[1sikbmr]

Ok guys this is my entry. Hope you like it

I call it "Crazy Lucky"



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by M_Six

You could rename the contest Bokeh Birds.

[signes]

...but it still flies

[Chewy734]

haha, nice.

[signes]

BTW, struggling with the whole "bokeh" v straight shallow DOF. I think a lot of submissions are more the latter, with few hitting the mark on the former. Also results are pretty dependent on gear.

If the theme will be more liberally interpreted as really just a shallow DOF contest, I might want to resubmit. Thoughts?

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by signes

BTW, struggling with the whole "bokeh" v straight shallow DOF. I think a lot of submissions are more the latter, with few hitting the mark on the former. Also results are pretty dependent on gear.

If the theme will be more liberally interpreted as really just a shallow DOF contest, I might want to resubmit. Thoughts?

Was thinking the same thing. Not a pure bokeh competition here. Although bokeh is not purely defined either. Seems wide open to interpretation.

[Chewy734]

I'm confused... what makes you think that you can have good bokeh without a depth of field (preferably a shallow one)?

Doesn't bokeh only occur in the part of the scene that's outside the DoF? Having a shallow DoF helps increase the amount of bokeh.

[M_Six]

Depending which site you visit, bokeh can have many different interpretations. Some sites define it as the round, blurred light highlights in the background. Other sites define it as "any pleasing blur" or some such thing. Some sites I've seen consider any visible straight lines, blurred or not, to be "bad bokeh."

TL, khaye1, and 1sikbmr have the rounded points of light that some consider real bokeh, whereas dcstep's, paul's, and signes's bird images have the "pleasing blur" that completely removes any background definition. All you see is a greenish blur. That is also considered great bokeh by many sites. But many of the other shots simply have OOF areas with still discernible backgrounds (or foregrounds).

skinrock's guitar image, which is awesome, btw, would be a huge point of argument on many "bokeh" forums. Some would claim it has great bokeh, while others would say it has bad bokeh. Depends on what your personal definition is.

So bokeh is very much in the eye of the beholder. But if any blur or OOF is going to qualify as bokeh, then what's the point of having the term in the first place?

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by signes

BTW, struggling with the whole "bokeh" v straight shallow DOF. I think a lot of submissions are more the latter, with few hitting the mark on the former. Also results are pretty dependent on gear.

If the theme will be more liberally interpreted as really just a shallow DOF contest, I might want to resubmit. Thoughts?

I think that we should let the voters decide.

I think that mere OOF starts becoming bokeh when the BG objects start becoming unidentifiable. There have been some entrants where the BG is OOF, but everything there is easily identified.

Your entry clearly and undisputably has bokeh, IMHO.

Better gear does make better bokeh, but by getting close enough with the lens wide open, even a nifty-fifty can produce some nice bokeh.

Dave

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

skinrock's guitar image, which is awesome, btw, would be a huge point of argument on many "bokeh" forums. Some would claim it has great bokeh, while others would say it has bad bokeh. Depends on what your personal definition is.

That's a very interesting example. I'd vote for calling that bokeh because the tuners and peghead are so obscured that, without the context of the guitar itself, you might not be able to identify what they are. The subject is part of the bokeh in this instance, causing confusion.


However, I agree that it's on the cusp of not being bokeh. The demarcation point between OOF and bokeh is hard to define.

Dave

[rodi]

OOF:

Bokakeh:

[- Paul -]

Wiki

In photography, bokeh (play /ˈboʊkə/ boh-kə,[1] Japanese: [boke]) is the blur,[2][3] or the aesthetic quality of the blur,[4][5][6] in out-of-focus areas of an image, or "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light."[7] Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting—"good" and "bad" bokeh, respectively.[2] Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it is often associated with such areas.[2] However, bokeh is not limited to highlights; blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image.

[ShopVac]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Was thinking the same thing. Not a pure bokeh competition here. Although bokeh is not purely defined either. Seems wide open to interpretation.

