>
> > you don't see any bokeh items as the background has been sufficiently
> > darkened. This photo of his is actually a nicely composed artsy photo
of
> > bee, flower, and flower buds without background distractions.
>
>
> Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
>
> I'm going to disagree with you slightly on the technical meaning of bokeh,
> though. Wikipedia's entry agrees with my understanding and Mike Johnston's
> definition.
>
<<SNIP>>
Okay, now I better understand what you guys have been going back and
forth over. I had been thinking that the term "bokeh" refered to those way
OOF items where you could see the outline of the aperture blades or the
"donuts" created by the outer mirror of a reflex lens. To my way of
thinking, those two buds in the photo were nothing more than OOF items and
the only bokeh (again in my thinking) was some very faint items in the upper
left-hand corner, almost unnoticable.
Chris
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|