Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Photographing your Bokeh

V

Vivek

Guest
Michiel Schierbeek said:
Vivek said:
Next time someone starts a thread with a new phrase of an age old theme (e.g. fuzz), please specify that any images in that thread would go into a book.
QUOTE]

Four put downs in one sentence! You are a master of misintrepetation.
Someone ?
New phrase of an age old theme?
Fuzz?
You know as well as everyone that the idea for a book just popped up a few posts before by Klaus. No one is trying to trap you into a book from the beginning.
The force to know all things better can get in your way and as so often on fora can make things start to turn sour (again).
As you state you are a free and happy person, so live up to it and do not put down peoples ideas or fuzzy things up.
Have a nice day :D
Michiel
Click to expand...
Go back to the beginning of this thread and you would see a consistency in my wording. Or even in the Leica forum thread (what does Bokeh means to you).

Just because a few talk up each others' and start waxing lyrics on things, does not change what I said about OOF and how I would use it and for what purposes. It is a technical aspect and I have my opinions and reasons for it. Not a matter of put down.

If Klaus brought up the idea of a book and Keith is publishing a book there is no need for Keith to come to another thread to suggest to me that a particular image would have fitted in here (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=143116#post143116 reply #374).

Yes, OOF, Bokeh, fuzz whatever you call it, it is an age old theme.

I myself (being relatively active for only a few years in photography compared many others) have been using fast lenses for many years now. Long before m4/3rds or this site.
Click to expand...
 
W

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
This one is called:

"Three thousand, three hundred and thirty steps to heaven"

After the late and great Eddie Cochran :):)

Keith


 
W

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
If you look at the images presented since the start of this thread, they seem to break down into a few distinct catergories. Here is my first stab at what those groupings may be:

We go all the way from realism (but out of focus) to abstract (you don't have any clue as to the original subject. The common demoninator is that most of the image is technically out of focus. Here are some ideas on how we could categorize:

1.
I call this "Subdued" realism. It is softened, toned down, and made gentle. Leicas image of Elizabeth is a good example of this. I would include Raf's wonderful pictures taken with the older c lenses (circular bokeh)
2.
Distinct images of the subject, but you have to think to find it. Examples of this would be Michiel's scooter images. This one is called "Evocative" realism.
3.
Images that show a representation of the subject, but it is very difficult to figure out what the subject may be. An example would be my image of a Balaclava gate - we would call this "Imaginary" realism.
4.
Here we go totally abstract - the viewer does no know what the subject was. He or she just relies on the artist/photographer to convey something from the title of his or her images. Lots of examples of these, but a good one is where I imaged a garden path and called it a lake. This would be "Interpretive" realism.

Comments welcome on this.

Keith
 
Michiel Schierbeek

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
QUOTE=woodmancy;143445]This one is called:

"Three thousand, three hundred and thirty steps to heaven"

After the late and great Eddie Cochran :):)

Keith


[/QUOTE]


Some time ago I made a similar shot, like your tiling shot, of a facade, but didn't post it because I preferred the in focus version of it. See the 2 following.







After looking at your photograph I did move some handles in Lightroom and after that some flipping and copying in PS and this is the outcome.
What do you think? Is this within the rules of bokehgraphy? :confused:

- Artificial heat -
 
Last edited:
W

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
Michiel Schierbeek said:
QUOTE=woodmancy;143445]This one is called:

"Three thousand, three hundred and thirty steps to heaven"

After the late and great Eddie Cochran :):)

Keith


Click to expand...

Some time ago I made a similar shot, like your tiling shot, of a facade, but didn't post it because I preferred the in focus version of it. See the 2 following.







After looking at your photograph I did move some handles in Lightroom and after that some flipping and copying in PS and this is the outcome.
What do you think? Is this within the rules of bokehgraphy? :confused:

- Artificial heat -
[/QUOTE]

Well, it sure is different, isn't it? And, as I have said before, the photographer is an artist and should use whatever tools he or she needs to get a result that pleases them.
Having said that people in the art world don't call Picasso an impressionist, even though he did a few works in his time that could be called that.
So what is Bokehgraphy? I don't think it has been tightly defined yet, although we have much more scope for classification now, than we did when I started this post.
My original idea was to create picture that directed the viewer to out of focus
imagery rather than stuff that was technically in focus. One very important thing I've learned through this exercise is that an out of focus image provides much more scope for creativity in post processing, and that is a very important part of any classification we can come up with.
There are many, many, lovely images in the Getdpi galleries that fit perfectly in this thread, but people have not put them there. So, we don't claim to be anything new, but we are focusing on what can be done with certain objectives in mind.
BTW, as a viewer, I like all three of your images. That's great, 2 minutes of shooting time, and three totally different impressions of the same subject!

Keith
 
W

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
woodmancy said:
Some time ago I made a similar shot, like your tiling shot, of a facade, but didn't post it because I preferred the in focus version of it. See the 2 following.

After looking at your photograph I did move some handles in Lightroom and after that some flipping and copying in PS and this is the outcome.
What do you think? Is this within the rules of bokehgraphy? :confused:
Click to expand...
Michiel:

Here is my original image for Eddie Cochran's "Three . . . . Steps to Heaven" BTW the out of focus is intentional.

As you see, it is a two dimensional work by someone who wanted it to represent three dimensions. I used the OOF image and worked with it in Lightroom to get away from it's literal two dimensional reality to a Bokehgraph that suggest three dimensions.
Your original image is of a subject that has three dimensions, and in your final iterartion I think it has two dimensions, and has no more a relation to it's subject - which is what Bokehraphy is all about.

Keith

 
Michiel Schierbeek

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
Keith, it would have been nice if the little boy was somewhere in the middle of this geometric universe.

Tryed to shape my own little universe this afternoon. here's an example.

- Universe -

G1 + Vivitar Macro converter + OM 50/1.4​
 
Winkel

Winkel

New member
I finally shot something to contribute to this great thread - excellent images , everyone! This image (I'll call "Chase") was captured using the E520 and Zeiss S-Planar 60/2.8 Makro.
 
W

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
Michiel Schierbeek said:
Keith, it would have been nice if the little boy was somewhere in the middle of this geometric universe.
G1 + Vivitar Macro converter + OM 50/1.4
Click to expand...
Yes, and this is an "out take" - I wanted him in the middle. But he was moving too fast.
I did not process this image but, looking at it again, I'll have a try :sleep006:

Keith
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top