Bokeh Galore (No BOrders)

Discussion ( 22 posts  |  Only members can post. Join? )

Title	Author	Replies	Latest Post
Would you watch a movie just for its bokeh?	carpe icthus	38	6 days ago
How many people shoot with film?	Krasnyi Fotoapparat	82	2 months ago
reviewing the definition of bokeh	unagi-chan	13	5 months ago
Definitions	Pixeltrekker	3	6 months ago
Lenses	Michael Casey	80	7 months ago
Bokeh Abstracts One Year Retrospective	GraemeNicol	0	10 months ago

» More

About Bokeh Galore (No BOrders)

Limitations:
No Borders
No more than 2 pictures at one time. No more than one of the same subject.
Be warned that macros are subject to harder scrutiny and are more likely to get deleted.

Oh- I reserve the right to delete picts. I wont delete very many - just the ones that I think are excessive and redundant, or not really that good. It's kinda fun being the Admin for a group, non? ;)

Also: there are currently too many pictures of flowers and bugs and generally pretty and pleasing pictures of the birds and the bees. Im not going to say no completely- as there are many that are surprisingly fun to look at. Dont NOT post them, but, please refrain from posting too many of them- it distracts from the other pictures and gernerally gets old. Deleting stuff is often fun for me- but not too fun if there are too many. Keep at it guys!

Technically "good" bokeh is characterized by a smooth, realistic, even blurriness of the out-of focus section (comparable to looking through a light, creamy fog). Bokeh can be extremely crucial in a picture in working as teh negative space in a compositional element to show depth and a sense of space.

Oh, to make things a bit clearer, I'm posting unagi-chan's discussion the revision of the definition, which I thought was a good point too.

unagi-chan says:

When I see photos posted here, I often wonder that the members of this group might not share a common understanding about bokeh. Some pictures are great examples of bokeh as is clarified by the owner of this group (the asterisks were added by me):

The blurry, un-focused background of a photograph DUE TO LENS BLUR **from close focusing** is called by the Japanese as "bokeh"

But some are not. The bokeh as explained above is different from blurs that you expect in the background far from the focused area, typically when you use long tele or macro lenses. I don't disagree that long focal lengths make it easier to produce bokeh, but I believe that is the matter of the tele "compression effect." Often, such “bokeh” is too blurry to show subtleness, and neither photographers nor lenses can make a significant difference.

Bokeh is more about gradation associated with the level of aperture. You might try "preview" with your SLR to check the depth of focus before you shoot. Also, you might select lenses carefully, because the design of the lens itself is important for bokeh. Some resolution-oriented lenses are not good at making smooth bokeh. Some lenses, such as Leica lenses, show a particular tendency in bokeh.

This means, even using 28mm, 35mm, 50mm lenses, you can get good bokeh by controlling aperture and knowing the characteristic of your lens. In my view, lenses of such focal lengths sometimes suit better in showing bokeh in natural gradation.

I hope this clarifies the definition of bokeh. (I'm OK if somebody wants to extend the definition, but I thought it would be good for us to share it first.)
Originally posted at 10:59pm, 22 September 2006 PDT