[pure-silver] Re: Bokeh - no longer relevant? (some fun stuff for Friday)
- From: richard lahrson <gtripspud@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:50:36 -0800
Hi,
Is bokeh largely dependent on the number of aperture blades in the lens?
Lens can have 12, 10, 8 or 6 blades with some point and shot cameras
having only 2 blades. The lenses that some photographers praise generally
seem to have more aperture blades.
Rich
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Fred Rosenberg <fdr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> What's the problem? Sounds like two reasonably presented points of view on
> the same subject. Is there suppose to be a winner?
>
> Fred
>
>
>
>
>
> On 18/01/2013 9:11 AM, Dana Myers wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Someone I know recently got a new camera. Her son is teaching her
>> photography.
>> She mentioned "shallow depth of field" and I suggested she should ask her
>> son about "bokeh".
>>
>> Here's the conversation that followed - am I being too harsh? Who is
>> teaching
>> the kids these days?!?!
>>
>> Son: Bokeh is the fancy term for things that are out of focus. However I
>> usually hear it used primarily to described out of focus highlights
>> or lights that become more like orbs. For example the bumper/credit
>> for Focus Features is a focus pull of several different color lights.
>> However, Bokeh can be used to described all blur/haze in out of focus
>> areas of an image.
>>
>> Me: bokeh is not a fancy term. it's something real and transcends "stuff
>> out
>> of focus". it's "how appealing stuff out of focus is". don't
>> deprecate
>> what 100 years of photography learned before we switched from film to
>> digital sensors
>>
>> Son: I am not saying it isn't a valuable part of creative composition of
>> an
>> image. I just feel that the word is not commonly used to describe
>> shallow depth of field in everyday discussion of imagery. Making it
>> to me,
>> a fancy word of academia that most only know as out of focus
>> highlights and
>> not a general description of lack of focus in photography. The word I
>> feel
>> no longer is used properly or often enough to make it as relevant
>> anymore.
>>
>> Me: I hope bokeh isn't commonly used to describe "shallow depth of
>> field",
>> because that would be incorrect usage. It's used to describe how
>> *pleasant*
>> out-of-focus things look and is as relevant as ever as a key
>> attribute of
>> a "good" lens - it isn't a "fancy word of academia" and that it isn't
>> "used properly or often enough to make it relevant" reflects more on
>> who
>> you're talking about it with: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
>>
>> Dana K6JQ
>>
>>
>> =============================================================================================================
>> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
>> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
>> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>>
>
> =============================================================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
