" Bokehj " Test

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by kamol_., Nov 10, 2003.

  1. summicron 35 asph at F2
  2. Sorry, Bokeh not Bokehj
  3. Thank you Kamol for sharing theses pictures.
    I have the same lens, and feel also puzzled by its oof areas.
    They dont look like photography but rather like paint !
    On your examples, i could like it though but i perceive this "look" as artificial
  4. these threads are tiring, and useless.....show us something where bokeh is of some real value and not just some test shots....
    what good is it otherwise...?
  5. </center><div> 006Txk-15255784.JPG </div>
  6. despeckle and oversharpen?
  7. No Grant, sorry to disappoint you. I think you are being super-critical here. Why keep criticising everybody, try to let go. You are a young kid, still have a long way to go (life-wise). Learn to let live. The photo is unmanipulated and is tack sharp. I have another post at the EOS forum. Check that one and you'll be at ease with yourself. Let yourself go for once, you may find life to be happier...
  8. um, its oversharpened....
    thanks for the advice too...
  9. The bokeh of these pics are good, and certainly much better than the one in your "Queen of bokeh" thread.

    Like I said, even the same lens can have different bokeh under different conditions.
  10. And Sandy, nice spontaneous shot. Looks 3D too. Used an OT lens? Probably a non-zoom too?
  11. Here Sandy, I'll take the heat off ya'.
  12. Kamol, I like that first picture and I think it's more than a mere test shot. In fact I liked some of your recently posted pics and I think you have a good eye for colour and composition. Now, go travel. ;o)<p>Sandy, oversharpened was my first impulse, too, when I saw your pic. It's the lighter outlines near dark areas such as the chin and the hair which betray the process. I'm not saying YOU oversharpened on purpose but maybe your digital camera(?), scanner, web-saving routine did. <p>Ray, I think this portrait of a dog is an outstanding example of beautiful bokeh as much as of effective use of shallow depth of field.
  13. Peter A, wonderful contrast. Is that bokeh on his shoulder? :)
  14. IMO bokeh only works (if it works at all) when the OOF area is behind the primary subject. In Kamol's first shot it appears that there are OOF areas both in front of and in back of the primary subject(s). To me, that is "bad" bokeh. Kamol, I think you are a talented photographer, but I really think you need to get over your obsession with bokeh.
  15. "IMO bokeh only works (if it works at all) when the OOF area is behind the primary subject"

    Hmmm.... that's one theory. Sounds like a challenge.

    "I think you are a talented photographer, but I really think you need to get over your obsession with bokeh"

    Also sounds like a challenge, perhaps the voice of Ansel from beyond the grave: "f/64 and be there, my son". Bokeh as subject?
  16. Grant, don't you ever get tired of hearing yourself speak?? You don't like the thread? THEN DON'T PARTICIPATE IN IT. What a self centered "----" you can be. Your a good photographer, but not nearly as good as you seem to think. Some of us want to keep learning, unlike you we haven't learned everything yet.

    When ever anyone asks an opinion on equipment or their work, I've never read anything but snide little one line remarks from you. Grow up, or keep you opinions to yourself

    Any minute your "little buddies", will show up and defend you position, and tell us how great you. To me your just a bore
  17. Joshua, this isn't a defense, just a little something to consider: do you think your knowledge of photography is going to be expanded more if people's whose views you don't agree with never say anything?
    If only I'd known that good bokeh has to be behind the subject . . .
  18. Peter A, will you stop posting photos of my f...ing bank manager, i'm starting to get the colly wobbles. Chill out folks, no need for the flames...second thoughts could be fun!
  19. Mike, Grant can wipe his own arse.
  20. Like i keep saying, this crit stuff, just pisses folk off. Robert J, i enjoyed looking at his photos, crit killed him off. Sad or what.
  21. Folk are starting to think that Grant is deficient is some way, only looking at his work do you realise his not, he has talent, let him do his own thing. Who needs a mummy.
  22. thanx for the advice josh
  23. Hi Mike

    I understand your point, but does "despeckle and oversharpen?", directed at Sandy's photo (which she states isn't) sound like being helpful? Not to me. But that was "Grant's opinion" so we should all bow down. Just read his responses to requests for critique. Unless it's one of his "buddies" he's rude and condensending. He's good, but he's far from that good.

    OR how about Grant's remarks that he's bored with these type of posts? Personnaly, i couldn't cae less about what he's bored with. I've been bored with his remarks and attitude for some time.

    I'd like him to start his own forum. They could all go and tell each other how good they are, and let the rest of us who still want to learn do so
  24. Your welcome grant, especially since it seems your parents didn't teach you manners
  25. Thanks for Everyone

    Best regard ;-)
  26. snif snif, boo hoo
  27. Wonderful, Peter. I never saw such kind of bokeh, but I like it.

Share This Page