That bokeh doesn't look like $1800 worth

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Aug 9, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Aug 9, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Charles Guest

    Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    Rich perhaps likes the diffused and bland background of a typical and boring
    studio shot. To each his own.

    "PeterN" wrote in message
    news:4e41a9c6$0$12478$-secrets.com...

    On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=39064364
    >
    > Looks very "busy."


    You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
    inability to comprehend written material.

    --
    Peter
    Charles, Aug 9, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    OG Guest

    Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote:
    > On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=39064364
    >>
    >> Looks very "busy."

    >
    > You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
    > inability to comprehend written material.
    >


    You really like the bokeh in the first photo?
    OG, Aug 9, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN <>
    wrote:
    : On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    : > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=39064364
    : >
    : > Looks very "busy."
    :
    : You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
    : inability to comprehend written material.

    Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars
    and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is
    dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 10, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    On 8/9/2011 6:46 PM, OG wrote:
    > On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote:
    >> On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=39064364
    >>>
    >>> Looks very "busy."

    >>
    >> You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
    >> inability to comprehend written material.
    >>

    >
    > You really like the bokeh in the first photo?
    >
    >


    Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others
    that are fine.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Aug 10, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    On 8/9/2011 7:37 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN<>
    > wrote:
    > : On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    > :> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=39064364
    > :>
    > :> Looks very "busy."
    > :
    > : You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
    > : inability to comprehend written material.
    >
    > Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars
    > and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is
    > dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting.


    But that was only one shot out of a series. See the Duck's comment.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Aug 10, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN <>
    >wrote:
    >: On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    >: > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=39064364
    >: >
    >: > Looks very "busy."
    >:
    >: You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
    >: inability to comprehend written material.
    >
    >Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars
    >and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is
    >dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting.



    +1 here.

    For a lens that is specifically designed for portraiture, and should
    reasonably be expected to produce pleasantly blurred out of focus
    highlights, this is a poor result.

    For an top quality state-of-the-art nano-coated multi-aspheric lens
    costing $1800, it is a major disappointment.

    When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh - and
    almost equally good sharpness - from a Samyang/Rokinon lens costing
    ONE SIXTH of the price? Surely learning how to focus manually is
    worth a $1500 saving?

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/3qpv56d
    or:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/769424-REG/Rokinon_85MAF_N_85mm_f_1_4_Aspherical_Lens.html
    Bruce, Aug 10, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 01:51:36 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN <>
    : >wrote:
    : >: On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    : >: > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=39064364
    : >: >
    : >: > Looks very "busy."
    : >:
    : >: You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
    : >: inability to comprehend written material.
    : >
    : >Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars
    : >and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is
    : >dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting.
    :
    :
    : +1 here.
    :
    : For a lens that is specifically designed for portraiture, and should
    : reasonably be expected to produce pleasantly blurred out of focus
    : highlights, this is a poor result.
    :
    : For an top quality state-of-the-art nano-coated multi-aspheric lens
    : costing $1800, it is a major disappointment.
    :
    : When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh - and
    : almost equally good sharpness - from a Samyang/Rokinon lens costing
    : ONE SIXTH of the price? Surely learning how to focus manually is
    : worth a $1500 saving?

    For the kind of event work I do, I'd never be able to keep up if I had to
    focus manually. For posed portraits, sure.

    But my wife's Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro is a decent portrait lens with AF and
    nice bokeh, and I'm pretty sure I paid less than $500 for it.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 10, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    Paul Furman <> wrote:
    >Bruce wrote:
    >> Robert Coe<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN<>
    >>> wrote:
    >>> : On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>> :> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=39064364
    >>> :>
    >>> :> Looks very "busy."
    >>> :
    >>> : You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
    >>> : inability to comprehend written material.
    >>>
    >>> Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars
    >>> and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is
    >>> dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting.

    >>
    >>
    >> +1 here.
    >>
    >> For a lens that is specifically designed for portraiture, and should
    >> reasonably be expected to produce pleasantly blurred out of focus
    >> highlights, this is a poor result.
    >>
    >> For an top quality state-of-the-art nano-coated multi-aspheric lens
    >> costing $1800, it is a major disappointment.

    >
    >Nah, nobody claimed it had magic bokeh angels included.
    >
    >
    >> When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh

    >
    >Got anything to substantiate that?



    http://www.flickr.com/groups/afs85mmf14g/
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/1437990@N23/
    Bruce, Aug 10, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Paul Furman <> wrote:
    >RichA wrote:
    >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=39064364
    >>
    >> Looks very "busy."

