Ken Durling writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is interesting. I have a shot that I really like for the
background - but it was taken with a "consumer zoom" - the newish EF
28-90. I like the effect, but it *may* be "bad bokeh." I'd
appreciate it if someone with a more expreienced eye would have a look
at it and tell me what they think of the "bokeh" of this inexpensive
lens. The circles of confusion look quite evenly illuminated to me,
but they're rather stark, which in this picture I like. It's the
flower in Gallery 2 on my site below. This was shot wide open, which
for this lens is only f/4. If that's "bad bokeh" go ahead and tell
me. I have no delusions about this lens!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Ken,
There's really no objective measure (to my mind, at least) of "good"
or "bad" bokeh. If the background traits of an image work for you,
then I would say it's good; if not, it's bad--that simple.
For my tastes, I find the background in the photo you reference...
http://home.earthlink.net/~kdurling/wsn8FF0.html
... to be quite distracting: the subject gets lost in a sea of bright
spheroids. In effect, the background noise overwhelms the flower and
really becomes the subject of the photo. Again, this is not "bad"
and may even be good depending on what you want to express.
As a basis for comparison, consider the following photos, both nature
shots (by Doug Herr) with equally "busy" backgrounds:
http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/NHOW.HTM
http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/BUOR.HTM
Here the "bokeh" helps to compliment and accentuate the subject, and
is rendered quite smoothly (IMO, naturally).
Hope this helps,
Dan
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
