|
Rob C
|
 |
« on: April 27, 2012, 07:51:48 AM » |
 Reply
|
Cracker, Michael!
Rob C
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
framah
|
|
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2012, 09:29:05 AM » |
Reply
|
Would have been perfect without the out of focus one in front.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It took a lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."
|
|
|
|
Rob C
|
|
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2012, 12:24:16 PM » |
Reply
|
Would have been perfect without the out of focus one in front.
I'm sure you simply forgot the emoticon, but just in case you didn't, I believe it's the one in front that gives it equilibrium, depth... raison d'être, as they might actually say in parts of Canada? ;-) Rob C |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 12:26:34 PM by Rob C »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
framah
|
|
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2012, 05:47:54 PM » |
Reply
|
I guess it's all in how we perceive it. The out of focus one, in my mind, is distracting me away from the sheer beauty of the two that are in focus, tho I do understand where you are coming from with your explanation.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It took a lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."
|
|
|
|
JohnBrew
|
|
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2012, 07:42:22 AM » |
Reply
|
Lovely. The out of focus area is just terrific. Michael, is it the lens or was there movement in the bg?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
michael
|
|
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2012, 08:16:13 AM » |
Reply
|
No motion. It's all about the bokeh and shallow DOF of this f/1.2 lens used wide open.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Millier
|
|
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2012, 06:44:34 AM » |
Reply
|
Not to mention the photographer's contribution. I know this site focuses on the grand landscape but IMO, Michael, you're pretty damn good at other genres. Perhaps it should be renamed "The Luminous Landscape, graphic abstract and some pretty fine street photography.com" ? No motion. It's all about the bokeh and shallow DOF of this f/1.2 lens used wide open.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
michael
|
|
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2012, 06:56:21 AM » |
Reply
|
It always strikes me a funny that people think of the site as being about landscape photography. Must be something in the name.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
opgr
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2012, 08:24:17 AM » |
Reply
|
Lovely. The out of focus area is just terrific. Michael, is it the lens or was there movement in the bg?
I don't get that. If Bokeh looks like motion-blur, then I would consider it really bad Bokeh… Works great in this image, but it still is bad bokeh, no? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
michael
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2012, 08:27:41 AM » |
Reply
|
Bokeh is simply the name for out of focus areas. Whether it looks "good" or not is a matter of last.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
opgr
|
|
« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2012, 08:33:48 AM » |
Reply
|
Bokeh is simply the name for out of focus areas. Whether it looks "good" or not is a matter of last.
Well, yes, it is obviously a matter of personal taste. And proper application. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BJL
|
|
« Reply #11 on: April 29, 2012, 09:45:19 AM » |
Reply
|
Bokeh is simply the name for out of focus areas. Whether it looks "good" or not is a matter of last.
To be pedantic, the Japanese work bokeh (official transliteration boke, but with the new spelling and the term itself introduced to English speaking photographers largely by Mike Johnston, "The Online Photographer") originally referred to the quality of out-of-focus areas, like presence or absence of harsh effects such doubling of lines along high contrast edges, or bright spots becoming harsh edged polygons. It has drifted to being used just to talk about the existence or sheer quantity of OOF blurring. In fact here are some more recent comments by Mike Johnston on bokeh.P. S. And Michael has one of the original "bokeh" essays reproduced on this site: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 29, 2012, 09:51:30 AM by BJL »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ErikKaffehr
|
|
« Reply #12 on: April 29, 2012, 10:25:19 AM » |
Reply
|
+1 Erik Cracker, Michael!
Rob C
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
