Re: [SI] Weapons are available for viewing, finally!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Jun 17, 2011.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    >Bowser wrote:
    >> Apologies for the delay. The latest mandate for the Shoot-In, Weapons,
    >> is available for viewing. Aim your browser here to see them:
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/weapons
    >>
    >> Now we need someone out there to peruse the pictures and fire off some
    >> comments. And yes, targeted comments are best.

    >
    >Great shot (rifle muzzle) by Alan Browne. That may just be the most creative
    >use of focus I've ever seen. (And wow, a 135/1.8?! I guess that's what the
    >shot called for, all right.)



    Hideous bokeh.

    But that won't bother Browne, who infamously stated (and repeated for
    emphasis) that bokeh did not exist.
     
    Bruce, Jun 17, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:15:52 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >"Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    >>Bowser wrote:
    >>> Apologies for the delay. The latest mandate for the Shoot-In, Weapons,
    >>> is available for viewing. Aim your browser here to see them:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/weapons
    >>>
    >>> Now we need someone out there to peruse the pictures and fire off some
    >>> comments. And yes, targeted comments are best.

    >>
    >>Great shot (rifle muzzle) by Alan Browne. That may just be the most creative
    >>use of focus I've ever seen. (And wow, a 135/1.8?! I guess that's what the
    >>shot called for, all right.)

    >
    >
    >Hideous bokeh.
    >
    >But that won't bother Browne, who infamously stated (and repeated for
    >emphasis) that bokeh did not exist.


    Is there another definition for "bokeh" that I don't know about? As
    far as I know, bokeh is the blur of an out-of-focus background. If
    the blur contributes to the aesthetics of the image, it's "good"
    bokeh. If the blur distracts, it's "bad" bokeh.

    In this case, the background establishes what the image is all about.
    The end of the rifle is sharply in focus and all else is blurred, but
    not blurred so much that we don't know what the subject was.

    For the bokeh to be "bad" in this case, the background would have to
    be so out-of-focus that we have to really study the image to figure
    out what the focussed area is, or the background would have distinct
    enough to spoil the effect. In my opinion, the right balance was
    achieved in this image.

    I'm not real fond of the area at the extreme lower left, but the rest
    works. One has to wonder what is there at the lower left and that's a
    bit of a spoiler.

    I'm glad that Bruce has commented, but would like to know what Bruce
    would think is better: the background being more or less
    out-of-focus.

    I am confused by the "bokeh does not exist" comment. "Bokeh" is just
    a word to describe out-of-focus points in the background, and there's
    no question that out-of-focus points do exist in many images.

    Personally, I think it's a pretentious term. Using it just comes
    across as "I've read an article about this and I want to impress you
    with my knowledge of terms".





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jun 17, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/17/2011 2:58 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2011-06-17 14:45 , Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> Bruce wrote:
    >>> "Neil Harrington"<> wrote:
    >>>> Bowser wrote:
    >>>>> Apologies for the delay. The latest mandate for the Shoot-In,
    >>>>> Weapons, is available for viewing. Aim your browser here to see
    >>>>> them:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/weapons
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Now we need someone out there to peruse the pictures and fire off
    >>>>> some comments. And yes, targeted comments are best.
    >>>>
    >>>> Great shot (rifle muzzle) by Alan Browne. That may just be the most
    >>>> creative use of focus I've ever seen. (And wow, a 135/1.8?! I guess
    >>>> that's what the shot called for, all right.)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Hideous bokeh.
    >>>
    >>> But that won't bother Browne, who infamously stated (and repeated for
    >>> emphasis) that bokeh did not exist.

    >
    > I never said any such thing.
    >


    For some reason I suspect Brucie's evaluation of your excellent shot is
    colored by his inability to separate your art from your postings.

    BTW The only reason I passed no comment is that I would only be
    repeating comments of prior posters.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 17, 2011
    #3
  4. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:11:10 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >> Personally, I think it's a pretentious term. Using it just comes
    >> across as "I've read an article about this and I want to impress you
    >> with my knowledge of terms".

    >
    >Bokeh is simply a Japanese word that caught on in the English
    >photography world as there is no English word to represent "pleasing,
    >smooth out of focus qualities". I have no idea what the word really
    >"means" in Japanese or how it was arrived at.


