holy smokeh, look at all the frickin' bokeh

[Joe P]

http://www.pbase.com/juergenkook/bokeh

Ought to keep the photo nerds (=me) busy for a while.

Joe

 

[Mike Sae]

needs more fanny

 

[garyi]

I don't want to get into a technical argument here but Vuk said that my bokeh was poor because it distracted from the main subject:

http://www.pbase.com/juergenkook/image/40060891

This picture to me is all over distracting.

I am off to crawl back under my hole.

 

[bottleneck]

for the novice, is bokeh the quality of the blurry background?

 

[garyi]

Yes.

Although I have discovered its all to easy to get totally hooked up on the stuff that is not the subject haha.

 

[omers]

Garyi,
In the tulip image here the distraction is thematic, not lens-related.
Omer.

 

[garyi]

I don't know what thematic is.

 

[omers]

This intrusion/distraction was a choice of the photographer and is part of the "subject" of the image.
Omer.

 

[Joe P]

After studying all the bokeh pictures at that link, one thing has become clear -- the photographer sucks.

Joe

P.S. Gary, have you seen the movie Lost in Translation? That's a good introduction to the art of bokeh.

 

[AlexG]

the photographer sucks.

I've no idea about the technical skills of the photographer, but his pictures are booooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrinnnnnnnnnnng.

 

[vuk]

igary.

omer is correct. what is distratcing is the the out-of-focus background has clashing/busier colours than the foreground. the bokeh, on its own terms, is very nicely rendered.

vuk.

 

[Joe P]

for the novice, is bokeh the quality of the blurry background?

And the quality of the blurry foreground.

Fore bokeh is not necessarily as smooth as aft bokeh and vice versa, as it varies from lens to lens. With some lenses -- the Nikkor DCs -- you can even select where you want to place the lens's better bokeh.

Joe