oh... mmm... maybe not. your judging sessions became so random recently :P I am heading to check it now!
ps. did you see the 2nd googly card i sent you via discord? (a postcard from 1984 or so)
it's meant to be a bit random and at different times of the day/week to work fairly distributed for a global audience... but mostly it's also my life dictating when I find time to manage the jury process on discord.
Yeah... I got the card and saved the image immediately... sorry, I must have forgotten to send you a reply.
but technically speaking, its not bokeh, maybe just background-out-of-the-focus... no?
well, anyway! "things come to the one who wait". it came to me now :P
but of course - that's exactly what bokeh is - technically speaking ;)
Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it is often associated with such areas. However, bokeh is not limited to highlights; blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image. [wikipedia]
well, well, maybe we are in grey zone, hmmm... I cant argue so well in english language !! maybe even a primary school pupil could over-smart-ass me!
:)))
do you want, using a wikipAEdia quote, convince me that everything out of focus, shot with an open aperture, is a bokeh? I dont buy it! Background, departed from the main image, maybe blurred in a good way, maybe not. it depends. the best part of this we used to consider as bokeh . . . 8-)
oh! and I'd better oversmart-eeerrrrr etc.... you with the certain thing -- bokeh! luckily, I have published today a good one. a nice coincidence :)
the "quality" of the out-of-focus areas of an image.
exactly my opinion / understanding of this. if I had to describe / explain it, i'd say: its a special kind of blur... otherwise, we'd have no need in this word at all, we could simply use the word 'blur' every thime speaking of this matter.
well... the word bokeh is really just a synonym for blur isn't it?!
I guess there's some differentiation in photo-lingualism where the same "amount" of blur can still create a different "quality" of bokeh because of differing lens qualities such as diaphragm shape and aberration.
But technically any out-of-focus-blur is bokeh, whether it looks good or not, then it's just either ugly bokeh or nice looking bokeh... but that's really just a matter of taste anyway.
i never thought about it that way. fraenk, you are a native speaker, how can I argue with you... i d k, maybe I am wrong, and confused now... but I still probably be thinking on about it like this, in a wrong way :/
some differentiation in photo-lingualism.. where the same "amount" of blur can still create a different "quality" of bokeh because of...
you nailed it. I didnt say, 'different amount', I'd say, a different quality of bokeh, but we are there.
returning back to the red leaves of your pic, imo one should better not say: look at this bokeh! - cause it was just a blur of non-specific and amazing shape, it naturally lead us to results like this: I came in... and didnt noticed one! and was claiming, give me bokeh as promised :P
maybe it was me, who mis-used the word 'technically', and you are correct: technically it is bokeh, but... often not the stuff like this, is awarded with this epithet. dixi !
oh... mmm... maybe not. your judging sessions became so random recently :P I am heading to check it now!
ps. did you see the 2nd googly card i sent you via discord? (a postcard from 1984 or so)
it's meant to be a bit random and at different times of the day/week to work fairly distributed for a global audience... but mostly it's also my life dictating when I find time to manage the jury process on discord.
Yeah... I got the card and saved the image immediately... sorry, I must have forgotten to send you a reply.
ah, it's meant to be a bit random -- I didnt know that. ok, "its not bug, its a feature" then! :P
hahaha... exactly :D
oh YESS!!! -- its a great image, worth efforts.
but technically speaking, its not bokeh, maybe just background-out-of-the-focus... no?
well, anyway! "things come to the one who wait". it came to me now :P
but of course - that's exactly what bokeh is - technically speaking ;)
I think I just out-smartassed you :D
well, well, maybe we are in grey zone, hmmm... I cant argue so well in english language !! maybe even a primary school pupil could over-smart-ass me!
:)))
do you want, using a wikipAEdia quote, convince me that everything out of focus, shot with an open aperture, is a bokeh? I dont buy it! Background, departed from the main image, maybe blurred in a good way, maybe not. it depends. the best part of this we used to consider as bokeh . . . 8-)
oh! and I'd better oversmart-eeerrrrr etc.... you with the certain thing -- bokeh! luckily, I have published today a good one. a nice coincidence :)
heh... bokeh literally translates to "blur" and is used to describe the "quality" of the out-of-focus areas of an image.
you can look it up in any photography text book, you don't have to rely on wikipedia ;)
i didnt know that.
exactly my opinion / understanding of this. if I had to describe / explain it, i'd say: its a special kind of blur... otherwise, we'd have no need in this word at all, we could simply use the word 'blur' every thime speaking of this matter.
well... the word bokeh is really just a synonym for blur isn't it?!
I guess there's some differentiation in photo-lingualism where the same "amount" of blur can still create a different "quality" of bokeh because of differing lens qualities such as diaphragm shape and aberration.
But technically any out-of-focus-blur is bokeh, whether it looks good or not, then it's just either ugly bokeh or nice looking bokeh... but that's really just a matter of taste anyway.
i never thought about it that way. fraenk, you are a native speaker, how can I argue with you... i d k, maybe I am wrong, and confused now... but I still probably be thinking on about it like this, in a wrong way :/
you nailed it. I didnt say, 'different amount', I'd say, a different quality of bokeh, but we are there.
returning back to the red leaves of your pic, imo one should better not say: look at this bokeh! - cause it was just a blur of non-specific and amazing shape, it naturally lead us to results like this: I came in... and didnt noticed one! and was claiming, give me bokeh as promised :P
maybe it was me, who mis-used the word 'technically', and you are correct: technically it is bokeh, but... often not the stuff like this, is awarded with this epithet. dixi !
look at the bokeh!
(which part of the pic you will look?)