Best Bokeh

City-Exile

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

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

elven

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

Paulw

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

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

or this

lafors

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

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



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

lafors

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

Sounds good

GhostInTheRuins

Yeah sounds like a good idea.

Borderfox

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

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!

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

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

Dave OS

Paulw

Ok, just did this - with lights.



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

YogiBear

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

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

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

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!)

sheesh

Does this count

4sb

Canon produced a 50mm f/0.95.

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

YogiBear

How many times are you allowed to enter anyway?

AnCatDubh

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

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.

City-Exile

Can't believe such a debate has broken out.

Anything with a very, very shallow depth of field will do, ok?

mike65

Probably shudda said that to start with instead of being all clever-clever! :pac:

Mike.

whyulittle

Seen as we're not sure what it actually is, I thought spelling it out would cover the bases.

City-Exile

Classic!

lafors

I think whyulittle has just won it

digitally-yours

CraggyIslander

here's my attempt using a chessboard:

Anouilh

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/2599663327/

City-Exile

I almost forgot about doing something myself.
Bit of a rush job, but it's better than the pack of sausages I shot first!

mike65

Mike.

AnCatDubh

A somewhat unsophisticated idea taken yesterday morning during a spot of rain - heck it didn't do anything much else this weekend :eek:

Fajitas!

SH*TE...

I left me camera in Elvens car, and my photo for this was on it. Bah.

This'll have to do for the moment;



Canon 50mm 1.4 @ 1.4.
Part of the old train line in Waterford.

(For the record - It's just going for the shallow depth of field, not bokeh )

robinph

My best attempt at blurryness this weekend.

I'm clearly missing a trick somewhere.

Paulw

Fajitas! wrote: »

For the record - It's just going for the shallow depth of field, not bokeh

Ok, can anyone provide a definition (aside from their own), that has bokeh being anything other than part of the image out of focus, or shallow depth of field??

Wikipedia - 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.[1] Different lens bokeh produces different aesthetic qualities in out-of-focus backgrounds, which are often used to reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject.

The Japanese word boke just means blur, nothing to do with lights.

Fajitas!

Lol, Paul.

Visually unpleasing bokeh shows the edges of the blur - seen in the grass in the background of my pic, and the crowd in yours.

Edit: The word means something along the lines of fuzzy, according to your own link, it also says in your link " In out-of-focus areas, each point of light becomes a disc." - It's essentially how your lens translates this point of light that makes 'good' or 'bad' bokeh. Blur showing lines can easily be seen as distracting, if you look at the same image with very smooth blur, you'll see why.

Chochese

Have to agree with Fajitas! here...

My understanding of Bokeh is that the blurred backgrounds have a somewhat soft edged gradient, so as you're almost not even meant to make out the general contents of the background. Kind of an OTT blurring.

City-Exile

I already said that shallow DoF was fine, since we couldn't agree on Bokeh.
(and also because I failed to get the reflections off my bottles right)

Anouilh

Some useful links.

http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/bokeh,ireland

http://lounge.techfocus.net/showthread.php?t=14832

I'll revive the thread at Techfocus, The Lounge and add some links
there over the next few days.

Thanks for such an interesting challenge.

Hugh_C

Just to throw in my 2c, my understanding of bokeh is the quality of the out-of-focus areas rather than mere out-of-focusness. Like an adjective, not a noun, or something ...

Anyway, here's a short DoF picture of Kate's viola, it's boketastic to me:

50mm f/1.8

City-Exile

Nice shot, Hugh.

digitally-yours

Hopefully i will be posting my masterpiece tonight


watch this space

City-Exile

Make sure you post after Fajitas, just so that you can steal his thunder!

Roen

I took one or two.....I have to get home and see em at 100% first though.
And yes, some of them were with the ƒ1.2 Elven

elven

Hugh_C wrote: »

it's boketastic to me

In glasgow, that would mean something entirely different...

I don't think i get much bokeh with the holga lens, and i barely used anything else all weekend. maybe have a token macro flower shot - have to take a look at the contents of the memory cards tonight.

Oh and if you look closer at a few definitions, it's definitely to do with the quality of the out of focus areas, not just the fact that they arent sharp.

melekalikimaka

Whoops missed this, balls.
But yes bokeh and dof are very different themes

City-Exile

I just didn't want to exclude anyone.
If we get good bokeh, brilliant.
If we just get people people taking the best shot they can & posting it here, even better.

Mellor

Paulw wrote: »

The Japanese word boke just means blur, nothing to do with lights.

Just to clear up what was meant my light,
Light was refering to actual reflected light, from all objects. Not to light sources like lamps etc.
A "blur" is a point reflecting light (even its a wall, plant what ever) out of focus.