I refuse to submit until I fully understand what it is, and the submissions so far have me confused. I'm really struggling with this one.

Rodi's and Paul's examples above should help some...but I'm glad I'm not the only one that doesn't get it.

[M_Six]

Very nice, rodi. Good examples and the second pic is way cool.

[khaye1]

rodi: that second pic is money!

[rodi]

Originally Posted by khaye1

rodi: that second pic is money!

that 200/2 is money!

and thanks, Mark!

[Activ]

Originally Posted by ShopVac

I refuse to submit until I fully understand what it is, and the submissions so far have me confused. I'm really struggling with this one.

Rodi's and Paul's examples above should help some...but I'm glad I'm not the only one that doesn't get it.

It was confusing for me too when I first fount out about it, but it was because I was over thinking it
Here lemme grab some bokeh for you
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3175/...08816a23_z.jpg

The hexagon/circle figures is the bokeh. Put simply. It's basically the background/foreground being out of focus... But a little more complicated than that obviously.

Rodi that second shot is really nice, actually all of them are really good, can't wait for the voting

[- Paul -]

Changed my submission as suits the bokeh theme better - consensus of opinion seems to be that there has to be the shape of "bokeh" for it to be bokeh and not just oof. There are quite a few photos on here that do not fit into this. Mine was one of them (until I changed it)

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Activ

...

The hexagon/circle figures is the bokeh. Put simply. It's basically the background/foreground being out of focus... But a little more complicated than that obviously....

Yes, that's one example of bokeh. Aperture shaped distortion is something that many of would try to avoid. Still, it's bokeh.

Dave

[skinrock]

Originally Posted by M_Six

skinrock's guitar image, which is awesome, btw, would be a huge point of argument on many "bokeh" forums. Some would claim it has great bokeh, while others would say it has bad bokeh. Depends on what your personal definition is.

Glad you liked it.

Originally Posted by dcstep

That's a very interesting example. I'd vote for calling that bokeh because the tuners and peghead are so obscured that, without the context of the guitar itself, you might not be able to identify what they are. The subject is part of the bokeh in this instance, causing confusion.


However, I agree that it's on the cusp of not being bokeh. The demarcation point between OOF and bokeh is hard to define.

Dave

I don't agree that you can separate them, though. Bokeh just describes how the out of focus areas are rendered. In my opinion, pleasing bokeh should act as a backdrop for your subject. When the subject is on a flat plane, like most of the bird shots, the background should have minimal details and draw your attention to the subject. It should almost stick out from the background. When you have bad bokeh, you have a lot of distracting, hard edges, and you begin to focus on all the rough out of focus areas instead of your subject. Just a quick example, I took this shot with my Nikon 105mm macro: http://www.rlsmithphotography.com/An...2_rPTbp-XL.jpg (same as my guitar submission). The green looks solid, but those were actually leaves from a tree in the background. And it wasn't a particularly lush tree either, I mean you could see through it. Also, it was about 7 feet away from the grasshopper, so it's not like it was just a single leaf blurring out the background.

Mine was a risky shot because, as mentioned, the subject as a whole trails off into the distance. That was my goal though. The actual subject is the bridge, which is in focus. The neck becomes very blurry and loses detail, but maintains it's shape which allows the mind to easily process this as a guitar, but directs your attention to the bridge. That's the idea, anyways.

[BoomerE30]

Guru Boissson Energie by Renatus Photography, on Flickr

Thanks for looking!

[rodi]

Originally Posted by - Paul -

Changed my submission as suits the bokeh theme better - consensus of opinion seems to be that there has to be the shape of "bokeh" for it to be bokeh and not just oof. There are quite a few photos on here that do not fit into this. Mine was one of them (until I changed it)

i personally don't think it has to have any particular shapes. i actually hate the word bokeh. i feel like my mouth is taking a shit every time i say it. i prefer "out of focus renditions."