how do i do so??? the background is blur and the front is very forcus??? and is there a term for this effect?
actually there are a number of factors to consider
1. Focal lenght of lens (the longer the focal lenght the less DOF you get)
2. Aperture (the bigger the aperture (smaller f-stop) the less DOF you get)
3. Subject to camera distance (the higher the magnification the less DOF)
4. Subject to bg distance (the further the blurrer)
5. lens used (some lenses have better bokeh than others)
so for max. effect use all of the above
Oh, btw, the blurring in the bg is called bokeh.
I think u hav misunderstood e term here. 'Bokeh' is not a term for blurring of BG but instead in simple term, it represents e degree of quality of e blur.
Do correct me if I'm wrong...
overseas websites also use the word "bokeh iirc...There is no such word. I have never read such a word in books or magazine, except for here.
Its more of a local photography slang.
Correct me if I am wrong, then I must be reading all the "wrong" magazines/books.
There is no such word. I have never read such a word in books or magazine, except for here.
Its more of a local photography slang.
Correct me if I am wrong, then I must be reading all the "wrong" magazines/books.
There is no such word. I have never read such a word in books or magazine, except for here.
Its more of a local photography slang.
There is no such word. I have never read such a word in books or magazine, except for here.
Its more of a local photography slang.
Correct me if I am wrong, then I must be reading all the "wrong" magazines/books.
I think u hav misunderstood e term here. 'Bokeh' is not a term for blurring of BG but instead in simple term, it represents e degree of quality of e blur.
Do correct me if I'm wrong...
em, i'm wasn't sure if bokeh can be applied to means just blurring because blur can mean so many things, it can mean motion blur too, handshake blur or out of focus. softness of a lens at extremes of lens aperture can sometimes add on to that perception of blurriness. even if it means just the degree of blurriness, as in how a single light source diffuse into a blob, i wonder if a picture that is all out of focus without a foreground subject in focus, can be called a picture with bokeh.
sometimes jargons can help the same community communicate faster but can be alien to others and the newcomers. it helps to consolidate ideas and technique behind a concept.
Yeah agreed!
However, if u read carefully, in my statement, (Bokeh' is not a term for blurring of BG but instead in simple term, it represents e degree of quality of e blur.), e last word "blur" here is complementing e former "blurring of BG".
i think it is the latter statement now that got me confused.
so is this considered bokeh?
it is done by deliberately manually off focus without nothing in focus.
No, as I said earlier 'Bokeh' in simple term is e degree of quality of a blur.
Wat u hav here is a blur pic. If u hav 2 of e same kind of diz pix taken say for example w diff lens, u then can compare which lens produces a better 'bokeh' (meaning in much simpler term, more pleasing/smooth blur).
R u still blur??? :bsmilie: Juz kidding....
my question is still the same. do you need to have a subject in the foreground focused, such that the off focus background can be considered as having a degree of "bokeh"? if i manually focused at a focal plane (air) in front of the background objects, the entire picture will be blurred as above, but apart from not having a foreground subject in focus, it has bokeh and the bokeh is the same as having a subject in the foreground focused.
if it sounds technically confusing, let's compare two situation.
you put an apple 1m from you, and there is a tree 10m from you.
you focus on the apple, the tree would help to achieve the effect of bokeh behind in contrast to the apple.
now you take away the apple,
and you focus at the empty place where the apple used to be at 1m away (manually), the tree would be in the same degree of blurriness as above. the background looks virtually blurred as there is nothing in the foreground, like what i show in the picture above. now do you use consider that this picture has achieved the effect of bokeh?
if what i understand you so far, are you saying that bokeh is not the effect of blurriness created by juxtaposing appropriate relationship of the sensor, aperture, subject and background. it simply refers to the measurement of the degree of blurriness.
so in short, like "long" and "length" are different terminologies used in different ways, you are saying it is wrong to describe bokeh as the effect of being blurred, but rather bokeh is simply the degree of blurriness, or the amount of penumbra created? did i understand you correctly?
you put an apple 1m from you, and there is a tree 10m from you.
you focus on the apple, the tree would help to achieve the effect of bokeh behind in contrast to the apple.
now you take away the apple,
and you focus at the empty place where the apple used to be at 1m away (manually), the tree would be in the same degree of blurriness as above. the background looks virtually blurred as there is nothing in the foreground, like what i show in the picture above. now do you use consider that this picture has achieved the effect of bokeh?