Best Bokeh

City-Exile · 20-06-2008 3:42pm #1

Little challenge for the weekend. Get out there and bokeh on down.

Post your best bokeh image from the weekend here. It must be taken between now & Midnight on Sunday.

Everyone should be able to come up with something, no matter where you happen to be.

No prizes, just the enjoyment of seeing the creative genius of others.

Roen · 20-06-2008 4:58pm

I'm saying 'count me in' but I need a get out clause in case I don't take a single shot

elven · 20-06-2008 6:04pm

People with f1.2 lenses should be automatically excluded for cheating

Paulw · 20-06-2008 6:14pm

elven wrote: »

People with f1.2 lenses should be automatically excluded for cheating

*phew* Guess I'll be ok using my 50mm f/1.4 lens so.

Might try a few images tomorrow.

melekalikimaka · 20-06-2008 6:29pm

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n07_e.htm

or this

lafors · 20-06-2008 7:51pm

This is not going to be easy with a Nikon D40 and a 18-55mm & 70-300

Note to self........Must get a 50

Paulw · 20-06-2008 8:13pm

I guess this (old photo of mine) might be a good sample?

Now to get out tomorrow and hope to get something better.

lafors · 20-06-2008 8:20pm

Paulw wrote: »

I guess this (old photo of mine) might be a good sample?

Now to get out tomorrow and hope to get something better.

I thought bokeh was defined as blurred points of light?
Like this here?

Borderfox · 20-06-2008 8:20pm

Sounds good

GhostInTheRuins · 20-06-2008 8:31pm

Yeah sounds like a good idea.

Borderfox · 20-06-2008 8:35pm

lafors wrote: »

I thought bokeh was defined as blurred points of light?
Like this here?

Bokeh is background blur, at least that's what I think Peadar means..

Paulw · 20-06-2008 9:08pm

I've always associated Bokeh with just blur around an in-focus subject.

From a definition -

Bokeh (from the Japanese boke, "blur") is a photographic term referring to the appearance of out-of-focus areas in an image produced by a camera lens.

Different lens bokeh produces different aesthetic qualities in out-of-focus backgrounds, which are often used to reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject.

Fajitas! · 20-06-2008 9:28pm

It is background blur, but what Paulw has posted wouldn't be a good example of 'good bokeh' in my books... at all...

'Good' bokeh should be perfect circles of light, and can be very abstract... Paul shows a perfect example of background blur.

Anyways, moving this over to the challenge forum, ought to keep things tidy...

oshead · 20-06-2008 10:46pm

Good bokeh I believe, is a very subjective thing.. Should make for a good challange.

Dave OS

Paulw · 20-06-2008 10:53pm

Ok, just did this - with lights.

I still think the Robbie image shows more bokeh (blur).

YogiBear · 20-06-2008 10:56pm

Bokeh on down! Ha, I like it!

I spent the evening messing around with a sheet of glass, a black plastic bag and random items I thought might give an interesting reflection e.g. cigarettes, a red pepper, a glass of red wine (which a fly flew into & ruined), juggling balls etc.
Here's my bokeh challenge submission anyway -

(edit - dunno about the circle of light bit.. I thought it was just out of focus.. Anyway, I'm going to stick with this submission.. If I am to be disqualified for lack of "bokeh", pls do so ASAP so that I can re-submit a "real" (?) bokeh image before Sunday..

)

YogiBear · 20-06-2008 10:58pm

lol @ PaulW... isn't that kinds sorta cheating to get the circle of lights in the background.. um.. using actual circles of light? :eek::cool:

Paulw · 20-06-2008 11:13pm

I've searched for bokeh and nothing specifies circles of light, just blur.

So, to get the circles of light, I used lights. The only other way I know would be to use water on a window.

It's not cheating, it's improvising.

lafors · 20-06-2008 11:57pm

Paulw wrote: »

I've searched for bokeh and nothing specifies circles of light, just blur.

So, to get the circles of light, I used lights. The only other way I know would be to use water on a window.

It's not cheating, it's improvising.

Looks good, I don't think its cheating.
Now that you've clarified the definition of bokeh for me, would this be considered bokeh? (Its the best I can do in work!)

2596582820_ebe6474a9a.jpg?v=0

sheesh · 20-06-2008 11:58pm

Does this count

4sb · 21-06-2008 12:01am

Canon produced a 50mm f/0.95.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/50-85/s_50_095.html

YogiBear · 21-06-2008 12:15am

How many times are you allowed to enter anyway?

AnCatDubh · 21-06-2008 12:37am

lafors wrote: »

This is not going to be easy with a Nikon D40 and a 18-55mm & 70-300
Note to self........Must get a 50

The 70-300 should give you bucket loads of bokeh - remember your in focus area being the depth of field is controlled by more than just lens focal length - aperture/distance to subject/even sensor(didn't understand this one myself) and of course the focal length. Hence once you get a narrow depth of field given your shooting parameters, your bokeh should follow.

I love the bokeh that i can get from my 80-300 (with or without macro). Undoubtedly the 50's are brilliant for getting nice bokeh but your 70-300 should allow you to capture some.

Should also be possible on the kit 18-55mm. I have found that distance to subject is a big factor in all of this - not sure if there is evidence as to why but just what i've found.

Cheers.

Mellor · 21-06-2008 1:36am

Paulw wrote: »

Ok, just did this - with lights.

I still think the Robbie image shows more bokeh (blur).

The robbie photo has more blur, that highlights the photo better.

But a bokeh, for me (any maybe Fajitas) is not background blur, but the individual blured points of light*.
In a good bokeh photo, some of the individual blured points stand out to give artistic representation, not a blanket blur where none stand out.
Say a photo, where the few stand out blurs are a part of the picture, rather than a frame.

*By light I refer to actual light, and not a light source. Actual light being everything we see. Everything reflects varying amounts of light, to give colour etc.