I don’t give a damn about bokeh quality.

[mahidoes]

In real life you don't see bokeh balls using eyes.

The lens does responsible for bokeh quality. So it matters.

I don't care about 3D pop kind of things.

 

[Life recorder]

Terrible Bokeh! This picture will never catch on. What was the photographer thinking!!!!!

There is nothing wrong with the out of focus areas of that photo.

LOL!!!! The truth is the background is a gearhead's NIGHTMARE! Noisy and busy. If DPR posted a photo like this in a gallery the forum would EXPLODE.

Sorry, looks like noise, not bad bokeh.

This pic is joke. What a noisy blurry mess....

This has nothing to do with bokeh.

Nope, but gearheads here think it is terrible photo by their "standards".

So, why introduce it in this thread?

Where is the nice Bokeh????? No one will ever praise this picture.

Nobody is saying that all photos must have shallow DOF.

Do ANY need it. IS it really necessary (unless you just like making pretty Bokeh balls)?

For ever famous or well regarded or highly awarded photo with a shallow DoF, I can show you 10+ without it.

All depends on what you are shooting. Here is a set of images for the "Bird Photographer of the Year" as selected by the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ird-photographer-of-the-year-2017-in-pictures

Care to count how many have shallow DOF?

Likewise, sports photographs often have shallow DOF - https://www.si.com/sports-illustrated/photo/2016/12/14/sis-100-best-photos-2016#19

Portraits can be varied but often have shallow DOF.

In wildlife and sports, the shallow DOF may be a byproduct of the gear used, rather than an intentional goal. They use very long lenses (300-600mm) because their subjects are far away, and they use very fast apertures (300-400mm f/2.8, or 600mm f/4) because they need to keep their shutter speeds as high as possible in low-light situations with fast moving subjects.

Either way, the result is shallow DOF. Once you have shallow DOF, the question of the quality of the bokeh come into play. To discount all of that as an invented concern is ridiculous.

Well, in many of those images, the DoF is so shallow that there is no bokeh quality per se. It is largely a semi-uniform blur of colour.

Bokeh quality typically comes into play in images that have semi-unfocused backgrounds. The wildlife photo of the whiskered tern is probably the only one that actually falls into that category, and even that is probably pushing the threshold.

There are a few more in the sports section, as you would expect in a list of 100 photos, but really not that many...

The number of photos receiving accolades that have shallow depth of field is much higher than several posters in this thread suggest.

Only accolades from gear heads and DoF freaks.

For normal people it is a leader number.

 

[Life recorder]

In real life you don't see bokeh balls using eyes.

The lens does responsible for bokeh quality. So it matters.

I don't care about 3D pop kind of things.

For a few dozen centuries no one painted bokeh balls. It is not realistic and is more of a gimmick that distracts from the subject frequently.

 

[mahidoes]

My problem isn't that I want amazing bokeh balls. But I don't want distracting bokeh background rendering as well as cat eyes and doughnuts in specular highlights. Mostly I shoot shallow DOF. out of focused area shouldn't be a distraction for me.

 

[rsmithgi]

Terrible Bokeh! This picture will never catch on. What was the photographer thinking!!!!!

There is nothing wrong with the out of focus areas of that photo.

LOL!!!! The truth is the background is a gearhead's NIGHTMARE! Noisy and busy. If DPR posted a photo like this in a gallery the forum would EXPLODE.

Sorry, looks like noise, not bad bokeh.

This pic is joke. What a noisy blurry mess....

This has nothing to do with bokeh.

Nope, but gearheads here think it is terrible photo by their "standards".

So, why introduce it in this thread?

Where is the nice Bokeh????? No one will ever praise this picture.

Nobody is saying that all photos must have shallow DOF.

Do ANY need it. IS it really necessary (unless you just like making pretty Bokeh balls)?

For ever famous or well regarded or highly awarded photo with a shallow DoF, I can show you 10+ without it.

All depends on what you are shooting. Here is a set of images for the "Bird Photographer of the Year" as selected by the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ird-photographer-of-the-year-2017-in-pictures

Care to count how many have shallow DOF?

Likewise, sports photographs often have shallow DOF - https://www.si.com/sports-illustrated/photo/2016/12/14/sis-100-best-photos-2016#19

Portraits can be varied but often have shallow DOF.

In wildlife and sports, the shallow DOF may be a byproduct of the gear used, rather than an intentional goal. They use very long lenses (300-600mm) because their subjects are far away, and they use very fast apertures (300-400mm f/2.8, or 600mm f/4) because they need to keep their shutter speeds as high as possible in low-light situations with fast moving subjects.

Either way, the result is shallow DOF. Once you have shallow DOF, the question of the quality of the bokeh come into play. To discount all of that as an invented concern is ridiculous.

Well, in many of those images, the DoF is so shallow that there is no bokeh quality per se. It is largely a semi-uniform blur of colour.

