Bokeh at f.017

[Marquinius]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Had a quick look and wondered how they do that. Effects are spectacular (I'll puke when someone uses the hearts or the baby blue stuff!).

 

Hmmm ... certainly opens doors when shooting in surroundings where you can't isolate the subject.

 

Marco

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Kent10D]

btw: what Imants means?

 

To translate, Imants means that he took the shot he posted while walking his dog this afternoon (which is pretty impressive, even if he doesn't have a dog). And that the Alien Skin company, although they have produced some useful software in the past, have now entered the "toy market" with their "bocca" plug-in.

 

I have to agree. I can see where it might be useful for some applications (even the ... *barf* ... hearts and stuff), but it's not even close to true "bokeh," which is the main point of contention. I just wish they hadn't named it "Bokeh," 'cause it ain't.

 

Nonetheless, I'm sure they'll sell quite a few copies.

[diogenis]

You're right: the M-user should take the most expensive approach to everything — it's not the picture that matters; it's the money spent on the camera.

 

—Mitch/Chiang Mai

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

 

Precision comes at a cost. You can buy a product which is a lot less precise at 1/4th the price or not. Decision is yours entirely. But to believe that you will get the same results and at the same time mocking those that do pay for quality, thats simply out of this world.

 

edit: "mocking" is a bit too much, but there are people that believe in miracles. I see them in everyday life all the time

[Guest malland]

Reminds me of a good Japanese friend who came on a business trip to Washington; after a some days he suggested we go to a sushi bar. I told him that there were two good ones and that the cheaper one was one-third the cost of the more expensive one but had 95% of the quakity. He said. "Lets go to expensive one, the one that costs three times as much, because in sushi it's the lest 5% that counts". That's certainly true for sushi, but for lenses and camera equipment it's the picture that counts and one doesn't need to pay Leica prices to get the quality in the pictures, which depend more on the photographer than on the quality of the equipment.

 

—Mitch/Chiang Mai

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[diogenis]

Regardless of how you compose, a better tool, in our case a better lens will yield better results, or more accurate (hence precision) in the worst case scenarios. And I didn't mentioned anything about Leica lenses. The promo compares canon 85/1.2 to an el cheapo P&S, that supposedly will do the job of the canon.

[Guest malland]

Yes, I am all for good lenses and two of my favourites are the DR Summicron and the Summoiux-50, the last pre-ASPH one. But your arguments would impress me more if you could illustrate them with photographs because "precision" is a very vague concept in the context that you are using the word.

 

—Mitch/Chiang Mai

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Precision is referred to anything and is intentionally a vague term yes.

You can have good speakers and bad speakers, you can hear music with both however.

You can have good and bad lenses, you can take photos with both as well.

I can show you a photo with a good lens and the same one using a P&S: the difference will be seen. Any arguments here?

[Guest malland]

Yes, lot's, because "image quality does not make a good photograph; artistic intent and craftsmanship does. I can give you an example. I've always liked the "35mm aesthetic" and a few years ago a friend photographed the same river scene with a good medium format camera and with the Leica M6. Although the MF picture had substantially better "image quality" — how I hate that phrase! — we both liked the Leica picture because the 35mm image was less perfect (less precision, if you like), and had more "bite", precisely from its imperfections compared to the MF negative. QED: in that case "less precision" made a better photo artistically.

 

For the last two years I have been using small sensor cameras, currently the Ricoh GRD2, because they are close to the 35mm aesthetic and excellent for street photography.

 

—Mitch/Chiang Mai

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[AlanG]

Most of the samples they showed looked as if the subject was cut out (with sharp edges) and pasted onto a blurry background. Perhaps they are just trying to show very obvious examples and that an intermediate setting with more thoughtful input by the user would produce a more realistic effect. But maybe not.

 

As with any tool, one would have to try it and see what one is capable doing with it before deciding on the usefulness. One must be careful not to think that there is a big improvement simply by making part of a lousy image blurry, whether this is accomplished optically or via software.

[dpattinson]

I recently saw some shots in the Photographer's Gallery in London that had been manipulated similarly to achieve a back-tilt lens effect.

It was quite obvious that the effect had been achieved in photoshop, as there were overlapping parts of the image that were not consistent with others in the same plane. It looked rubbish - and I was surprised that it made it to the walls of the gallery at all.

[lct]

Would be great for people who cannot afford fast lenses. Small sensor cameras could at last make photos with shallow DoF. If it works it could be a milestone in digital photography IMHO.

[Rona!d]

Holy shit, they should sell it bundled with a cheap chinese point & shoot which is (well) "sharp" from nose to mars.

[diogenis]

Yes, lot's, because "image quality does not make a good photograph; artistic intent and craftsmanship does. I can give you an example. I've always liked the "35mm aesthetic" and a few years ago a friend photographed the same river scene with a good medium format camera and with the Leica M6. Although the MF picture had substantially better "image quality" — how I hate that phrase! — we both liked the Leica picture because the 35mm image was less perfect (less precision, if you like), and had more "bite", precisely from its imperfections compared to the MF negative. QED: in that case "less precision" made a better photo artistically.

 

For the last two years I have been using small sensor cameras, currently the Ricoh GRD2, because they are close to the 35mm aesthetic and excellent for street photography.

 

—Mitch/Chiang Mai

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

Precision means more close to the original, therefore more natural, higher fidelity if you like.

"35mm aesthetic" and "bites" can be very subjective terms, but in any case you still need a solid base to start with. I agree on "imperfections" and I know composition is the most important in photography and some luck as well is there too, especially when you speak about street photos.

[MrEd]

....Bocca burgers anyone?

 

 

.

[Guest malland]

This thread is diminished by two things, one of which pops up on the net almost every time that bokeh is discussed. And that is the constant and mindless distortion of "bokeh" to nonsense like "bocca". This, stupidly enough, seems to be because bokeh s a Japanese word: it doesn't happen, for example, with French words that we use in English, like "deja-vu" or the Italian "chiaraoscuro".

 

The other thing is the instant assumption, based on a short video, that this software has to be bad. Surely, how well it blurs background can only be seen by trying the programme

 

—Mitch/Chiang Mai

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[farnz]

Am I missing something here or does Alien Skin Bokeh offer something that deft use of Photoshop Lens Blur Filter and a layer mask doesn't? (Apart from the barfable hearts and hollow stars of course. )

 

Pete.

[mmk60]

geeee... In the video, how he pronounces "bokeh" sounds "bakka" = foolish in Japanese..

[mat_mcdermott]

1:45 on the video is where I had to choke down the vomit.

 

Good on you. I couldn't keep it down.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest stnami]

geeee... In the video, how he pronounces "bokeh" sounds "bakka" = foolish in Japanese.

...yea but he wasn't speaking in Japanese so it's sorta meaningless

 

 

The main problem about saying that Alien Skin Bokeh does not look like the real thing is that from a totally digital standpoint the film bokeh could be considered as an imitation. AS we travel along in this world less and less people experience personal images via film.

[diogenis]

Indeed, at least when you had film, you were a lot more closer to reality. Now with digital processing you can have starred bokka backgrounds using cheapo linsis