June Challenge -Bokeh - Discussion

[AB22 Easy Tiger]

Starting early as I'm about to celebrate a big birthday and have family in from the UK

The theme for June is Bokeh.

I thought long and hard about this, thinking maybe that only those with an SLR could do it, but I've shot some pretty good stuff with a point and shoot this month that shows that anyone who has a camera with a macro setting can do this - it's meant to stretch us a bit after all. I guess an alternative theme is Depth of field control.

Shots must be taken between now and the end of June

Happy shooting

[clyde]

great theme, time to break out the nifty fifty

[peachbum]

Happy Birthday AB22 EasyTiger!

Is it depth of field control or bokeh or both? Can't see how any of us with point and shoot can take part.

[ThankHeavenForShed 7]

Love a bit of Bokeh, me! Happy birthday, boss!

I've just had a play with a not-that-special Canon point-and-shoot and managed to achieve a lovely bit of bokeh! I think most people, possibly even everyone, should be able to enter.

[The Great Soprendo]

Originally Posted by peachbum

Happy Birthday AB22 EasyTiger!

Is it depth of field control or bokeh or both? Can't see how any of us with point and shoot can take part.

A typical photo with bokeh can usually be achieved by making sure your subject is pretty close to the camera, and the background some distance behind; if you have an optical zoom then usually at a longer focal length. I've certainly achieved it with basic autofocus non-aperture-adjustable point and shoots before. Can possibly mess around with ISO, and switch off flash, to help open up the lens more.

[peachbum]

Originally Posted by The Great Soprendo

A typical photo with bokeh can usually be achieved by making sure your subject is pretty close to the camera, and the background some distance behind; if you have an optical zoom then usually at a longer focal length. I've certainly achieved it with basic autofocus non-aperture-adjustable point and shoots before. Can possibly mess around with ISO, and switch off flash, to help open up the lens more.

Cheers, I guess I'll be playing around to see what I can achieve.

Depth of field control is a totally different theme to Bokeh so I was just asking if it was both (ie depth of field control OR bokeh).

[The Great Soprendo]

Originally Posted by peachbum

Cheers, I guess I'll be playing around to see what I can achieve.

Depth of field control is a totally different theme to Bokeh so I was just asking if it was both (ie depth of field control OR bokeh).

True, I suppose. I would agree that bokeh is often measured by its "quality" - out of focus areas are rendered very different by different lenses and some are said to have "better" bokeh than others, so arguably there is something in what you say, and it is arguably dependent on the equipment at your disposal. Personally I'm not sure I always get what people mean when they talk about the quality of bokeh, and I very much doubt most of us will judge this month's entries on the basis of the bokeh 'creaminess' or whatever - it will be about the overall shot (as it should be IMO), as long as it meets the criteria of having out of focus areas. Bokeh could also be the subject itself of course, in which case the 'quality' issue is different. Arggh - who knows!

[peachbum]

Originally Posted by The Great Soprendo

True, I suppose. I would agree that bokeh is often measured by its "quality" - out of focus areas are rendered very different by different lenses and some are said to have "better" bokeh than others, so arguably there is something in what you say, and it is arguably dependent on the equipment at your disposal. Personally I'm not sure I always get what people mean when they talk about the quality of bokeh, and I very much doubt most of us will judge this month's entries on the basis of the bokeh 'creaminess' or whatever - it will be about the overall shot (as it should be IMO), as long as it meets the criteria of having out of focus areas. Bokeh could also be the subject itself of course, in which case the 'quality' issue is different. Arggh - who knows!

If you look at the bokeh from this picture, are we going to be judged on how pretty these little circles of light look? Or just the ability to take a shallow depth-of-field photograph? These circles of light, is it something that is only obtainable in digital photography or can this effect be done on film? I ask because I never remember bokeh being mentioned when I was learning about film photography and there is nothing in my books. Though one example of a shallow d-o-f photograph had the flower petals so out of focus at the front, it gave an almost "bokeh" effect I suppose. Not moaning about the theme at all, just information gathering really.

[tom tom macute]

I've sometimes found it hard to seperate some Bokeh shots from Macro's.

This for instance could possibly be classed as Bokeh because the main point of focus is the bees head while the remainder of the body and background are out of focus.
Maybe for it to be Bokeh the whole body would have to be in focus and only the background out of focus, otherwise it's a macro.
I hope next months challenge isn't Macro, then I'll really be confused.

[The Great Soprendo]

Originally Posted by peachbum

If you look at the bokeh from this picture, are we going to be judged on how pretty these little circles of light look? Or just the ability to take a shallow depth-of-field photograph? These circles of light, is it something that is only obtainable in digital photography or can this effect be done on film? I ask because I never remember bokeh being mentioned when I was learning about film photography and there is nothing in my books. Though one example of a shallow d-o-f photograph had the flower petals so out of focus at the front, it gave an almost "bokeh" effect I suppose. Not moaning about the theme at all, just information gathering really.

The circles of light are to do with the lens, not what's behind it (film or digital sensor), so can be done with either. The type of bokeh you get depends on how the lens shows out of focus areas, and varies a bit with aperture. So if the lens is stopped down a little you can see the shape of the lens diaphragm, and can even sometimes tell which make of lens took the picture (a lot of Nikon lenses have 7 diaphragm leaves so you get heptagons, for instance). But the quality of the bokeh I think is a very technical optical thing to do with optical design. I'm out of my depth to be honest, but if the out of focus areas are represented as points of light (though probably small circles close up) rather than large circles of light it is probably considered to give better bokeh which is less intrusive and makes the main subject leap out. Some lenses are considered better for portraits because of this kind of 'creamy' bokeh. Though the example you gave is brilliant: despite the bokeh being quite intrusive to the subject, it is complementary IMO. The way I see it, there is no right and wrong in this - beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all.

Originally Posted by tom tom macute

I've sometimes found it hard to seperate some Bokeh shots from Macro's.

This for instance could possibly be classed as Bokeh because the main point of focus is the bees head while the remainder of the body and background are out of focus.
Maybe for it to be Bokeh the whole body would have to be in focus and only the background out of focus, otherwise it's a macro.
I hope next months challenge isn't Macro, then I'll really be confused.

With macro it's difficult to get much depth of field so almost inevitably there's bokeh there too unless the subject is very flat.