Bokeh quality typically comes into play in images that have semi-unfocused backgrounds. The wildlife photo of the whiskered tern is probably the only one that actually falls into that category, and even that is probably pushing the threshold.

There are a few more in the sports section, as you would expect in a list of 100 photos, but really not that many...

The number of photos receiving accolades that have shallow depth of field is much higher than several posters in this thread suggest.

Only accolades from gear heads and DoF freaks.

For normal people it is a leader number.

20% of the top 20 photos that you linked to....

 

[Jan Chelminski]

A CAT's opinion:



--
"In my opinion to search means nothing in painting. To find is the thing."
"We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his [sic] lies."
-Picasso

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

This is only a small subset of a larger topic:

I don't care about bokeh quality.

I don't care about sharpness when viewing at 100%.

I don't care about noise.

I don't care about chromatic aberrations.

I don't care about vignetting.

I don't care about whether your daily snapshot has phenomenal IQ.

I only care about whether the photo I'm viewing moves me emotionally and intellectually.

And only about one in a thousand photographers (I'm being imprecise here for convenience) has the vision, the dedication, the skills and the courage to create images that do this. And I'm not talking about cliche sunrise shots over the ocean.

One day on 500px I found an image of a woman in the snow, wearing a dress that looked like it was made of thousands of light blue crystals. The dress flowed impossibly beyond where the ground should have been. The ends of the dress seemed to encompass the entire universe. The woman seemed to be moving, and was in the process of turning around, with a facial expression full of determination and power. It was obviously a manipulated image, and the photographer had obviously spent hours and hours, perhaps weeks on this image. I thanked the photographer for restoring my faith in photography as an artistic medium.

Do you have a link to it, please?

 

[Boss of Sony]

This is only a small subset of a larger topic:

I don't care about bokeh quality.

I don't care about sharpness when viewing at 100%.

I don't care about noise.

I don't care about chromatic aberrations.

I don't care about vignetting.

I don't care about whether your daily snapshot has phenomenal IQ.

I only care about whether the photo I'm viewing moves me emotionally and intellectually.

And only about one in a thousand photographers (I'm being imprecise here for convenience) has the vision, the dedication, the skills and the courage to create images that do this. And I'm not talking about cliche sunrise shots over the ocean.

One day on 500px I found an image of a woman in the snow, wearing a dress that looked like it was made of thousands of light blue crystals. The dress flowed impossibly beyond where the ground should have been. The ends of the dress seemed to encompass the entire universe. The woman seemed to be moving, and was in the process of turning around, with a facial expression full of determination and power. It was obviously a manipulated image, and the photographer had obviously spent hours and hours, perhaps weeks on this image. I thanked the photographer for restoring my faith in photography as an artistic medium.

Do you have a link to it, please?

 

[Experte]

Why advertise your lack of sophistication on a forum?

Glad that Coke bottle lenses are all you need.....the $ savings will be HUGE for you!

He didn't say that he didn't care about resolving power, or chromatic aberrations, or corrections for coma, or astigmatism, or distortion.

He didn't even say that he didn't care about the amount of background blur that he could produce.

All he said was that he never found a situation where an otherwise good shot was let down by poor bokeh characteristics.

There's a million miles between that statement and the Coke bottle lenses you've somehow jumped onto.

If everyone would – even to half, assimilate and interpret what they read like you do, Internet would be a better place to be by far

I wasn’t paying any attention to the quality of bokeh before I read it from here. Now I do, is it good thing? I Don’t know. I do like the “swirly” bokeh from old lenses though.

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

This is only a small subset of a larger topic:

I don't care about bokeh quality.

I don't care about sharpness when viewing at 100%.

I don't care about noise.

I don't care about chromatic aberrations.

I don't care about vignetting.

I don't care about whether your daily snapshot has phenomenal IQ.

I only care about whether the photo I'm viewing moves me emotionally and intellectually.

And only about one in a thousand photographers (I'm being imprecise here for convenience) has the vision, the dedication, the skills and the courage to create images that do this. And I'm not talking about cliche sunrise shots over the ocean.

One day on 500px I found an image of a woman in the snow, wearing a dress that looked like it was made of thousands of light blue crystals. The dress flowed impossibly beyond where the ground should have been. The ends of the dress seemed to encompass the entire universe. The woman seemed to be moving, and was in the process of turning around, with a facial expression full of determination and power. It was obviously a manipulated image, and the photographer had obviously spent hours and hours, perhaps weeks on this image. I thanked the photographer for restoring my faith in photography as an artistic medium.

Do you have a link to it, please?

--
Dutch
forestmoonstudio.co.uk
Photography is about light, not light-proof boxes.

No unfortunately I closed my 500px account so I lost all my favorited photos. Pity.

It did sound like something that some friends of mine might have done:

Loading…

500px.com

--
Dutch
forestmoonstudio.co.uk
Photography is about light, not light-proof boxes.