Good bokeh? Bad bokeh?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Pablo, Jul 8, 2012.

  1. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Pablo, Jul 12, 2012
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:30:30 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:

    >tony cooper escribió:
    >
    >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:09:09 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:

    >
    >>>Out of interest, how do you define 'biker'?

    >
    >> They aren't all Harley riders,
    >> but they are the ones that I usually photograph.

    >
    >Uh huh.
    >
    >You photograph "lifestyle bikers".
    >
    >As you were.


    I really don't understand your comment. I like to photograph
    people...interesting-looking people. Bikers, especially many Harley
    riders, can be interesting-looking people. It's as simple as that.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 12, 2012
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. Pablo

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/11/2012 11:17 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:33:26 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Your comments profusely illustrates that we see the same image, and
    >> interpret it differently.

    >
    > That's one of the reasons that I have little interest in photographing
    > birds, mountains, and covered bridges. They're pretty, but they don't
    > engage thinking.
    >>

    >


    I think the opposite is true. Any decent photograph can very well
    encourage thinking and an interesting discussion. Naturally, that
    applies only if several people are interested in the subject of the
    discussion.

    Yes is discussion of why bored looking girls are waiting in line
    requires less mind exercise than a discussion of an outflow plain,
    mineral deposit, botany, agronomy, etc.

    --
    Peter
    There is more to life than candid shots of people.
     
    PeterN, Jul 14, 2012
    #63
  4. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 23:21:20 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >There is more to life than candid shots of people.


    I don't think I suggested that taking candid photographs of people is,
    or should be, the primary interest of anyone except myself. That's
    what I like to do.

    That's not all I photograph, though. I've been submitting three
    images to each of the Shoot-Ins for several years. Some of them have
    been of, or including, people, but most have not.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 14, 2012
    #64
  5. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:14:22 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-07-11 20:17:28 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:33:26 -0400, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Your comments profusely illustrates that we see the same image, and
    >>> interpret it differently.

    >>
    >> That's one of the reasons that I have little interest in photographing
    >> birds, mountains, and covered bridges. They're pretty, but they don't
    >> engage thinking.

    >
    >I have to assume that you are speaking for yourself and your personal
    >lack of interest, when you say, "They're pretty, but they don't engage
    >thinking." I never imagined you as that so closed to "the different"
    >when it comes to photographic subjects. You seem to accept the
    >challenge of oddball SI mandates.


    Of course I speak for myself. That's what any of us do.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 14, 2012
    #65
  6. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    >On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:14:22 -0700, Savageduck
    ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >>I have to assume that you are speaking for yourself and your personal
    >>lack of interest, when you say, "They're pretty, but they don't engage
    >>thinking." I never imagined you as that so closed to "the different"
    >>when it comes to photographic subjects. You seem to accept the
    >>challenge of oddball SI mandates.


    My three submissions for "Pairs, etc" do not include a candid shot of
    human beings though I've taken several shots since the topic was
    announced that would qualify. I'm not particularly excited about any
    of my three submission, though. They're rather ordinary.

    I look at each of my three submissions and think more about how it was
    taken, how it could have been taken better with different settings or
    lighting, how it was processed and how it could have been processed
    differently, and how a different angle or position could have improved
    the shot. With candids, I think about the subject and what might be
    going on with that subject at the time I took it. I see a story and
    not just an object.

    It's not that the type of photos in the submissions don't engage
    thinking; it's that the thinking in type of photo in these submissions
    is comparatively superficial in regard to what is being photographed.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 14, 2012
    #66
  7. Pablo

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/14/2012 12:44 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 23:21:20 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> There is more to life than candid shots of people.

    >
    > I don't think I suggested that taking candid photographs of people is,
    > or should be, the primary interest of anyone except myself. That's
    > what I like to do.
    >
    > That's not all I photograph, though. I've been submitting three
    > images to each of the Shoot-Ins for several years. Some of them have
    > been of, or including, people, but most have not.
    >


    My complete posting a response to your implication that only images of
    people provoke thought. I doubt you intended to say that.

    I do not feel a need to justify my personal preferences. they are simply
    my preferences, simply because that is what I prefer to do. I recall you
    expressed surprise that I included a people shot in one of my
    submissions. A preference is just that. It is not exclusionary.
    Similarly, Few have ever accused you of shooting people to the exclusion
    of all else.
    I fail to understand why you are being defensive about your personal
    preferences.
    Did I catch you on a bad day?

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 14, 2012
    #67
  8. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:48:36 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 7/14/2012 12:44 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 23:21:20 -0400, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> There is more to life than candid shots of people.

    >>
    >> I don't think I suggested that taking candid photographs of people is,
    >> or should be, the primary interest of anyone except myself. That's
    >> what I like to do.
    >>
    >> That's not all I photograph, though. I've been submitting three
    >> images to each of the Shoot-Ins for several years. Some of them have
    >> been of, or including, people, but most have not.
    >>

    >
    >My complete posting a response to your implication that only images of
    >people provoke thought. I doubt you intended to say that.
    >
    >I do not feel a need to justify my personal preferences. they are simply
    >my preferences, simply because that is what I prefer to do. I recall you
    >expressed surprise that I included a people shot in one of my
    >submissions. A preference is just that. It is not exclusionary.
    >Similarly, Few have ever accused you of shooting people to the exclusion
    >of all else.
    >I fail to understand why you are being defensive about your personal
    >preferences.
    >Did I catch you on a bad day?


    No, but I do rather object to a statement that I am not interested in
    landscapes, birds, and flowers and find them less than
    thought-provoking being transformed into a statement that it's my
    feeling that *other* people are similarly handicapped. It should be
    self-evident that any opinion I express about interest in subject
    matter is reflective only of my own interests.

    I trust that you will find it no surprise that one of SI submissions
    involves birds.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 14, 2012
    #68
  9. Pablo

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/14/2012 3:15 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:48:36 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 7/14/2012 12:44 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 23:21:20 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> There is more to life than candid shots of people.
    >>>
    >>> I don't think I suggested that taking candid photographs of people is,
    >>> or should be, the primary interest of anyone except myself. That's
    >>> what I like to do.
    >>>
    >>> That's not all I photograph, though. I've been submitting three
    >>> images to each of the Shoot-Ins for several years. Some of them have
    >>> been of, or including, people, but most have not.
    >>>

    >>
    >> My complete posting a response to your implication that only images of
    >> people provoke thought. I doubt you intended to say that.
    >>
    >> I do not feel a need to justify my personal preferences. they are simply
    >> my preferences, simply because that is what I prefer to do. I recall you
    >> expressed surprise that I included a people shot in one of my
    >> submissions. A preference is just that. It is not exclusionary.
    >> Similarly, Few have ever accused you of shooting people to the exclusion
    >> of all else.
    >> I fail to understand why you are being defensive about your personal
    >> preferences.
    >> Did I catch you on a bad day?

    >
    > No, but I do rather object to a statement that I am not interested in
    > landscapes, birds, and flowers and find them less than
    > thought-provoking being transformed into a statement that it's my
    > feeling that *other* people are similarly handicapped. It should be
    > self-evident that any opinion I express about interest in subject
    > matter is reflective only of my own interests.
    >
    > I trust that you will find it no surprise that one of SI submissions
    > involves birds.
    >
    >



    Here is the complete conversation, to which i think you are referring.
    "
    On 7/11/2012 11:17 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:33:26 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Your comments profusely illustrates that we see the same image, and
    >> interpret it differently.

    >
    > That's one of the reasons that I have little interest in photographing
    > birds, mountains, and covered bridges. They're pretty, but they don't
    > engage thinking.
    >>

    >


    I think the opposite is true. Any decent photograph can very well
    encourage thinking and an interesting discussion. Naturally, that
    applies only if several people are interested in the subject of the
    discussion.

    Yes is discussion of why bored looking girls are waiting in line
    requires less mind exercise than a discussion of an outflow plain,
    mineral deposit, botany, agronomy, etc.

    --
    Peter
    There is more to life than candid shots of people."

    I don't see where I accused anybody of being handicapped. While I did
    imply that a discussion of females, and their motives for being in line
    for some event, is usually less intellectually challenging than a
    discussion of science.
    If anyone took that to mean I was accusing you of being handicapped,
    that was not my intent.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 14, 2012
    #69
  10. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 17:03:36 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 7/14/2012 3:15 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:48:36 -0400, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 7/14/2012 12:44 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 23:21:20 -0400, PeterN
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> There is more to life than candid shots of people.
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't think I suggested that taking candid photographs of people is,
    >>>> or should be, the primary interest of anyone except myself. That's
    >>>> what I like to do.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's not all I photograph, though. I've been submitting three
    >>>> images to each of the Shoot-Ins for several years. Some of them have
    >>>> been of, or including, people, but most have not.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> My complete posting a response to your implication that only images of
    >>> people provoke thought. I doubt you intended to say that.
    >>>
    >>> I do not feel a need to justify my personal preferences. they are simply
    >>> my preferences, simply because that is what I prefer to do. I recall you
    >>> expressed surprise that I included a people shot in one of my
    >>> submissions. A preference is just that. It is not exclusionary.
    >>> Similarly, Few have ever accused you of shooting people to the exclusion
    >>> of all else.
    >>> I fail to understand why you are being defensive about your personal
    >>> preferences.
    >>> Did I catch you on a bad day?

