Don Ricklin - Gear: Canon EOS 5D Mark III, was Pentax K7
'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook.
:jawdrop Which monster of quality was this shot with ?:jawdrop
Mk III + 300 mm f/2.8 ?
Mk III + 500 mm ?
Nope, nothing that special Antonio
20D ( I think you had one of these:D ) at 700mm ( Sigmonster 300-800 - I shoot birds sometimes )
70-200 f2.8 IS L ( I think you have this lens, don't you? ) body happened to be a 1DsMkll, but that was irrelevant, it ccould just as easily have been a 20D
My goal was to demonstrate what I think of as good bokeh. You can get similar bokehs with a 50mm f1.4, or a 35mm f1.4 or an 85mm f1.8, or a 200mm at f2.8 etc, etc The number of leaves in the iris diaphragm plays a role in how round the OOF areas are. The above mentioned EOS lenses all have nice bokeh. I am sure the comparable Nikon lenses do also.
Nix (and others), i think that you may be confusing bokeh for depth of field. as posted here before bokeh can most simply be described as the quality or appearance of the out of focus (OOF) area in the shot. Ideally good bokeh will render the OOF to be undeterminable as to what it actually is. While 'less than adequate' bokeh would be something that you can clearly tell what the OOF is, even though it is blurred/OOF. With good bokeh you shouldnt see any crisp/sharp lines.
This doesnt mean that any of the samples you have shown are bad shots, they just are not examples of good boheh.
Hope this helps.
Additional, once you finally are getting decent bokeh, the true debate as to 'good' or 'excellent' bokeh truly starts, as at this point "[bokeh] is in the eye of the beholder" if you will, and it is all subjective. But the
The best explanation for me are all of the visual examples.
soooo... Is this one 'bokeh' enough?
Eia, i wouldnt think of an image having a little, or a lot of bokeh. Think of it more like "what is the quality of the bluriness of my out of focus area?" bokeh is used to describe this area in terms of quality, not quantity.
In your example the out of focus areas are indeed out of focus, but i would not necessarily say they are OOF enough to notice any real bokeh effects.
I posted my birds because I think they represent very pleasing bokeh - smooth, even lighted areas without sharp borders or background details that detract from the image. Andy calls it "buttery smooth" and I think that conveys the meaning very well.
Unfortunately, many of the shots displayed in this thread, display out of focus backgrounds, but not with a pleasing bokeh. Just blurring the background does not necessarily constitute good bokeh. Some lenses can display very poor bokeh in their OOF backgrounds. What the background is can play a role in how the bokeh looks also.
I posted my birds because I think they represent very pleasing bokeh - smooth, even lighted areas without sharp borders or background details that detract from the image. Andy calls it "buttery smooth" and I think that conveys the meaning very well.
Unfortunately, many of the shots displayed in this thread, display out of focus backgrounds, but not with a pleasing bokeh. Just blurring the background does not necessarily constitute good bokeh. Some lenses can display very poor bokeh in their OOF backgrounds. What the background is can play a role in how the bokeh looks also.
Jim. good evening.
I do understand what you mean.
And now, I understand better what bokeh is, even if I have read about it previously.
I can see now that some of the pictures I posted are not the best example... Sorry. I'll turn them smaller.
You were right telling me about this.
Have a nice week end.
I made some pictures smaller.
Others I left them as they are because I think they are not so bad ...
I posted my birds because I think they represent very pleasing bokeh - smooth, even lighted areas without sharp borders or background details that detract from the image. Andy calls it "buttery smooth" and I think that conveys the meaning very well.
Unfortunately, many of the shots displayed in this thread, display out of focus backgrounds, but not with a pleasing bokeh. Just blurring the background does not necessarily constitute good bokeh. Some lenses can display very poor bokeh in their OOF backgrounds. What the background is can play a role in how the bokeh looks also.
So is my spider at post #62 closer to good bokeh than some of the others? or would it need to be even smoother in the backgound?
Don
Don Ricklin - Gear: Canon EOS 5D Mark III, was Pentax K7
'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook.
Don, Antonio, guys & gals all,
I died not make my post to single anyone's images out, and I certainly was not criticizing either Don's or Antonio's.
I just thought the thread was beginning to wander from an accurate representation of good or bad bokeh, into a mishmash of some rather poor demonstrations of what I consider to be good bokeh.
Go back to the beginning post by Andy, to see his suggestions for what is good bokeh. Then make you own decision if your shot is a good example of good or bad bokeh.
And for the record, some great lenses can have very bad bokeh some times. I have a 500F4 IS L that is a great lens, and can offer great bokeh, but sometimes, if the light is right, the background can look awful also.
Even though bokeh refers to the quality of a lenses out of focus areas, a busy, cluttered background can contribute to bad bokeh, that even great lens quality cannot correct.
Don, Antonio, guys & gals all,
I died not make my post to single anyone's images out, and I certainly was not criticizing either Don's or Antonio's.
I just thought the thread was beginning to wander from an accurate representation of good or bad bokeh, into a mishmash of some rather poor demonstrations of what I consider to be good bokeh.
Go back to the beginning post by Andy, to see his suggestions for what is good bokeh. Then make you own decision if your shot is a good example of good or bad bokeh.
And for the record, some great lenses can have very bad bokeh some times. I have a 500F4 IS L that is a great lens, and can offer great bokeh, but sometimes, if the light is right, the background can look awful also.
Even though bokeh refers to the quality of a lenses out of focus areas, a busy, cluttered background can contribute to bad bokeh, that even great lens quality cannot correct.
