Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100 Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17 What we have here is highlights in defocused image. Visualopsins wrote: I have to agree that isn't bokeh. These changes in terms by a new generation often come around again eventually. I am a traditionalist concerning bokeh, but I know when I'm out of step with the zeitgeist, so shut-up and plough my own furrow. It looks like you may be getting criticism from traditionalists. I think it is good bokeh, although I don't know what feel you had in mind and whether you feel you achieved it. The affect is measurable, subjectively, as we can also imagine it in focus and decide if it has been made better or worse. You have changed the feel of a streetscape through careful use of defocus. We have a popular thread on this site called 'Bokeh only', an utter contradiction in terms for a traditionalist. I think your pic is excellent too.īut today, bokeh seems to mean the oof area regardless of any in-focus subject and can be valued on how it looks in itself. The picture is simply out of focus, although having said that, some of the great photographers in history used this technique and have become celebrated for it - Julia Margaret Cameron springs to mind. So, if you didn't have an in-focus subject in the shot, you didn't have a bokeh to value. In simple terms, you could get good bokeh which enhanced the subject or bad bokeh which detracted from it, in your opinion. Bokeh was a subjective unit of measurement like hot or cold. Sciolist wrote: Back in the day, bokeh only appeared in conversation when valuing how the oof area affected the in-focus subject. There are others who use bokeh to mean shallow DOF, if the group is one of these your best option is to simply quite & avoid it completely! I have this mental notch in the back of my head to try this from time to time.ĭConvert wrote: To my mind Bokeh really needs an in-focus portion of the image, but the rules of the Flickr group SHOULD specify what they mean by it. There is something about completely defocused images. It is a research topic devoid of good quantifiable measurements, and thus strong opinions will easily overshadow any valid points.Įven the term 'bokeh' does not seem to be universally agreed upon, as you've just witnessed. If, however, the aim is to portray an image in an impressionistic manner by deliberately shooting out of focus, then is it really bokeh or interpretive photography?Īnd to come back to my original thought - does it really matter?Īidaho wrote: I don't want to call names, but bokeh people are sometimes a little bit special. If there is no subject, then it might be simply an out of focus image. If you are happy with the image then who cares what others think.Īs for bokeh - traditionalists might regard it as the out of focus rendering in front of, and behind the subject. The only person that your photography has to please is yourself. Yes I suppose some only can see it that Gott - does it really matter? Maybe some people think bokeh only exists wide open. Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia So I figured that is bokeh and flare.ĭ1N0 wrote: Maybe some people think bokeh only exists wide open. Now that shot on my CZJ Prakticar 50mm f1.8 at f/16 no hood. Gott23 wrote: So I've just be lambasted on Flickr for describing this photo as Bokeh. Posted: Fri 7:10 am Post subject: Bokeh or not?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |