nice pictures, i like the light in the first one. i agree with both
your definition of good bokeh and your evaluation in your pictures, and
i still think the bokeh i got was rather bad. yet it's also because i
mentally compare to a few portraits with the 100/2.8 where i really
like the bokeh, but conditions being different it's a little unfair.
and i don't even like the picture itself (the one with the 50+X2).
well, thank you for your answers.
gm
> 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>.
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"
|