Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Good bokeh? Bad bokeh?

Reply
Thread Tools

Good bokeh? Bad bokeh?

 
 
Pablo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2012
Floyd L. Davidson escribió:

> Pablo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Floyd L. Davidson escribió:
>>
>>> Look down in the lower left corner, where there are three
>>> different objects, probably tree trunks, that are more or less
>>> vertical and more or less white. Notice that each of them
>>> appears as an out of focus double object, with a "ghost" offset
>>> horizontally. That is probably caused by a combination of an
>>> over correction for spherical aberrations and an astigmatism.
>>> It contributes to what will generally be a relatively harsh
>>> bokeh in areas with many bright vertical lines. An example
>>> would be a background of grass in bright sunlight.
>>>
>>> Other than that, the harsh bokeh of your image is not a product
>>> of the lens so much as it is the high contrast between the
>>> background and the subject. I don't see changing the color as
>>> at all significant. Anything bright with even minimal detail is
>>> not going to help.

>>
>>One point: I just remembered that I forgot to attach the hood for that
>>shot. It was a very bright day, with the sun directly overhead (as is
>>often the case here).
>>
>>Might this have had an adverse effect?

>
> I can't see anything in the image which suggests excessive flare from
> a direct sun, so apparently it didn't have much effect.


But disregarding the hood issue, the background being under the midday sun
would seem to be an issue. So either I should avoid taking photos at midday,
or make the adjustments and use a flash. No?

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2012
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:21:51 -0400, James Silverton
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 7/8/2012 8:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2012-07-08 16:54:03 -0700, James Silverton
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>
>> <<< Le Snip >>>
>>
>>> What on earth is "bokeh"? A definition please since I can't find it
>>> anywhere else but this ng.C

>>
>> Then you haven't been looking very hard, next time try Google.
>> If you had been following this thread you would have found Tony Cooper's
>> contribution.
>>
>> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh >
>>
>>

>Marvelous! I can't see any real use for it *to me* and I would have
>wished Tony had coined his word from Latin or Greek which might have
>allowed me to deduce its meaning. "Bokeh" is not in the OED nor even
>recognized by the Thunderbird spell checker.


I did not "coin" this word. That would mean that I originated the use
of the word. The coinage of the term is attributed to Mike Johnson.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Pablo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2012
Floyd L. Davidson escribió:

> Pablo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>tony cooper escribió:


>>> It's a pretentious word used to describe the appearance of a
>>> background that is out-of-focus. If you want to be *really*
>>> pretentious, rave about the "creamy bokeh" your lens produces.

>>
>>Pretentious it may be, but it works for most people.

>
> It is not in any way pretentious.


"...it may be" = subjunctive mood.

"Even though some may consider it pretentious..."

I don't think it's pretentious. I rather believe that it is a pleasant
sounding description of a photographic quality.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
 
Reply With Quote
 
otter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2012
On Jul 8, 10:38*am, Pablo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I'm confused.
>
> I read this:
>
> <http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...-Auto-Takumar-...
> F1.8.html>
>
> And take this:
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream>
>
> The bokeh seems harsh to me.
>
> Am I doing something wrong?


No offense intended, but some pictures aren't worth bothering over.
Just delete it and move on.

The thing that bothers me the most about that picture is the underside
of the branch which is blurred. If you really want to take that
picture with the background blurred, and the tree trunk in focus,
maybe consider a different angle, so the branch is at right angle to
you, rather than coming right at you. I have the same problem with
dogs noses.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2012
James Silverton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>No, I sometimes disagree with any spell checkers but they *are* an
>indication of usage. My OED is the up-to-date online version available
>via my public library. To me "bokeh" sounds like something dreamed up by
>the pretentious Hyacinth Bucket of British TV.



The word is of Japanese origin and the English spelling formerly used
was 'boke'. However, some ignorant people pronounced it to rhyme with
'smoke' so the h was added at the end to emphasise that the word has
two syllables, not one.

As Wikipedia states, "The Japanese term boke is also used in the sense
of a mental haze or senility." There seems to be a lot of it about on
Usenet photo newsgroups.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2012
Pablo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I don't think it's pretentious. I rather believe that it is a pleasant
>sounding description of a photographic quality.



People who don't/won't/can't understand a concept often resort to
labelling it "pretentious". People who are particularly ignorant will
deny that it even exists.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Pablo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2012
otter escribió:

> No offense intended, but some pictures aren't worth bothering over.
> Just delete it and move on.


You're missing the point. I'm trying to learn. Didn't you ever wonder where
a picture went wrong and ask for an opinion?

Perhaps you didn't.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Silverton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2012
On 7/9/2012 10:23 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> James Silverton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> No, I sometimes disagree with any spell checkers but they *are* an
>> indication of usage. My OED is the up-to-date online version available
>> via my public library. To me "bokeh" sounds like something dreamed up by
>> the pretentious Hyacinth Bucket of British TV.

>
> You, sir, seem to be more than a mite pretenious...


It might have helped if you had used your spell checker on the last word
quoted.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Pablo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2012
Floyd L. Davidson escribió:

> Pablo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>otter escribió:
>>
>>> No offense intended, but some pictures aren't worth bothering over.
>>> Just delete it and move on.

>>
>>You're missing the point. I'm trying to learn. Didn't you ever wonder
>>where a picture went wrong and ask for an opinion?

>
> Learning to edit might be best done on images not otherwise
> worth the bother! The idea is to avoid emotional attachment...


I actually try to avoid editing. Tweaking the exposure, or bringing out the
shadows a bit is fine, but editing is trying to make the picture into
something it wasn't. This certainly has its place, as in doctoring models,
or removing hanging power cables etc., but I'd rather just get the thing
right in the camera if at all possible.

Actually, in the case of my tree, I suppose there is a case for editing the
background, in as much as it plays no part in the composition.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2012
On 7/9/2012 11:12 AM, Bruce wrote:
> James Silverton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> No, I sometimes disagree with any spell checkers but they *are* an
>> indication of usage. My OED is the up-to-date online version available
>> via my public library. To me "bokeh" sounds like something dreamed up by
>> the pretentious Hyacinth Bucket of British TV.

>
>
> The word is of Japanese origin and the English spelling formerly used
> was 'boke'. However, some ignorant people pronounced it to rhyme with
> 'smoke' so the h was added at the end to emphasise that the word has
> two syllables, not one.
>
> As Wikipedia states, "The Japanese term boke is also used in the sense
> of a mental haze or senility." There seems to be a lot of it about on
> Usenet photo newsgroups.
>


This is too easy and I can't resist.
Must be self analysis

--
Peter


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
integer >= 1 == True and integer.0 == False is bad, bad, bad!!! rantingrick Python 44 07-13-2010 06:33 PM
Bad media, bad files or bad Nero? John Computer Information 23 01-08-2008 09:17 PM
ActiveX apologetic Larry Seltzer... "Sun paid for malicious ActiveX code, and Firefox is bad, bad bad baad. please use ActiveX, it's secure and nice!" (ok, the last part is irony on my part) fernando.cassia@gmail.com Java 0 04-16-2005 10:05 PM
24 Season 3 Bad Bad Bad (Spoiler) nospam@nospam.com DVD Video 12 02-23-2005 03:28 AM
24 Season 3 Bad Bad Bad (Spoiler) nospam@nospam.com DVD Video 0 02-19-2005 01:10 AM



Advertisments