Photos seeking to use razor thin DOF, particularly so-called 'portraits' in which one eye is in focus and the tip of the nose and the ears are out of focus, fail to appeal to me. There is an inordinate amount of attention on this use, when large apertures original were intended to get photos when there simply was not enough light for the limited ISO (ASA) film speeds.
    I'm not an expert in Japanese language but, at the university where I work, I know the woman who teaches Japanese language and culture. I often ask her about things like this.

    According to the way I understand, the word "boke" or "ボケ" (pronnounced "bokeh" in English) actually means "blurriness" or "having the quality of blur."

    Therefore, what you say is right in line with the real meaning of the word.

    When I was first getting serious about photography, learning how to develop my own film and make my own prints, short depth of field where the subject's nose was soft was simply called "out of focus." (Usually followed by, "Dammit!") Now they call it "art."
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  9. #79
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,681
    Quote Originally Posted by LiamG View Post
    I thought "brokeh" was what you became after you bought a Canon 85 1.2 L or an Aero Ektar.
    Yeah, that too.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  10. #80
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,264
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by semi-ambivalent View Post
    I once knew a photographer…(snip)

    That's why you have an Elmar (or whatever).

    s-a
    I believe his name was Elmer

    like the preacher, Gantry.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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