    >
    >Are you implying that it's different or not from the old version? I
    >don't think anyone ever claimed this new model has better bokeh, or
    >worse. The new one is supposed to be sharper.



    Nikon specifically claimed in a release to dealers that the new lens
    was specifically designed to give a pleasant rendition of out of focus
    areas. If I can find it in our "filing system" I will quote the words
    that were used. However, I think it was probably a reference to the
    increase in the number of diaphragm blades and the fact that they are
    now curved.

    Nikon loves to concentrate on what metal diaphragm blades do, when
    everyone should by now realise that bokeh is a quality obtained not
    from metal, but from glass.

    You cannot disguise harsh bokeh with fancy diaphragm blades - the
    shots Rich linked to clearly demonstrate that. However, a crude iris
    diaphragm will show up a case of harsh bokeh for everyone to see.


    >That spec lens allows you to 'get more bokeh' with a full body shot (at
    >a reasonable working distance). The rest has more to do with the choice
    >of background than the lens, or what you decide to do with what it
    >allows.



    If you need to choose a background to suit the lens, that implies the
    lens has harsh bokeh. Using a lens with smooth bokeh means you don't
    have to worry about the background; even backgrounds with specular
    highlights can be defocused into mush.


    >I doubt there is an 85mm f/1.4 lens from any brand with better
    >bokeh, or worse, that could really be pinned down. Some will be sharper
    >with more or less CA.



    On the contrary, there is significant variation in bokeh between
    brands, and between different designs within brands. Bokeh may be of
    little importance to many photographers, especially those who shoot
    through crappy consumer junk lenses at f/8. However, it is likely to
    be of great importance to the majority of buyers of expensive 85mm
    f/1.4 lenses because of their intended use as classic portrait optics.
    Bruce, Aug 10, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    On 8/9/2011 10:57 PM, Rich wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote in news:4e41d145$0$12517
    > $-secrets.com:
    >
    >> On 8/9/2011 6:46 PM, OG wrote:
    >>> On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote:
    >>>> On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=

    > 39064364
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Looks very "busy."
    >>>>
    >>>> You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
    >>>> inability to comprehend written material.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> You really like the bokeh in the first photo?
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others
    >> that are fine.
    >>

    >
    > Thanks for the 180, moron.



    So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then you
    emphasize you point by making a personal attack.
    Please explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the
    equality of the lens.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Aug 10, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    On Aug 10, 8:36 am, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 8/9/2011 10:57 PM, Rich wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > PeterN<>  wrote in news:4e41d145$0$12517
    > > $-secrets.com:

    >
    > >> On 8/9/2011 6:46 PM, OG wrote:
    > >>> On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote:
    > >>>> On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    > >>>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=

    > > 39064364

    >
    > >>>>> Looks very "busy."

    >
    > >>>> You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
    > >>>> inability to comprehend written material.

    >
    > >>> You really like the bokeh in the first photo?

    >
    > >> Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others
    > >> that are fine.

    >
    > > Thanks for the 180, moron.

    >
    > So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then you
    > emphasize you point by making a personal attack.
    > Please explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the
    > equality of the lens.
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    Ah the subject line hijacker. The last resort of the internet
    scoundrel. You should be ashamed.
    RichA, Aug 10, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    On 8/10/2011 6:46 AM, Bruce wrote:
    > Paul Furman<> wrote:
    >> Bruce wrote:
    >>> Robert Coe<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN<>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>> : On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>>> :> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=39064364
    >>>> :>
    >>>> :> Looks very "busy."
    >>>> :
    >>>> : You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
    >>>> : inability to comprehend written material.
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars
    >>>> and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is
    >>>> dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> +1 here.
    >>>
    >>> For a lens that is specifically designed for portraiture, and should
    >>> reasonably be expected to produce pleasantly blurred out of focus
    >>> highlights, this is a poor result.
    >>>
    >>> For an top quality state-of-the-art nano-coated multi-aspheric lens
    >>> costing $1800, it is a major disappointment.

    >>
    >> Nah, nobody claimed it had magic bokeh angels included.
    >>
    >>
    >>> When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh

    >>
    >> Got anything to substantiate that?

    >
    >
    > http://www.flickr.com/groups/afs85mmf14g/
    > http://www.flickr.com/groups/1437990@N23/
    >


    And what was the f stop for those images.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Aug 10, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/10/2011 6:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
    > Paul Furman<> wrote:
    >> RichA wrote:
    >>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=39064364
    >>>
    >>> Looks very "busy."