    >>
    >> No, but I do rather object to a statement that I am not interested in
    >> landscapes, birds, and flowers and find them less than
    >> thought-provoking being transformed into a statement that it's my
    >> feeling that *other* people are similarly handicapped. It should be
    >> self-evident that any opinion I express about interest in subject
    >> matter is reflective only of my own interests.
    >>
    >> I trust that you will find it no surprise that one of SI submissions
    >> involves birds.

    >
    >Here is the complete conversation, to which i think you are referring.


    Actually, it was a reaction to the Duck's:

    "Now they might not interest you, but don't project your lack of
    interest onto others and label the images unable to 'engage
    thinking'."

    I'm not projecting anything to anyone else.

    >On 7/11/2012 11:17 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > > On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:33:26 -0400, PeterN
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Your comments profusely illustrates that we see the same image, and
    > >> interpret it differently.

    > >
    > > That's one of the reasons that I have little interest in photographing
    > > birds, mountains, and covered bridges. They're pretty, but they don't
    > > engage thinking.
    > >>

    >
    >I think the opposite is true. Any decent photograph can very well
    >encourage thinking and an interesting discussion.


    I'm not talking about starting a discussion. I'm talking about my
    interest in taking that image and how I view the resulting image. Just
    me.

    >Naturally, that
    >applies only if several people are interested in the subject of the
    >discussion.


    >Yes is discussion of why bored looking girls are waiting in line
    >requires less mind exercise than a discussion of an outflow plain,
    >mineral deposit, botany, agronomy, etc.


    Well, even there you've come up with a story: "bored girls". I don't
    see them as bored at all. I see them as anticipating the night ahead
    and cooling it until the doors open. Floyd came up with a whole
    scenario including that the girls "clearly know each other", that they
    all know they are being observed, that they are engaged in "social
    interaction", and that they could be successful in the coming evening.
    One photo, several interpretations.

    >
    >I don't see where I accused anybody of being handicapped. While I did
    >imply that a discussion of females, and their motives for being in line
    >for some event, is usually less intellectually challenging than a
    >discussion of science.


    It's not about instigating an intellectually stimulating discussion.
    It's about what goes on in my head when I see an image. I don't carry
    on discussions in there.

    When I see a photograph of people, I can't help but conjecture about
    what they were doing, thinking, experiencing, or what they are like.
    When I see a photograph of mountain or a flower or a bird, I don't
    start thinking of the scientific reasons the mountain exists. Or why
    the flower grows. Or how a bird flies.

    What I usually think of are the technical considerations of how the
    photo was taken: settings, lighting, processing, etc. And, "That's
    pretty".



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 14, 2012
    #70
  11. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:14:40 -0400, rwalker <>
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:43:29 -0400, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-XcsJQdN/0/X2/2012-07-09-2-X2.jpg
    >>
    >>I know candid street photography is not of interest to those here, but
    >>it's what I like to do.

    >
    >
    >I read here a lot, but don't post often. I'm not a big fan of a lot
    >of street photography, but I think this one is great!


    Thank you.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 15, 2012
    #71
  12. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:25:13 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-07-14 14:40:37 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >> Actually, it was a reaction to the Duck's:
    >>
    >> "Now they might not interest you, but don't project your lack of
    >> interest onto others and label the images unable to 'engage
    >> thinking'."
    >>
    >> I'm not projecting anything to anyone else.

    >
    >...and yet "similarly handicapped" is your turn of phrase. You are the
    >one who has hoisted your flag over the candid shot, and dismissed
    >subjects such as landscapes, birds, mountains, and covered bridges as
    >incapable of stimulating thought or interest for you. You also seem to
    >have seen yourself as the solo photographer hunting the candid shot in
    >these groups. I also pointed out that that was not true, even though
    >the quality of your candid art exceeds much of my product in that genre.
    >
    >While I fully understand that the shots we take are primarily for our
    >own interest and enjoyment, and you find candid shots are your primary
    >photographic interest. You state that your interest lies in making that
    >capture and your view of the result. That leaves all other viewers to
    >formulate their own interpretation of your candid shots.
    >Yet you don't seem to grasp others might hold a broader interest
    >encompassing other subjects and types of photography including the
    >candid shot. So when it comes to landscapes, seascapes panoramas,
    >macros, nature and other photography you tell us you don't care for
    >them because they hold no interest for you, and you dismiss them as
    >some lesser form of photography.


