guillaume_malod@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>>zoom when I do. I have some flower shots with pretty nice bokeh
>>
>>
>i'll be checking them out. i wish i had a scanner to show a picture
>with what i think is bad bokeh. i'm not even sure everyone would agree.
>
I've posted some samples here
<http://www.geocities.com/dreammoose/Bokeh/index.htm>. These weren't
planned. they just happened when I shot some pretty flowers under
rapidly changing light. I know definitions of good/bad bokeh vary. For
me, bad is when the center of out of focus (OOF) highlights are darker
than the edges, which are bright and sharpish. Good bokeh then is where
the OOF objects and highlight blend smoothly and softly into each other.
As to the bokeh of my samples, I would rate all as acceptable, really
bad bokeh makes my eyes feel funny. I would rate #2 best, #1 second and
#3 third. The differences are due to rapidly changing light conditions
in cloudy, showery weather and the distance of the back ground. #1 is in
the sun, so the aperture is relatively small and the background is shady
and far away. #2 is in overcast, wider aperture and closer background.
#3 is in sun again, small aperture, but with even closer background.
C.H has posted some carefully staged bokeh tests
<http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/bokeh.htm>.
>>about 1,085,000. Gary's tests show a modest, but significant
>>
>>
>damn, mine 1,008,xxx or something like that. and my instinct towards
>purchasing new gear have other lenses in sight.
>
Not a difference to be worth worrying about.
Moose
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|