As long as I am concerned, I have perfectly understood the question as you say and I quote: "...the thread was beginning to wander from an accurate representation of good or bad bokeh..."
Having understood that the assumption was true - for my pictures - I decided to turn some of them smaller. However, I left a few where I think they have a good bokeh or an acceptable one.
Don Ricklin - Gear: Canon EOS 5D Mark III, was Pentax K7
'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook.
Technically, bokeh refers to the rendition of out of focus points of light or highlights, and I think all three images are lovely. Bokeh does not truly require totally unrecognizable backgrounds, just smooth, soft edged highlights, not harsh, sharp edged highlights.
Comments
Don
'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook .
Nope, nothing that special Antonio
20D ( I think you had one of these:D ) at 700mm ( Sigmonster 300-800 - I shoot birds sometimes )
70-200 f2.8 IS L ( I think you have this lens, don't you?
My goal was to demonstrate what I think of as good bokeh. You can get similar bokehs with a 50mm f1.4, or a 35mm f1.4 or an 85mm f1.8, or a 200mm at f2.8 etc, etc The number of leaves in the iris diaphragm plays a role in how round the OOF areas are. The above mentioned EOS lenses all have nice bokeh. I am sure the comparable Nikon lenses do also.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Sigmonster, have to go and see that "thing" on the net.
70-200 Yep !
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Excuse me but you must do better than this.:D
The way I see the picture, you are missing the focus point. It is not very very sharp on the hair...
Nix (and others), i think that you may be confusing bokeh for depth of field. as posted here before bokeh can most simply be described as the quality or appearance of the out of focus (OOF) area in the shot. Ideally good bokeh will render the OOF to be undeterminable as to what it actually is. While 'less than adequate' bokeh would be something that you can clearly tell what the OOF is, even though it is blurred/OOF. With good bokeh you shouldnt see any crisp/sharp lines.
This doesnt mean that any of the samples you have shown are bad shots, they just are not examples of good boheh.
Hope this helps.
Additional, once you finally are getting decent bokeh, the true debate as to 'good' or 'excellent' bokeh truly starts, as at this point "[bokeh] is in the eye of the beholder" if you will, and it is all subjective. But the
organicphoto.zenfolio.com
Eia, i wouldnt think of an image having a little, or a lot of bokeh. Think of it more like "what is the quality of the bluriness of my out of focus area?" bokeh is used to describe this area in terms of quality, not quantity.
In your example the out of focus areas are indeed out of focus, but i would not necessarily say they are OOF enough to notice any real bokeh effects.
organicphoto.zenfolio.com
i agree, i think these are not only stunning images, but great examples of good bokeh
organicphoto.zenfolio.com
And ... Luminous Landscape for example.
I posted my birds because I think they represent very pleasing bokeh - smooth, even lighted areas without sharp borders or background details that detract from the image. Andy calls it "buttery smooth" and I think that conveys the meaning very well.
Unfortunately, many of the shots displayed in this thread, display out of focus backgrounds, but not with a pleasing bokeh. Just blurring the background does not necessarily constitute good bokeh. Some lenses can display very poor bokeh in their OOF backgrounds. What the background is can play a role in how the bokeh looks also.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Jim. good evening.
I do understand what you mean.
And now, I understand better what bokeh is, even if I have read about it previously.
I can see now that some of the pictures I posted are not the best example... Sorry. I'll turn them smaller.
You were right telling me about this.
Have a nice week end.
I made some pictures smaller.
Others I left them as they are because I think they are not so bad ...
Don
'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook .
I died not make my post to single anyone's images out, and I certainly was not criticizing either Don's or Antonio's.
I just thought the thread was beginning to wander from an accurate representation of good or bad bokeh, into a mishmash of some rather poor demonstrations of what I consider to be good bokeh.
Go back to the beginning post by Andy, to see his suggestions for what is good bokeh. Then make you own decision if your shot is a good example of good or bad bokeh.
And for the record, some great lenses can have very bad bokeh some times. I have a 500F4 IS L that is a great lens, and can offer great bokeh, but sometimes, if the light is right, the background can look awful also.
Even though bokeh refers to the quality of a lenses out of focus areas, a busy, cluttered background can contribute to bad bokeh, that even great lens quality cannot correct.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
As long as I am concerned, I have perfectly understood the question as you say and I quote: "...the thread was beginning to wander from an accurate representation of good or bad bokeh..."
Having understood that the assumption was true - for my pictures - I decided to turn some of them smaller. However, I left a few where I think they have a good bokeh or an acceptable one.
You may be the judge.:D
Thanks,
Don
'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook .
Here are a couple where the depth of focus, I feel, helps the photo.
and an other.
is the background too distracting in the one below to be considered good bokeh?
I welcome critiques and criticism! Thanks!
-DK
www.dank-photo.com
www.dank-photo.blogspot.com
Technically, bokeh refers to the rendition of out of focus points of light or highlights, and I think all three images are lovely. Bokeh does not truly require totally unrecognizable backgrounds, just smooth, soft edged highlights, not harsh, sharp edged highlights.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
This is actually a picture of my son taken in Ga while at a playground during one of our hikes up the mountain.
50mm 1.4 sony Alpha 100
Alpha 99 & VG, 900x2 & VG; 50mm1.4, CZ135 1.8; CZ16-35 2.8, CZ24-70 2.8, G70-200 2.8, G70-400, Sony TC 1.4, F20, F58, F60.
20D + 24-70 mm
The main subject is not as sharp as I wanted but I think the background blurred out nicely.
20D + 24-70
Lead dog at Old Dog Photography