Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Annika1980, Jul 11, 2004.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Jul 11, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    TP Guest

    TP, Jul 11, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    There are a lot of highlight areas in the back, but they are
    smooth. Not nasty at all.
    Alan Browne, Jul 11, 2004
  4. Annika1980

    TP Guest

    You're as blind as a bat, Alan.

    Look at the bright edged bokeh. Annika has done a good job of
    defocusing the background for a very effective shot. But those bright
    edges still shine through.

    Like I said, nasty (harsh) bokeh.
    TP, Jul 11, 2004
  5. Annika1980

    Magnus W Guest

    As usual you speak about things of which you know so little. The bokeh in
    that shot is nothing spectacularly bad; it just suffers from pretty high
    contrast in the lighting of the foliage. Reflections in leaves? A polarizer
    may have helped. Not bad results compared to most contemporary lenses -- in
    fact, better than many; although not as good as the Minolta 135 STF or
    similar bokeh champs.

    By the way, Tony, why did you remove your pictures (you know, those
    with tilted horizons) from Shuttercity?

    To Bret, if you read this; I still happen to have you kill filed so I won't
    see an eventual response, but you have really developed as a photographer
    during the years. Some good shots in that gallery. Keep it up.
    Magnus W, Jul 11, 2004
  6. Annika1980

    Foret Noire Guest

    Foret Noire, Jul 11, 2004
  7. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    Typical blustering insult from TP.

    Bright does not mean harsh bokeh. There is no bokeh per se when
    there are no highlights. Here there are large prominent
    highlights that make up an unusaully large 'surface' of the
    background, yet they are smooth in transition.

    Harsh bokeh is that with hard contrasty edges that detract. In
    Bret's shot, the bokeh is both bright and fairly smooth.

    If there is an observation regarding the OOF in this shot it is
    in the upper right corner where the defocused highlights are
    actually dark in the middle... curious.
    Alan Browne, Jul 11, 2004
  8. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: Magnus W -trap.com
    He killfiles me but he studies my pics.
    Annika1980, Jul 12, 2004
  9. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    What, may I ask, hasn't it?
    Alan Browne, Jul 12, 2004
  10. He uses Canon EOS lenses, which are considered to be 35mm equipment.
    Richard Cockburn, Jul 12, 2004
  11. Annika1980

    brian Guest

    Its pretty widely accepted that bright-edged bokeh is bad bokeh. The
    extreme case of this type is given by mirror lenses having a central
    obscuration. Even when there are no defocussed point sources you get
    doubled-line problems with this type of bokeh.

    What isn't generally understood is that you can't have smooth-edged
    bokeh both in the background and the foreground. Undercorrected
    spherical aberration gives smooth background bokeh and harsh
    foreground bokeh. Overcorrected spherical aberration gives the
    opposite. An aberration-free lens gives neutral bokeh.

    brian, Jul 12, 2004
  12. Annika1980

    Magnus W Guest

    (brian) wrote in
    That depends. The Nikkor DC lenses allow you to change the correction so
    you can get good bokeh where you want it, but the Minolta 135 STF lens
    renders everything unsharp smoothly as it doesn't depend on uncorrected
    aberrations to get beautiful bokeh. Instead, the apodization filter is
    responsible for this (but loses 1.5 stops of light in the process).
    Magnus W, Jul 12, 2004
  13. Annika1980

    TP Guest

    Complete nonsense.

    Still, it is all I could probably expect from someone who submits
    snapshots to the SI that display the most breathtaking incompetence at
    every basic level, as yours do. Your latest snapshot fails at every
    basic level of technique and composition.

    Perhaps, rather than posting so much irrelevant nonsense to this
    newsgroup, you would do well to spend your time taking some very basic
    tuition in photographic technique. You should start with learning how
    to focus and expose correctly. At this time, even those most basic
    elements of technique appear to have escaped you.
    TP, Jul 12, 2004
  14. Annika1980

    TP Guest

    And that is exactly what we see in Annika's shot.
    TP, Jul 12, 2004
  15. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    Repeating: In the photo in question there are no hard edges
    typical of harsh bokeh. The highlight areas are large, but not
    harsh (as stated above).
    Alan Browne, Jul 12, 2004
  16. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    Such classic TP. Stick to the subject, you coward, instead of
    attacking others. Fact is that Bret's shot had a fairly smooth
    OOF rendering as bright as it was. That you mistake brightness
    for harshness is just indicative of your lack of knowledge in
    Alan Browne, Jul 12, 2004
  17. Annika1980

    TP Guest

    I'm not attacking you personally, Alan. I am sure you are a nice chap.

    What I am referring to is your oft-expressed stubborn ignorance of
    optical characteristics, especially bokeh.

    You have never understood bokeh, to the extent that you repeatedly
    posted sneering comments to this newsgroup casting doubt on the idea
    that bokeh even existed. You posted a sneering account on your
    website of something you called "Schmuckle", which demonstrated
    nothing more than your irritation with other people discussing
    something you patently did not understand.

    Your sneering comments here prove that you still don't understand
    bokeh. And, with a closed mind, I predict you never will ...

    .... just like you don't understand other simple concepts, such as
    focusing, depth of field, contrast, exposure (etc., etc., ...) as your
    submissions to the SI prove. In particular, your latest effort, which
    is surely posted as a joke?

    No serious photographer would even *keep* a shot that is so
    incompetent in so many basic respects, let alone publish it.

    So stop being stubborn, Alan. Admit you have a great deal to learn,
    even at the most basic level of technique, and go get some tuition.

    You can easily find the time by not posting here for a while.
    TP, Jul 12, 2004
  18. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    You attack everyone who has ever hoisted you on your own petard.

    It is far past time for you to PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

    We haven't seen ANY photos from you since the pathetic ones you
    withdrew a few years ago as they were proof of your total
    incompetence as a photographer.

    Stop blathering TP. It's all you know how to do. Certainly, do
    not lecture anyone on their photography unless you can post a
    great deal of photos that are greatly superior.
    Alan Browne, Jul 12, 2004
  19. Annika1980

    TP Guest

    The SI is the most mediocre possible exposition of amateurish
    snapshots taken mostly by people completely without apparent ability,
    paying only the most cursory attention, if any, to the brief.

    The commentary then consists of much mutual backslapping, with
    participants congratulating each other on their mediocre snapshots
    without even thinking whether the brief might have been addressed, let
    alone to what extent.

    Why on earth would I want to put up any of my shots for incompetent
    snapshooters like you to comment on them when I already get critique
    several times a week from working photographers with proven ability?

    Clue 1: It is the same reason why those former SI participants with
    any competence no longer submit their shots.

    Clue 2: It is the same reason why so many competent and experienced
    photographers who formerly posted to this newsgroup no longer do so.

    Clue 3: If you stop posting here and go get some tuition (and Boy! Do
    you need it!) the situation might well improve.
    TP, Jul 12, 2004
  20. Annika1980

    brian Guest

    Good point about the apodization filter. The light falloff might even
    be acceptable when you consider that it mainly affects wide stops.
    The Nikkor DC lenses have variable spherical aberration that allows
    you to get smooth background or foreground boken, but not both at the
    same time.

    brian, Jul 12, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.