    >>
    >> Are you implying that it's different or not from the old version? I
    >> don't think anyone ever claimed this new model has better bokeh, or
    >> worse. The new one is supposed to be sharper.

    >
    >
    > Nikon specifically claimed in a release to dealers that the new lens
    > was specifically designed to give a pleasant rendition of out of focus
    > areas. If I can find it in our "filing system" I will quote the words
    > that were used. However, I think it was probably a reference to the
    > increase in the number of diaphragm blades and the fact that they are
    > now curved.
    >
    > Nikon loves to concentrate on what metal diaphragm blades do, when
    > everyone should by now realise that bokeh is a quality obtained not
    > from metal, but from glass.
    >
    > You cannot disguise harsh bokeh with fancy diaphragm blades - the
    > shots Rich linked to clearly demonstrate that. However, a crude iris
    > diaphragm will show up a case of harsh bokeh for everyone to see.
    >
    >
    >> That spec lens allows you to 'get more bokeh' with a full body shot (at
    >> a reasonable working distance). The rest has more to do with the choice
    >> of background than the lens, or what you decide to do with what it
    >> allows.

    >
    >
    > If you need to choose a background to suit the lens, that implies the
    > lens has harsh bokeh. Using a lens with smooth bokeh means you don't
    > have to worry about the background; even backgrounds with specular
    > highlights can be defocused into mush.
    >
    >
    >> I doubt there is an 85mm f/1.4 lens from any brand with better
    >> bokeh, or worse, that could really be pinned down. Some will be sharper
    >> with more or less CA.

    >
    >
    > On the contrary, there is significant variation in bokeh between
    > brands, and between different designs within brands. Bokeh may be of
    > little importance to many photographers, especially those who shoot
    > through crappy consumer junk lenses at f/8. However, it is likely to
    > be of great importance to the majority of buyers of expensive 85mm
    > f/1.4 lenses because of their intended use as classic portrait optics.



    For events use low light manual focus at f1.4. An interesting idea, and
    a practical concept. <\end sarcastic tag>

    Here's what Nikon says about the lens:

    Updated FX-format ultra-fast classic portrait lens boasting high picture
    quality


    Updated FX-format ultra-fast classic portrait lens boasting high picture
    quality
    •Ultra-fast portrait lens
    •Edge to edge sharpness
    •Nano Crystal Coat

    <http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/pd/ThemeID.18145600/productID.213468800>

    The word "bokeh" is conspicuously absent, except in a claim by a "reviewer."


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Aug 10, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, RichA wrote:
    > On Aug 10, 8:36 am, PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 8/9/2011 10:57 PM, Rich wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> PeterN<> wrote in news:4e41d145$0$12517
    >>> $-secrets.com:

    >>
    >>>> On 8/9/2011 6:46 PM, OG wrote:
    >>>>> On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote:
    >>>>>> On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=
    >>> 39064364

    >>
    >>>>>>> Looks very "busy."

    >>
    >>>>>> You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
    >>>>>> inability to comprehend written material.

    >>
    >>>>> You really like the bokeh in the first photo?

    >>
    >>>> Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others
    >>>> that are fine.

    >>
    >>> Thanks for the 180, moron.

    >>
    >> So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then you
    >> emphasize you point by making a personal attack.
    >> Please explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the
    >> equality of the lens.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter

    >
    > Ah the subject line hijacker. The last resort of the internet
    > scoundrel. You should be ashamed.


    And changing a subject line to one that is more appropriate to the
    subject has what to do with the validity of your original comment.
    And even less to do with your evasion of direct questions.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Aug 10, 2011
    #16
  17. Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    On Aug 9, 7:51 pm, Bruce <> wrote:

    > When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh - and
    > almost equally good sharpness - from a Samyang/Rokinon lens costing
    > ONE SIXTH of the price?  Surely learning how to focus manually is
    > worth a $1500 saving?


    I converted to AF in 1994, after 25 years of manual focusing.
    A weekend rental and a bunch of testing had shown me
    that the camera could do it both better and faster than I
    could.

    My eyes have not improved any since then; in fact,
    I'm now wearing glasses, and not just for reading
    (not bad enough that I need them to drive
    legally though).

    So at least some of the time, a preference for
    AF is not solely ignorance and laziness (though
    I cannot totally disclaim those in my life as
    a whole either).
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 11, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Aug 10, 7:01 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > On Aug 9, 7:51 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >
    > > When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh - and
    > > almost equally good sharpness - from a Samyang/Rokinon lens costing
    > > ONE SIXTH of the price?  Surely learning how to focus manually is
    > > worth a $1500 saving?

