Hi,
I'm not sure I'd call the background in Ranjal's spiderweb photo "bad"
bokeh because in the context of that image it echoed the geometric patterns
of the spiderweb itself.
Well, I wasn't saying it doesn't go well in the picture (although I
personally would have preferred to not see it, as it immediately drew my
attention away from the spider web). What I was saying was that this type of
bokeh falls into the category of what is considered bad bokeh (i.e. very
unsmooth with the diaphragm shape (clearly) visible, yielding a highly
distracting section in the picture).
So, to my tastes, it was an acceptable and even desirable manifestation of
that optical characteristic.
This, of course, is a matter of taste. Personally I could live without it,
but I do see what you mean when writing about the similarities in the
geometrical shapes. However, as the things one normally photographs do not
tend to have a hexagonal shape, it is still (in my eyes) an undesirable lens
characteristic; be it one that perhaps adds to this particular picture's
composition...
And, as you said, there's more to bokeh, good or otherwise, than the
element of iris-shaped flare or highlight patterns. So much depends on the
background itself.
Yes. Unfortunately these topics are not covered at all in the document I
provided the link to. But indeed, the "bokeh-killer-test" is a about as
difficult a situation as one can bestow on a lens...
BTW, the emu may have been drunk. It was feasting on rotting fruit in our
orchard, which often smells like a brewery in late summer.
:)))
Well, the "facial expression" certainly attests to that! ;)
Cheerio!
Olafo
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|