Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,222   Posts: 1,532,374   Online: 1069
      
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 88
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by titrisol
    I'm not sure I get it....
    is this good bad or ugly bouquet?
    I like to use bokeh to refer to the characteristics of the lens, not the picture. To me, a picture has a good or bad background and a lens has good or bad background rendering, or bokeh.

    That picture looks like it was shot with a lens with neutral to bad bokeh. It's still a good background to a nice image.

  2. #32
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    I think the examples posted clarify the effect - quite a bit. "Bokeh" translates to uniform, featureless blur in out-of-focus areas. The more "featureless", the better.

    The effect illustrated in David Goldfarb's "Crane" (?) example of "Bad" does seem to detract from the center of interest - the Crane ... but the rest, including the "doubling" of the out-of-focus fence rails in the same post, labeled "Good Bokeh", really doesn't.

    All in all, "Bokeh" - (First put on the football uniform complete with all pads, and the Magnum, Super Shock Motorcycle Helmet) does NOT strike ME (n/b. "ME") as being anything of super-vital importance - at least it doesn't seem anything like a fertile field for an obsession.

    Interesting to consider, though.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mexico City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    597
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose A Martinez

    The photo Bird of Paradise enclosed is an example of what I think Bokeh means.

    the lense is a Hasselblad, Carl Zeiss Distagon f 4, 50 mm
    I posted this photo earlier in this thread, how do you rate the Bokeh? if there is such thing in this image.
    Jose A. Martinez

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose A Martinez
    I posted this photo earlier in this thread, how do you rate the Bokeh? if there is such thing in this image.
    The lens has neutral bokeh in Rockwell's terms - the light from a point source is evenly distributed in the shape of the aperture. The problem is that if you have neutral bokeh and only five diagram blades, you get those distracting pentagons. So you might call the bokeh poor.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose A Martinez
    I posted this photo earlier in this thread, how do you rate the Bokeh? if there is such thing in this image.
    While clear images of the diaphram shape like that are considered bad-bokeh, sometimes it just plain works to contrast or compliment the subject; another example of the variability of photographic language.

    BTW - of the other examples posted, some are unacceptably misfocused, IMHO.

  6. #36
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,213
    Images
    20
    Sometimes it is possible to make a good photograph with bad bokeh. I've seen a few photos made with mirror lenses that play with the "donut" highlights.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mexico City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    597
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by psvensson
    The lens has neutral bokeh in Rockwell's terms - the light from a point source is evenly distributed in the shape of the aperture. The problem is that if you have neutral bokeh and only five diagram blades, you get those distracting pentagons. So you might call the bokeh poor.

    I get it, thanks. Anyway, it is kind of subjective, this is not a great photo but I like the pentagon in the almost foreground and the cloud of pentagons in the background.
    Jose A. Martinez

  8. #38
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    This is a scan from a neg that was taken with a lens that got an eight on that list.
    I don't know how much the scan and JPEG artifacts screw it up. Maybe it is an invalid illustration.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails flwr1b.jpg  
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=

  9. #39
    luvcameras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by psvensson
    A lot of Rolleiflex images from that era show spectacularly bad bokeh, .

    can I see some examples ? Most are tessar type lenses which have neutral to good bokeh....dont know about the Planar's....

  10. #40
    noseoil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tucson
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,898
    Images
    17
    For any who are interested, I've just ordered a large amount of Bokeh fluid from Nigeria. It should be here in two weeks, so anyone who needs more bokeh for their lenses, may want to sign up. Please send me a private email and I will let you know price and availability. I had to order quite a bit, so I should have enough to go around for the next year or so. tim



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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