    Like most people, the first time I came across the word I looked it
    up. The Japanese word "boke" (which is pronounced bo-keh) means
    "fuzziness" or "dizziness". My reaction was "If you mean 'fuzzy',
    just say 'fuzzy'."

    Photographers who spend more time talking about the aspects of an
    image than they do taking photographs expanded the meaning to include
    "creaminess" and a whole bunch of similar terms. There are web pages
    that dissect this concept beyond any point of interest.

    I forget the person's name, but there used to be a poster here who
    would rave about the "creamy" bokeh in his/her (there was some doubt)
    photographs. He/she didn't seem to have an eye for composition or
    interest, but certainly got turned on by the out-of-focus elements.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jun 17, 2011
    #4
  5. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:11:10 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >
    >> Is there another definition for "bokeh" that I don't know about? As
    >> far as I know, bokeh is the blur of an out-of-focus background. If
    >> the blur contributes to the aesthetics of the image, it's "good"
    >> bokeh. If the blur distracts, it's "bad" bokeh.

    >
    >Good quality bokeh is usually considered to have smooth edges and
    >transitions without 'rings' around highlights or other distracting
    >elements (as you mention).
    >
    >> In this case, the background establishes what the image is all about.
    >> The end of the rifle is sharply in focus and all else is blurred, but
    >> not blurred so much that we don't know what the subject was.
    >>
    >> For the bokeh to be "bad" in this case, the background would have to
    >> be so out-of-focus that we have to really study the image to figure
    >> out what the focussed area is, or the background would have distinct
    >> enough to spoil the effect. In my opinion, the right balance was
    >> achieved in this image.

    >
    >Not sure I agree completely with that. In many cases the BG is rendered
    >completely OOF to the point of being unrecognizable and smooth.
    >http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6297008&size=lg



    You've gone from the specific to the general. My comments above are
    about the balance in *your* specific image in the SI. I fully
    understand that the desired amount of out-of-focusness varies
    according to the composition.

    In this shot of mine, I wanted the full Monte of blur.

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Miscellanea/237b/519396601_YEoHC-XL.jpg



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jun 17, 2011
    #5
  6. Bruce

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/17/2011 6:07 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:11:10 -0400, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> Personally, I think it's a pretentious term. Using it just comes
    >>> across as "I've read an article about this and I want to impress you
    >>> with my knowledge of terms".

    >>
    >> Bokeh is simply a Japanese word that caught on in the English
    >> photography world as there is no English word to represent "pleasing,
    >> smooth out of focus qualities". I have no idea what the word really
    >> "means" in Japanese or how it was arrived at.

    >
    > Like most people, the first time I came across the word I looked it
    > up. The Japanese word "boke" (which is pronounced bo-keh) means
    > "fuzziness" or "dizziness". My reaction was "If you mean 'fuzzy',
    > just say 'fuzzy'."
    >
    > Photographers who spend more time talking about the aspects of an
    > image than they do taking photographs expanded the meaning to include
    > "creaminess" and a whole bunch of similar terms. There are web pages
    > that dissect this concept beyond any point of interest.
    >
    > I forget the person's name, but there used to be a poster here who
    > would rave about the "creamy" bokeh in his/her (there was some doubt)
    > photographs. He/she didn't seem to have an eye for composition or
    > interest, but certainly got turned on by the out-of-focus elements.
    >
    >


    But bokeh doesn't quite fit.
    Bokeh wuzzy wuz a bear..........





