[pure-silver] Re: Bokeh - no longer relevant? (some fun stuff for Friday)
- From: stephen moss <swmoss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:33:30 -0400
Although it does not help define bokeh the following is an aspect in the
enjoyment of out of focus features.
There is a difference in how the out of focus areas are perceived with
film vs digital. Prints from film can have actual grain detail which
itself is in focus. I feel this focused grain makes the out of focus
areas of a print made from film more comfortable to view. Digital seems
to need copious sharpening button to help improve the out of focus areas
so we can find some kind of detail and therefore view the image more
comfortably.
What do you folks think?
Stephen
On 18/01/13 01:11 PM, 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.
--
Stephen Moss
Sent using Carrier Pigeon Deluxe version 42.0
Never eat crow again.
=============================================================================================================
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:
