What a surprise

[JaniceL]

Mother nature gave us a bit of a surprise today with an unexpected snow flurry.

 

[arlinescott]

Nice capture. I like the selective focus on the bird house and how that made the bokeh effect with the snowflakes.

 

[DeddoArts]

Really nice shot - the capture of the snowflakes is fantastic!

 

[ejones]

Nice capture. I like the selective focus on the bird house and how that made the bokeh effect with the snowflakes.

at the risk of high jacking a thread, can you explain "bokah effect"?

 

[Digital Latte]

nice image!!!!!!!

 

[arlinescott]

at the risk of high jacking a thread, can you explain "bokah effect"?

Sure... Stolen from Wikipedia though...

This article is about the photographic usage of the term "Bokeh".

Coarse bokeh on a photo is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image, or "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light." Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting—"good" and "bad" bokeh, respectively.

Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

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.

 

[Irene]

Yep, I love the contrast between the sharp, in focus, flakes and the soft out of focus background.

 

[ejones]

The problem with the term bokeh is that it was really made up a few years back and thanks to the net and the wiki it gets used more and more. It's even showing up in marketing material of the lens makers. Back up a few years and the material would talk about the quality of the blur produced by certain lenses or products designed to do that but never used a term bokeh. There's really not way to quantify it or scientifically measure it. It's a subjective matter.

I've read descriptions of what some say "good" bokeh is and that you can only get it from expensive lenses. However, I've looked at scenes in movies and TV shows that would have "bad" bokeh according to these descriptions. I really doubt Hollywood is using low quality optics in big budget movies or TV shows. And I wonder that if what I seen in these films is considered "bad" what are these film makers getting for their money? Also, I believe you can get what some think is good bokeh from inexpensive lenses at certain f-stops.

That said, if I understand things correctly the bokah, what ever it may be, in this image is not in the snow flakes but in the specular highlights int he background. I suspect that is caused by snow buildup on the leaves of the bushes back there.

 

[Irene]

However, I've looked at scenes in movies and TV shows that would have "bad" bokeh according to these descriptions. I really doubt Hollywood is using low quality optics in big budget movies or TV shows. And I wonder that if what I seen in these films is considered "bad" what are these film makers getting for their money?

This reminds me of something mentioned in DVD bonus features for the film "The Social Network". They filmed using the RED system. If I remember right, in addition to less burn out in the highlights, a big factor in their choice was the ability to throw backgrounds out of focus with larger apertures - something that is apparently new in cinematography?

 

[arlinescott]

That said, if I understand things correctly the bokah, what ever it may be, in this image is not in the snow flakes but in the specular highlights int he background. I suspect that is caused by snow buildup on the leaves of the bushes back there.

While I agree that the highlights are the major part of the bokeh in this photo, there are snowflakes still in the air that are also showing the effect. Because the focus is on one plane of the image, those that are closer to or farther from that plane are blurred as well as the background and contribute to the feeling of depth in the photo.

 

[ejones]

This does seem to exsmplfy the problem as I see it. There is no single agreed upon deffinition of the term, and no way to really quantify it. You can read website that try to define it and some disagree with others. Of course the websites, and the wiki is included in this, are just variouus peoples opinions of the deffinition. There does not seem to be an authoitayify source. The wiki is from from athoritative on all subjects.

And so the discussion will go on...

Thanks

 

[JaniceL]

Who would have thought a simple photo of a suet feeder and falling snow would be a springboard for a hearty discussion of the meaning of bokeh.

Hey if it is in Wikipedia it has to be true.

 

[Christena]

I love snow shots...this one is sweet

 

[JaniceL]

Thank you Christena.