    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 18, 2011
    #6
  7. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:03:31 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2011-06-17 18:14 , tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:11:10 -0400, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> Is there another definition for "bokeh" that I don't know about? As
    >>>> far as I know, bokeh is the blur of an out-of-focus background. If
    >>>> the blur contributes to the aesthetics of the image, it's "good"
    >>>> bokeh. If the blur distracts, it's "bad" bokeh.
    >>>
    >>> Good quality bokeh is usually considered to have smooth edges and
    >>> transitions without 'rings' around highlights or other distracting
    >>> elements (as you mention).
    >>>
    >>>> In this case, the background establishes what the image is all about.
    >>>> The end of the rifle is sharply in focus and all else is blurred, but
    >>>> not blurred so much that we don't know what the subject was.
    >>>>
    >>>> For the bokeh to be "bad" in this case, the background would have to
    >>>> be so out-of-focus that we have to really study the image to figure
    >>>> out what the focussed area is, or the background would have distinct
    >>>> enough to spoil the effect. In my opinion, the right balance was
    >>>> achieved in this image.
    >>>
    >>> Not sure I agree completely with that. In many cases the BG is rendered
    >>> completely OOF to the point of being unrecognizable and smooth.
    >>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6297008&size=lg

    >>
    >>
    >> You've gone from the specific to the general. My comments above are
    >> about the balance in *your* specific image in the SI. I fully

    >
    >That wasn't how I read it.


    I can't understand how you could misunderstand when I used "in this
    case" and "in this image". What else could "this" mean in the
    context? Especially when the preceding paragraph talked about "this
    case" and "the end of the rifle".


    >
    >> understand that the desired amount of out-of-focusness varies
    >> according to the composition.
    >>
    >> In this shot of mine, I wanted the full Monte of blur.
    >>
    >> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Miscellanea/237b/519396601_YEoHC-XL.jpg

    >
    >Nice.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jun 18, 2011
    #7
  8. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 07:02:23 -0700, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> Bruce wrote:
    >>> Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/weapons
    >>>>
    >>>> Great shot (rifle muzzle) by Alan Browne. That may just be the most
    >>>> creative use of focus I've ever seen. (And wow, a 135/1.8?! I guess
    >>>> that's what the shot called for, all right.)
    >>>
    >>> Hideous bokeh.
    >>>
    >>> But that won't bother Browne, who infamously stated (and repeated for
    >>> emphasis) that bokeh did not exist.

    >>
    >> I don't see anything wrong with it.
    >>
    >> But then I'm more or less in the "bokeh schmokeh" camp.

    >
    >Count me as an unrepentant bokeh snob. If people don't think
    >out-of-focus areas matter, why does everyone like this shot? Why does
    >Hollywood use selective focus so much?


    I don't think anyone's taken the position that out-of-focus areas
    don't matter. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    Bruce said the bokeh is hideous. The meaning of that is that he
    thinks there should be more or less blurring by allowing the
    background to be more in or out of focus. We don't know which,
    though, because he didn't say why he thinks the bokeh is hideous.

    I said the treatment, like Baby Bear's porridge, is "just right", but
    I added that I think the use of the word "bokeh" is pretentious when
    what is described is the control of depth of sharp focus.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jun 18, 2011
    #8
  9. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:23:25 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2011-06-18 09:45 , tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:03:31 -0400, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2011-06-17 18:14 , tony cooper wrote:
    >>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:11:10 -0400, Alan Browne
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Is there another definition for "bokeh" that I don't know about? As
    >>>>>> far as I know, bokeh is the blur of an out-of-focus background. If
    >>>>>> the blur contributes to the aesthetics of the image, it's "good"
    >>>>>> bokeh. If the blur distracts, it's "bad" bokeh.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Good quality bokeh is usually considered to have smooth edges and
    >>>>> transitions without 'rings' around highlights or other distracting
    >>>>> elements (as you mention).
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In this case, the background establishes what the image is all about.
    >>>>>> The end of the rifle is sharply in focus and all else is blurred, but
    >>>>>> not blurred so much that we don't know what the subject was.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> For the bokeh to be "bad" in this case, the background would have to
    >>>>>> be so out-of-focus that we have to really study the image to figure
    >>>>>> out what the focussed area is, or the background would have distinct
    >>>>>> enough to spoil the effect. In my opinion, the right balance was
    >>>>>> achieved in this image.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Not sure I agree completely with that. In many cases the BG is rendered
    >>>>> completely OOF to the point of being unrecognizable and smooth.
    >>>>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6297008&size=lg
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You've gone from the specific to the general. My comments above are
    >>>> about the balance in *your* specific image in the SI. I fully
    >>>
    >>> That wasn't how I read it.

