Thomas Bantel WROTE:
"Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote:
>
> Personally I am more interested in the buject and sharpness thereof than
the
> out of focus areas.
Generally speaking, I'd agree with you. BUT, there are cases where
bokeh is important (to me, at least). If you have lots of out of
focus highlights, like e.g. the sun shining through a tree in the
background or reflecting from a rough water surface, the differences
are very noticeable and influence the overall effect of the image.
So I think, bokeh is not an esoteric topic but very real and sometimes
quite important.
It's also not quite right to speak of "good" and "bad" bokeh.
In most images one might prefer a smooth rendering of out of focus
highlights. But there are also situations, where a supposedly "bad"
bokeh, even a doughnut shaped like with a mirror lens, can really
make the image.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas,
To a degree you are right, but if you buy a fast lens you can blow out the
background and usually bokeh is not the issue. The bokeh phenomenon puzzles
me and I have only seen it discussed on internet lists. I realize that the
Japanese are [overly] concerned with it and have placed rounder apertures in
their newer lenses to improve bokeh.
Again, for me IMHO I would rather have a sharp image with a mediocre bokeh
than a soft image with wonderful bokeh.
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
