 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / January 2006[SI] mandate: Bokeh
Try to make some significant part of the composition out of focus. The classic portrait technique is to select a very soft blurred background designed to escape attention but this mandate calls for a bit more focus to the OOF area. It isn't necessary to have a fancy lens, selection of low contrast backgrounds can provide smooth out of focus rendering on any lens, except perhaps slow ultrawides. It can be interesting to play with bad bokeh too like cats-eye vignetting, freaky donut effects or any highlights that make a clear disc can add dramatic accents which contribute to the composition as we often see in movies. Or extremely soft swaths of blur from a long lens with a detailed item in the foreground for contrast. PS I swear I picked the mandate before all the discussion here <g>. Hope you aren't sick of it! Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in news:aP6dna7Rzu581kfeRVn- sw@speakeasy.net: > Try to make some significant part of the composition out of focus. The > classic portrait technique is to select a very soft blurred background [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > soft swaths of blur from a long lens with a detailed item in the > foreground for contrast. http://www.pbase.com/shootin/bokeh - Al.  SignatureTo reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net Hey Al... How do you get two current challenges? SignatureHaving climaxed... She turned on her mate and began to devour him. Not a lot changes, eh Spiderwoman? -------------------------- : Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in news:aP6dna7Rzu581kfeRVn- : sw@speakeasy.net: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] : : - Al. "random user 12987" <only@the.group> wrote in news:QVDCf.229172$V7.147070 @news-server.bigpond.net.au: > Hey Al... How do you get two current challenges? By being on time, for once ;-) The way the SI is structured, the new challange is announced a couple of days before the previous one comes due, so (if I'm not hung up doing other things) from Friday to Sunday, two of them are active. On Sunday when the new gallery goes up, I change one of the currents to MCMXLIVVIIC or whatever... [Not sure who started this roman numeral crap, but I think it was that Fabulous EOS 4 guy...] - Al. SignatureTo reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net > [Not sure who started this roman numeral crap, but I think it was >that Fabulous EOS 4 guy...] Well who'da thought the silly thing would run much past X or XI? Hi there, I took this photo http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1687562 of my cat at Christmas and at PhotoSig someone commented it manifested good bookeh. First, is that true?` Second, how would the background look if this was not the case? cheers, Marko > Hi there, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > cheers, Marko Heh, cool shot. I'd say it's bad bokeh (but fun) because the edges of the OOF discs are razor sharp and stronger at the edges, pale in the center. That also shows 'cats-eye' vignetting in the lower left and top center a bit. Interesting though how the pale yellow forms are very soft, there seems to be some magical point at which the clear discs dissolve into soft blobs and that demonstrates perfectly how the choice of background effects bokeh. This is also a great example of the 'movie look'. At the most emotional climax point in a film, they throw the background wildly out of focus with crazy colored discs floating in a surreal display for dramatic effect. Here's a comparison of bad and mediocre bokeh lenses in the same conditions: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/bokeh/compare> Thanks Paul for the exhaustive analysis. Of course I would have thought that lens would have performed better, but... cheers, Marko > Thanks Paul for the exhaustive analysis. Of course I would have thought > that lens would have performed better, but... > > cheers, Marko What lens was it? Might have just been the extreme lighting, I can easily get 'bad bokeh' on lenses that are supposed to be smooth. the Sigma EX 70-200/2.8 lens marko > the Sigma EX 70-200/2.8 lens > > marko Ah, I see that's on the page. Reviews say it has good bokeh and is equivalent to the Canon or Nikon 70-200/2.8 which are always reported as stellar lenses. That's the one in my test that I called 'mediocre' bokeh but I'm no seasoned expert. Here's an example of how things can go wrong with this lens: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/bokeh/bad> > Here's a comparison of bad and mediocre bokeh lenses in the same > conditions: > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/bokeh/compare> Pardon me, but which is supposed to be which? >> Here's a comparison of bad and mediocre bokeh lenses in the same >> conditions: >> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/bokeh/compare> > > Pardon me, but which is supposed to be which? The second one is smoother with fewer distracting overlapping hard-edged circles. It's also about 5 times the cost and about 40% of the zoom range. Both are capable of smooth backgrounds under good conditions though. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.