    >>
    >> I can't understand how you could misunderstand when I used "in this
    >> case" and "in this image". What else could "this" mean in the
    >> context? Especially when the preceding paragraph talked about "this
    >> case" and "the end of the rifle".

    >
    >Can you give me some latitude for reading quickly, neigh, scanning
    >rather that reading?


    I have my sound turned off. The horse laugh didn't come across.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jun 18, 2011
    #9
  10. Bruce

    otter Guest

    Re: Weapons are available for viewing, finally!

    On Jun 18, 11:41 am, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    > tony cooper wrote:
    > > Paul Furmanwrote:
    > >> Neil Harrington wrote:
    > >>> Bruce wrote:
    > >>>> Neil Harrington wrote:

    >
    > >>>>>>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/weapons

    >
    > >>>>> Great shot (rifle muzzle) by Alan Browne. That may just be the most
    > >>>>> creative use of focus I've ever seen. (And wow, a 135/1.8?! I guess
    > >>>>> that's what the shot called for, all right.)

    >
    > >>>> Hideous bokeh.

    >
    > >>>> But that won't bother Browne, who infamously stated (and repeated for
    > >>>> emphasis) that bokeh did not exist.

    >
    > >>> I don't see anything wrong with it.

    >
    > >>> But then I'm more or less in the "bokeh schmokeh" camp.

    >
    > >> Count me as an unrepentant bokeh snob. If people don't think
    > >> out-of-focus areas matter, why does everyone like this shot? Why does
    > >> Hollywood use selective focus so much?

    >
    > > I don't think anyone's taken the position that out-of-focus areas
    > > don't matter.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

    >
    > > Bruce said the bokeh is hideous.  The meaning of that is that he
    > > thinks there should be more or less blurring by allowing the
    > > background to be more in or out of focus.  We don't know which,
    > > though, because he didn't say why he thinks the bokeh is hideous.

    >
    > > I said the treatment, like Baby Bear's porridge, is "just right", but
    > > I added that I think the use of the word "bokeh" is pretentious when
    > > what is described is the control of depth of sharp focus.

    >
    > I think Bruce meant ring/harsh edge effects and those are minimal though
    > I might have fixed the edge of the strap.
    >
    > Agreed it can be kind of wrong to say; 'cool shot, lots of bokeh' when
    > selective focus is what's meant.
    >
    > Obsessing about the bokeh character can get crazy, there isn't much that
    > can be done with a lens design to improve the softness without messing
    > up the sharpness and I think often what's being discussed has more to do
    > with the lighting/distance/texture conditions than the lens.


    Not quite sure where to put this comment about Alan's picture, but
    I'll put it here. As I said before, I think this is the best picture
    of the lot this time (including mine, certainly). It is a good
    picture, but I wouldn't say it's a great picture. I think it can be
    improved. There are some elements that are distracting, like that
    cream blob on the lower left corner. I'd probably remove that with
    content aware fill. The bright white in the upper left corner also
    leads the eye away from the subject. I would at least play around
    with burning it a little, or perhaps use a subtle vignette around the
    whole picture to darken the edges and highlight the center where the
    subject is (but not so much that it is obvious).

    As to the quality of the Bokeh, I think it is fine for this picture.
    There is perhaps a lot if detail in the out of focus area, but on the
    other hand you need to see enough of it to recognize what is
    happening. Perhaps it would have been better to have her wear a
    plain white dress, though.

    One thing people point to when they say "bad Bokeh" is when you can
    see the geometric pattern of the aperture in the flare spots, rather
    than circles. I wouldn't say that is very noticeable in this case, at
    least not to me.
     
    otter, Jun 18, 2011
    #10
    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. alfa1
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    475
    Marnie Northington
    Jul 5, 2003
  2. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,049
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  3. otter

    Re: Weapons are available for viewing, finally!

    otter, Jun 16, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    503
    John Turco
    Jun 30, 2011
  4. Whisky-dave

    Re: Weapons are available for viewing, finally!

    Whisky-dave, Jun 16, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    286
    otter
    Jun 18, 2011
  5. tony cooper

    Re: [SI] Weapons are available for viewing, finally!

    tony cooper, Jun 19, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    282
    John Turco
    Jun 30, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page