Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Photojournalism, Candids and Street Photography' started by telephotodreams, Mar 10, 2018.
Bokeh is the quality of the out of focus area of all photographs. There's good or bad bokeh and everything in between. Do you consider this good or bad?
Anytime the background overshadows the subject it is inherently bad.
Some circles are more out of focus than others. Not sure I can judge or appreciate bokeh without a real foreground subject to set the tone.
IMHO whatever this image or images are supposed to represent, in the end, as I perceive it, we are not seeing good bokeh. To me, in any image, good bokeh is unobtrusive, gently providing a soft, subtle background to whatever the main subject is. If the subject is a portrait of a person, then the person is first-and-foremost in the image, with the background softly melding into itself in the background. Ditto if the image is of a flower or a plant....once again, from what I've always understood, the idea of using bokeh is to let the subject be the center of attention while the background takes a step back in the way of a gentle, soft, colorful background that does not intrude upon the intended main subject.
I rather like it; shades of the opening sequence from Dr No
A bit to busy for my eyes.
Glad to hear you found it. I didn't even know it had gone missing.
That's why I rarely lose weight; it's always so easy to find.
That doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the bokeh. If some of the circles are farther from the lens than other circles, the circles that are farther away are going to be more out of focus.
My hunch is that the OP chose a thread title that is mostly a humorous play on words that is apparently misleading people who are taking it seriously to be about the bokeh when it's not. There is nothing in focus in the image, which I take to be both creative and effective. If I had to determine the subject, it would be the group of out-of-focus, bright circles.
OK, that was posted at 6:32 pm on Saturday, before any wine. What I was trying to say was some of "them" are not bokeh, in my book.
I would take it one step farther to say that none of them are bokeh.
Making fun of Bokeh is fine by me. I can honestly say I have never ever considered it in my shooting. Focus is more important to me.
Focus is certainly more important to me than bokeh. As you know, the subject can be completely in focus when using a variety of depths of field. So, choosing the most desirable depth of field will have an impact on the appearance of the bokeh and vice versa without affecting the focus on the subject.
Bokeh is to photography as sludge is to red wine!
I'm certain that you know enough about photography and wine to have reason to think that. However, I haven't had enough wine today to appreciate what the reason might be. Translation: You lost me. (That's not difficult to do, so you get no bragging rights. )
Bokeh is behind a subject; sludge is behind a wine (left behind). You can't judge a wine by its sludge.