kamol_. Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 from 35 F/2 ASPH Fuji Reala at F2<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamol_. Posted November 7, 2003 Author Share Posted November 7, 2003 enlarge<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamol_. Posted November 7, 2003 Author Share Posted November 7, 2003 and this, out of focus area it good or Bad, Pleae Advice Thanks for Everyone<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djl251 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Ansel Adams was a very successful American photographer and I am not aware of a single photograph of his that had ANY bokeh whatsoever. But if you have to have bokeh, yours is pleasant Kamol. All that matters is if you like it. Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Top two pictures: average. Not bad, not the best I've seen. Sunlight through tree leaves brings out the worst in any lens. The bright circles are evenly bright center to edge. "Bad" bokeh circles would be brighter at the edges and harder-edged; really exceptional bokeh would make the circles fade away more at the edges. Bottom picture (indoors) looks OK, but it's softer light, which always helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakub 1664876965 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Hey Kamol, it's very funny to read your posts. I feel I'm close to your kind of thinking, I've got the same lens :-) for little longer time than you and only one point: Don't think too much about the lens, It's out of question that this is perfect. ENJOY the shooting and try to get the best from your own potential. BTW, I like your photos.And Kamol, I'm also sorry about my always poor English.Best regards. Jakub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 >>>Ansel Adams was a very successful American photographer and I am not aware of a single photograph of his that had ANY bokeh whatsoever.<<< so when did adams shoot at f2?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hall1 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 >Bottom picture (indoors) looks OK, It looks worse to me, with the seemingly split edges of the cabinet. The first one is rather neutral - neither good (buttery smooth) nor bad (harsh.) >but it's softer light, which always helps. Huh? The background is lit by a fluorescent tube, the subject by a strongly-directional bulb or flash, none of which produces soft light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_lo Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 um .... why border ? if you like, then its good and if you don't like will others positive words help ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Who cares! The child is what is important and his expression is good in both photos. Do you go to an art gallery to view the picture frames? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 good or bad, its a distracting bg...2nd one is better as far as that goes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingell Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Ditto Lee--they're both good photos of the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_stanton2 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Is Lee suggesting that background/foreground out-of-focus elements are the equivalent of a picture frame? Irrelevant? Are we meant to shoot everything at f22? There are a lot of other options on that aperture ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Dee mach mah, Kamol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilles Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Kamol, Both pictures are very nice portraits of your son, but regarding your question, I have some doubts about the bokeh of my own 35/2 asph. Just look at the circles at the center of the enclosed image, that I made with that lens. I'm afraid that they look as the exact definition of bad bokeh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Maybe it's a violation of the rules of this club but it seems there is nothing in either picture's OOF that can't be corrected with the tools in Photo Shop. Don't recall anyone objecting to dodging in the darkroom! Kamol, keep up the good work, if the focus is on the kids then the bokeh is just incidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Looks like "neutral" bokeh to me, i.e. blown-up spot highlights appear as evenly illuminated circles/polygons. This is often a characteristic of lenses that are highly corrected for infinity focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marco_guerra Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Grant stated that the OOF part of the first picture is distracting. I agree, and would add that it's not a question of good or bad bokeh, but of depth of focus. The details are distracting because they're not enough OOF. A 35 mm is not at its best, when used to take portraits, and, IMO, because of its greater DOF, if compared, for example, to the 90mm. So, if we are forced to take the shot with that focal length, we have to accept some weaknesses in the final result.I own a 35 asph, and, before buying it, I compared it to the pre-asph, noticing that the bokeh of the 'king of bokeh' (pre-asph' nickname-or was it referred to another previous version?) was surprisingly worse than that of the aspherical (which, IMO, is neutral - not very good, not bad).If I ever wanted (better, if I was constricted) to take a portrait with that lens, I tried, if possible, to increase at the maximum the distance between the subject and the rest of the field.For my personal taste, I look for the maximum DOF with wide angles, and use 50 mm, 90 and longer to take portraits with very small DOF. My two cents Marco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Wow - good and bad. If you look at the bokeh above the line of the child's lips in the first picture, it's terrible - very distracting and harsh. However, if you look at the bokeh below the line of the lips, it's GREAT - looks like an impressionist painting. Probably this is because the highlights in this area are nicely colored and not too bright. I'm going to take out a lens with harsh bokeh (maybe the Summitar) and point it at some dim-ish colored stuff and see if I can't use the "bad bokeh" to good advantage...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Derek. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icuneko Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Kamol, Both portraits are quite good. However, to me the first outdoor photo has disturbing hard-edged bokeh,; it makes me feel a bit dizzy or disoriented to look at it and distracts from the child's wonderful face. The second indoor photo's bokeh is soft, smooth-edged and is non-disturbing and non-distracting. The second bokeh is sometimes described as "painterly," as in classical art lingo. Granted, bokeh is not the total effect, but it can distract. To me, if it distracts from the subject(s) and overall effect it is "bad" bokeh. But to each his/her own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 Andrew: "The background is lit by a fluorescent tube, the subject by a strongly-directional bulb or flash, none of which produces soft light." The background has LOW-CONTRAST lighting - lots of fill from the walls, and there are no sharp highlight points (except the bulb itself) as there are in the outdoors image. You are right that the subject lighting isn't very soft. However, since we're discussing bokeh - the out-of-focus part of the image - the lighting on the IN-focus part is not significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno_menilli Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 Marco I think you are referring to depth of field (d.o.f.) Depth of focus refers to the in/out-of focus area at the film plane. Regards Bruno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamol_. Posted November 8, 2003 Author Share Posted November 8, 2003 Thanks for everyone ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marco_guerra Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 Bruno: you're perfectly right...every day is a good one to learn something - thank you Marco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now