    You are really misinterpreting my remarks. I don't dismiss other
    people's shots. I usually comment on the SI submissions, and those
    comments have been most complimentary in many cases. I recognize good
    shots of anything when I see them (subject to my interpretation of
    "good") and say so. You've been complimented by me many times.

    I can't see how you think that I don't see how others have a broad
    interest in other subject matter. Of course I see that, even when I
    don't like the results (ie: HDR, for the most part).

    I have never said or intimated that any subject matter (with the
    possible exception of ocean cruise liners) is a "lesser form of
    photography".

    What I have said, or attempted to say, is that the taking of other
    subject matter is lesser interest to me personally. I do it because I
    like photography, I spend a lot of time photographing, and interesting
    street candid stuff is difficult to find in a city like Orlando. So,
    I keep an eye out for anything that might be of photographic interest.

    .. >Then you step out and shoot shots for the diverse challenges of the
    SI
    >and give us candid, non-candid, non-character shots which provoke and
    >stimulate thought.


    How would I know that? We have distressingly few comments about
    submissions. One or two people will make comments - usually about the
    rendering or composition - and the rest of the comments are usually
    replies from the commented-on about why they did what they did. How
    would I, or you, know what thoughts the images provoke?

    >At all times they are open to thought and
    >interpretation by the viewer, and that opinion might clash with you
    >personal feelings with regard to your work.
    >
    >...and even though this might be described as one of your candid shots,
    >it is of a bird, astonished to find itself worthy of your candid eye.
    >< http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/136707831 >


    Oh, for Christ's sake. Of course I shoot birds. A bird shot has
    already been submitted to the coming SI. It's in, sent a couple of
    days ago. It just doesn't excite me to capture a shot of bird. I'm
    going to do the best I can if there's one there, though.


    >Then you gave us this fine still life. Undoubtably interesting and
    >thought provoking, and definitely not candid.
    >< http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/135613120 >


    C'mon, now. What "thought" did that provoke? It's an OK arranged
    composition, but did it lead you to think about the history of those
    items? About the man who carved the handle? I doubt it.

    This recent one, though, makes me think about the subject. The
    person, what he's thinking, what he's doing there"

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/i-4z3ghPd/0/X2/i-4z3ghPd-X2.jpg

    >You even went "mechanical abstract" on us.
    >< http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/122587161 >
    >
    >Not bad, and need I say that these are fine shots taken with you
    >stepping away from your candid cloak to produce shots of interest.
    >So there is evidence that the candid capture is not the only area you
    >produce images of quality and interest.


    It's a matter of enthusiasm on my part. I continually try to expand
    my photographic eye and see an image where I might not have seen an
    image before. But, given a choice of scene I'll take the candid of a
    person anytime.

    I would think you would understand this. The way you go on, someone
    might think you are of the opinion that anyone not using Google+, a
    Mac, phone apps, CS5,geotags, or HD is choosing the lesser route. I
    know that's not the case, and that it's just your enthusiasm for
    things you like coming across.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 15, 2012
    #72
  13. Pablo

    Paul Furman Guest

    On Sunday, July 8, 2012 8:38:10 AM UTC-7, Pablo wrote:
    > I'm confused.
    >
    > I read this:
    >
    > &lt;http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-55mm-
    > F1.8.html&gt;
    >
    > And take this:
    >
    > &lt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream&gt;
    >
    > The bokeh seems harsh to me.
    >
    > Am I doing something wrong?


    Even champion bokeh-friendly lenses fail under some (many) lighting conditions. The subtle effects of bright ring and color fringing appear with high contrast OOF elements so it's important to look for a relatively low contrast background. I'm sure you can coax out some beautiful dreamy shots from the lens, just don't count on it happening on every shot.

    The problems I see are bright-ringed bokeh on the vertical branches in the lower left, plus color fringing (chromatic abberations) in that same bokeh.Points of light will create circular effects; linear subjects will create linear bokeh shapes with the same edge treatments.
     
    Paul Furman, Jul 22, 2012
    #73
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Annika1980

    PERFECT BOKEH WITH THE D60 !!!

    Annika1980, Sep 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,818
    badgerfish
    Sep 23, 2003
  2. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    3,042
    Michael Alan Chary
    Feb 23, 2005
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    535
  4. paul

    Bad Bokeh!

    paul, Mar 15, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,344
    Confused
    Mar 21, 2005
  5. John

    Bad media, bad files or bad Nero?

    John, Dec 31, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,273
    Keith
    Jan 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page