--- "Snorre A. Selmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ofcourse there
> is butt-ugly bokeh that pretty much everyone agrees
> is bad, but what defines nice bokeh?
There was a little discussion about this on the Nikon
manual focus group a while back. The word that kept
coming back again and again was "creaminess", or the
"fuzziness" of the out-of-depth-of-field portions of
the picture contrasted against the sharpness of the
in-focus part. That's the Canon 100mm f2!
IN MY MIND, what I'm looking for is smooth transitions
from one color to another, over a distance... that is
to say, even though a transition between two color is
abrupt, in an out-of-focus background it will fade
smoothly from one color to the next, like a wash in a
watercolor painting, a sort of "airbrushed" effect.
What I don't like is the "crunchy" bokeh, in which
color transition is abrupt or "unfuzzy", where
distinct shapes show (best example in my lens stable
is the Sigma 170-500mm zoom.)
So creamy rather than crunchy, which also explains my
taste in peanut butter. :-)
MadMat
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