    >
    > I converted to AF in 1994, after 25 years of manual focusing.
    > A weekend rental and a bunch of testing had shown me
    > that the camera could do it both better and faster than I
    > could.
    >
    > My eyes have not improved any since then; in fact,
    > I'm now wearing glasses, and not just for reading
    > (not bad enough that I need them to drive
    > legally though).
    >
    > So at least some of the time, a preference for
    > AF is not solely ignorance and laziness (though
    > I cannot totally disclaim those in my life as
    > a whole either).


    Fair enough, if your brand of photography makes it vital that you go
    with the faster AF lens, then there is nothing wrong with that.
    RichA, Aug 11, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    On Aug 10, 9:32 am, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 8/10/2011 9:02 AM, RichA wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Aug 10, 8:36 am, PeterN<>  wrote:
    > >> On 8/9/2011 10:57 PM, Rich wrote:

    >
    > >>> PeterN<>    wrote in news:4e41d145$0$12517
    > >>> $-secrets.com:

    >
    > >>>> On 8/9/2011 6:46 PM, OG wrote:
    > >>>>> On 09/08/2011 22:41, PeterN wrote:
    > >>>>>> On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    > >>>>>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=
    > >>> 39064364

    >
    > >>>>>>> Looks very "busy."

    >
    > >>>>>> You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
    > >>>>>> inability to comprehend written material.

    >
    > >>>>> You really like the bokeh in the first photo?

    >
    > >>>> Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others
    > >>>> that are fine.

    >
    > >>> Thanks for the 180, moron.

    >
    > >> So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then you
    > >> emphasize you point by making a personal attack.
    > >> Please explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the
    > >> equality of the lens.

    >
    > >> --
    > >> Peter

    >
    > > Ah the subject line hijacker.  The last resort of the internet
    > > scoundrel.  You should be ashamed.

    >
    > And changing a subject line to one that is more appropriate to the
    > subject has what to do with the validity of your original comment.
    > And even less to do with your evasion of direct questions.
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    Scoundrel.
    RichA, Aug 11, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

    On Aug 10, 6:46 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Paul Furman <> wrote:
    > >Bruce wrote:
    > >> Robert Coe<>  wrote:

    >
    > >>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:41:52 -0400, PeterN<>
    > >>> wrote:
    > >>> : On 8/9/2011 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    > >>> :>  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=39064364
    > >>> :>
    > >>> :>  Looks very "busy."
    > >>> :
    > >>> : You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your
    > >>> : inability to comprehend written material.

    >
    > >>> Actually, I sort of agree with Rich. It looks like it's raining half dollars
    > >>> and Canadian doubloonies in the background. Of course if somebody actually is
    > >>> dumping coins for effect, that's a different matter. But it is distracting.

    >
    > >> +1 here.

    >
    > >> For a lens that is specifically designed for portraiture, and should
    > >> reasonably be expected to produce pleasantly blurred out of focus
    > >> highlights, this is a poor result.

    >
    > >> For an top quality state-of-the-art nano-coated multi-aspheric lens
    > >> costing $1800, it is a major disappointment.

    >
    > >Nah, nobody claimed it had magic bokeh angels included.

    >
    > >> When will more people realise that they can get better bokeh

    >
    > >Got anything to substantiate that?

    >
    > http://www.flickr.com/groups/afs85mmf14g/http://www.flickr.com/groups/1437990@N23/


    Wow! This one makes me dizzy.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/andybarnhart/6030354777/in/pool-afs85mmf14g

    It looks like the kind of problem you get when you use one of those
    16mm or "TV" lenses that is too wide on a micro4/3rds camera. They
    call it, "swirl." There is a thread here:

    http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27062
    RichA, Aug 11, 2011
    #20
    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:
    1,767
    badgerfish
    Sep 23, 2003
  2. Randall Ainsworth

    What The Hell Is "Bokeh"?

    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    40
    Views:
    1,152
    simon
    Oct 4, 2003
  3. Jinx Frondie
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    525
    Brian The Demolition Man Little
    Sep 16, 2004
  4. paul

    Bad Bokeh!

    paul, Mar 15, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,293
    Confused
    Mar 21, 2005
  5. Pablo

    Good bokeh? Bad bokeh?

    Pablo, Jul 8, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    72
    Views:
    1,435
    Paul Furman
    Jul 22, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page