I have this day been told by someone with a more expensive camera than mine (and a very loud voice) that bokeh is not the point of any image.

Hmmm.

I will have a glass of fine imported NZ wine and await your elucidation.

Is it possible that the whatever thingy one focuses one's camera on at a given moment is more important than what slips into the frame from beyond one's ken to dazzle, bedazzle, and frazzle alleged photographers in the wee hours and even at straight up noon? I doubt it, but perhaps you can convince me.

How much of art is what we don't do ourselves when our brains think they're in charge?

Tell me.

And tip your glass over here where I can fill it, my friend...

Bokeh is the point of some images. Like these here...
http://www.lightstalking.com/27-incredible-bokeh-photographs
What do you suppose your "friend" would say to those?

Some amazing shots there!

Especially liked "Photographobia"...

hmm...I really like a well done bokeh photograph. I needed to 'learn' about it. I like this article. :=)

Good luck Leslie & my glass is tipped :)

Some thoughts on Bokeh:

"The Good and Bad of Bokeh"


Answering Leslie's photographic conundrum (or the tale of camera envy and overcompensating by getting a more pricier make and model :oP):

Quoted bits from:

The Luminous Landscape - "Bokeh in Pictures"

"Now, I have to admit that I got somewhat obsessed with bokeh after I finally became aware of it. It interested me, in particular, that different lenses render blur in different ways. Even knowing that I take things a bit too far, though, it always seemed strange to me that there are people who don't think it's valid to look at the blurry parts of pictures.

Take this picture by Tony Rowlett, for example. It was made with a Leica Noctilux at a fairly wide aperture. I don't think it's possible to look at this and not get interested in what's going on in the out of focus areas, do you? If you really look at it, there are some pretty amazing abstracted shapes and tones. Does anyone really look at a picture like this and completely ignore all the blurry parts? I doubt it."


(/\ Refer to the images that accompany the article. Definitive, both; visually and in words, in addressing the subject matter. Well, let's say ... 'persuasive' at least.)



Some more "Bokeh Eye Candy".


Fun project and as titled, "An impressive, yet simple, photographic effect".

Thinks I will have to have a go at reproducing some of those effects...

Does any one think blur would make a good contest in the future? We say blur rather than bokeh to be inclusive of other forms of art?

Seeing all these articles is making me interested in trying some things out too.

Or you could call it "Depth of field"...

Or, you could call it ... "Spring ... with a difference!!"

:oP


/\ It's a joke, it's a joke.

Only one way to find out if this is a viable theme/subject matter ... put it in as a contest poll option. :o)


Side note: At least where the Apophysians are concerned it is a distinct creative possibility.

"Spring ... with a difference!!"
Now your talking!

"I will have a glass of fine imported NZ wine and await your elucidation"

Putting bokeh in the 'background' for a sec :) this is a fine idea - and if it is Oyster Bay it is even better - I am just off to have one myself after almost killing myuself in the garden today :)


I have battled with bokeh - and when I think I have it right someone deflates me by saying - a bit more detail in the background would have been nice - a no win thing.
My 60mm macro lens makes good bokeh but for the most part for me it is hit and miss.
And after a few Oyster Bays I dont care :) Everything is blurred.

Saying bokeh isn't the point of any image is just inviting someone to go out there and take a few shots were it IS ....oh....look...people already do!

Now for all those shots where bokeh is present but not intrinsic to the subject, that still doesn't make bokeh unimportant. The emotional impact of harsh bokeh compared to buttery bokeh, in the same image, can be strong. We might not know "why" something feels all smooth and groovy and "ahhhh" when we look at it, but fine bokeh can contribute considerably to that outcome and harsh bokeh totally jump all over it.
Frankly, anybody using a camera who makes those kind of absolutist statements about any element of the process isn't worth conversing with. There are enough thoughtful and wise photographers around that we don't need to waste time listening to those who are not that.
Mikel.

PS The puns were all very punny.

(*hands Mikel a cup of decaf.. *)

I'm not sure to understand your statement, Mikel.
Here is an Example where I tried to work with a very tiny depth of field, but the bokeh is'nt really amazing.