Sickly out of focus backgrounds

[Sparrow]

... one mans' fish ... as they say

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

... one mans' fish ... as they say

Mmm...fish...now you're talkin'

 

[former member]

WWTLD... What would Tom Lehrer Do.

Bokeh.

They are teaching Bokeh in all of the fine-arts Photography schools.

I never learned about Bokeh with my Instamatic.

Good Bokeh Lens.

A Good Bokeh Lens is just like a regular lens.

Except all the aperture blades are missing.

I wrote a little song about it.

Oh.. You can't stop down to F8 because the DUFF would push past the F4 marks...

The F4 marks...

Why can't you push the DUFF past the F4 marks...

Because the picture would be in focus.

And that would not be Bokeh.

Bo-Keh... Bo-Keh... You just can't take a sharp picture with it!

 

[Keith]

I just thought I'd check in on this thread to see how it was going having been away from the silicon brain for a day and a half.

I'm off to poison some pigeons in the park!

 

[former member]

So Long MOM, I'm Off to drop the Bomb
So don't you wait up for me.

Dropping the Bokeh just did not work like it did with Dr. Strangelove.

But I expect a lot of Bokeh shots of those Pigeons, taken at F1.2

I'm off to PICTURE some pigeons in the park.

 

[Keith]

Except for the ones I take home for experiments of course! 😀

 

[former member]

I just had an image in my mind of Bob Newhart teaching a course in Photography by videoteleconference.

You opened up TOO FAST Mrs Webb.

 

[Roger Hicks]

... one mans' fish ... as they say

For those unaware of the other half, perhaps I ought to add that one man's fish is another man's poisson.

Cheers,

R.

 

[alistair.o]

For those unaware of the other half, perhaps I ought to add that one man's fish is another man's poisson.

Cheers,

R.

That's a shocker!

 

[Sparrow]

For those unaware of the other half, perhaps I ought to add that one man's fish is another man's poisson.

Cheers,

R.

As a child it was "one mans' fish is another man's fowl" but then foul was left ambiguous ... deliberately I suspect

 

[dotur]

www.ivanlozica.com
I knew it. You won't listen. Now you are molesting poultry, fowl, pigeons and fish - and all that for silly bokeh.
It is dangerous to use fast lenses wide open in broad daylight...
A wicked lens can learn how to produce bokeh at any aperture!

Digilux 3, CZJ Pancolar 50mm, ISO 400, f 22...



0525dot2011 by dotur, on Flickr

 

[Sparrow]

... perhaps you missed the disinterest the last time you posted that? ... probably something to do with it's irrelevance?

 

[former member]

So now you guys are poisoning pigeons with fish.

 

[semilog]

People have greater access to more equipment and use it more imaginatively than only a few years ago; for example, how many film users used to fit so many and various lenses from so many and various manufacturers on their cameras?

And modern equipment is well suited to experimenting with shallow focus (indeed, it suits experimentation full stop). High resolution sensors and screens show off the effect very well and better than on film and in prints.

I'm curious. Have you ever used medium or large format camera gear? And are you aware that it was not until the 1960s that the sub-miniature 35mm format (what we, in our modern benightedness, now call "full-frame"), with its extended DoF, was widely adopted by the average amateur photographer? And are you aware that for 50 years prior to that millions upon millions of amateur and professional photographers almost exclusively used cameras with big negatives and very limited DoF? And that a great many of these photographers were very serious, and very creative?

I ask, because your comments suggest that you are not aware of at least some of these things.

 

[dotur]

www.ivanlozica.com

Oh no, Stewart - that's another shot of the same ugly subject: the first one was 1.8, this one is 22, a day after...

 

[j j]

I'm curious. Have you ever used medium or large format camera gear? And are you aware that it was not until the 1960s that the sub-miniature 35mm format (what we, in our modern benightedness, now call "full-frame"), with its extended DoF, was widely adopted by the average amateur photographer? And are you aware that for 50 years prior to that millions upon millions of amateur and professional photographers almost exclusively used cameras with big negatives and very limited DoF? And that a great many of these photographers were very serious, and very creative?

I ask, because your comments suggest that you are not aware of at least some of these things.

No, I have never used medium and large formats. Yes, I am aware that 35mm superceded larger formats for amateurs in the last 50 years. I am not aware (and I do not not believe it to be true) that there were millions upon millions of amateur photographers in the 1910s. I am aware that remarkable photographs were made then. None of which conflicts with the bits you quoted.

Edit: Ah, I see you said 1910 to 1960. Still seems a bit of a high number.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I think it's ridiculous to make these types of generalizations. A hack might do it poorly. A good photographer might do it well.

The way you feel about bokeh is how i typically feel when i see a portfolio or flickr page (or whatever) from a photographer and everything in every image is in focus. I feel like screaming, "Make a decision." Including everything is even lazier than excluding everything.

Another way of looking at it: I live in midtown NYC. If i were to go out and just 'look' around, there's no angle i could look that wouldn't have something 'objectionable' in the imaginary frame. Including all of that is akin to not having any taste. Not being discerning and thinking everything is 'okay' is not something i'd be proud of.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think it's ridiculous to make these types of generalizations. A hack might do it poorly. A good photographer might do it well.

The way you feel about bokeh is how i typically feel when i see a portfolio or flickr page (or whatever) from a photographer and everything in every image is in focus. I feel like screaming, "Make a decision." Including everything is even lazier than excluding everything.

Another way of looking at it: I live in midtown NYC. If i were to go out and just 'look' around, there's no angle i could look that wouldn't have something 'objectionable' in the imaginary frame. Including all of that is akin to not having any taste. Not being discerning and thinking everything is 'okay' is not something i'd be proud of.

What generalizations, though?

Some shallow d-o-f stuff is done well. Some is done badly. I don't think anyone would argue with this.

My original post suggested that I'm seeing more and more of it done badly, especially in bright light.

To me this suggests two possibilities:

There is more and more of it, and it is being done badly, but it is a fashion that will pass.

There is more and more of it and we are seeing a permanent change in the way of seeing , just as we saw an ever increasing acceptance throughout the 20th century of what was, in the 1930s, called 'violent' or 'extreme' perspective from wide-angle lenses.

I apologize for not making myself clearer in earlier posts, but very few people seem to have addressed this question.

Cheers,

R.

 

[semilog]

No, I have never used medium and large formats. Yes, I am aware that 35mm superceded larger formats for amateurs in the last 50 years. I am not aware (and I do not not believe it to be true) that there were millions upon millions of amateur photographers in the 1910s. I am aware that remarkable photographs were made then. None of which conflicts with the bits you quoted.

Edit: Ah, I see you said 1910 to 1960. Still seems a bit of a high number.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/features/brownieCam/index.shtml

 

[j j]

OK semilog, so now I am curious...

What is the conflict between the Box Brownie and my comments that people have greater access to more equipment now and that modern equipment is well suited to experimenting with shallow focus?