Senior Pics - Page 2

JimThias · 03-29-2012, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

"Exactly" makes it sound as though you think Jon agrees with you! I can't speak for him but I suspect he would disagree. In my view his point is valid and is the explanation and you are wrong about the camera. Take an expensive camera, same lens, same zoom, same lighting, etc., you get the "bad almost-bokeh." As I suggested many posts ago, Troy said it, Jon said it, nothing to do with the sensor. XT/D1X/D3 whatever, doesn't matter.

Troy can be wrong about that lens being incapable of bokeh and yet right about the sensor.

My "Exactly" is in agreeance with what Jon suspects. Perhaps I should have hit the return key before typing the next line if that would have helped you understand.

The cheaper sensor may not be having an affect on the existence of the bokeh, but it SURELY has an affect on the image quality of the bokeh, thus making it look like shit. The horrible high sun lighting didn't help either. But you are right...a cheaper sensor definitely doesn't make a difference at all.

Why are we even debating a pointless topic?

And I'm still waiting for Troy to get back to me on his silly comment above.

troy12n · 03-30-2012, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

"Exactly" makes it sound as though you think Jon agrees with you! I can't speak for him but I suspect he would disagree. In my view his point is valid and is the explanation and you are wrong about the camera. Take an expensive camera, same lens, same zoom, same lighting, etc., you get the "bad almost-bokeh." As I suggested many posts ago, Troy said it, Jon said it, nothing to do with the sensor. XT/D1X/D3 whatever, doesn't matter.

Troy can be wrong about that lens being incapable of bokeh and yet right about the sensor.

Yea, I guess I was wrong to some degree. I have never used my 100-400 to take pictures at close range like that, I just figured that at f5.6, you arent getting bokeh, I didnt think about the OOF background/bokeh being so far behind the subject which must have been taken close to MFD.

troy12n · 03-30-2012, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

And I'm still waiting for Troy to get back to me on his silly comment above.

You might have been waiting a while if I didnt happen to stumble back on this thread.

I would also have to say that your example is also more an OOF background than bokeh. But it's not worth arguing about.

JimThias · 03-30-2012, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n

I would also have to say that your example is also more an OOF background than bokeh.

You should really consider doing stand-up.

troy12n · 03-31-2012, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

You should really consider doing stand-up.

Since I obviously cant explain it, read about it for yourself...

http://www.advancedphotography.net/b...h-depth-field/

http://www.arecintophotography.com/b...eh-photography

JRMDC · 03-31-2012, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n

I would also have to say that your example is also more an OOF background than bokeh. But it's not worth arguing about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n

Since I obviously cant explain it, read about it for yourself...

http://www.advancedphotography.net/b...h-depth-field/

http://www.arecintophotography.com/b...eh-photography

from one of those links

Quote:

Thus we can say that bokeh is dependent on depth of field but depth of field is in no way dependent on the bokeh

You can't have bokeh without an OOF background. Once you have the OOF background, the bokeh can be good or bad, or some will say that you have bokeh or not.

That is why Jim is cranking on you. Or, more accurately, that is the basis on which he does so. He is doing it because, well, he is who he is, I guess.

JimThias · 03-31-2012, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n

Since I obviously cant explain it, read about it for yourself...

http://www.advancedphotography.net/b...h-depth-field/

http://www.arecintophotography.com/b...eh-photography

You couldn't explain it (obviously), but the articles in the links above did nicely.

Let's review. From the first link:

Quote:

The bokeh refers to the circular discs formed as the result of blurring the background.

From the second link:

Quote:

Bokeh refers to how your camera lens renders the light that is seen within the blurred parts of the image. Sometimes this can be soft or harsh circular shapes, or look like hexagons, depending on your lens design and aperture settings.

Now, looking at my photo above, you can CLEARLY see "circular discs" scattered throughout the background of the image. And they are soft as well.

Do you have anything else to add that will continue to prove how wrong you are?

If not, then go find someone else to have an unnecessary conflict with.

trainboysd40 · 03-31-2012, 07:21 PM

That was absolutely classic.

troy12n · 03-31-2012, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

Do you have anything else to add that will continue to prove how wrong you are?

If not, then go find someone else to have an unnecessary conflict with.

I'm not the one arguing here, are you being argumentative just for arguments sake?

trainboysd40 · 03-31-2012, 07:40 PM

Look at me! I'm Troy! I'm always right! I'm going to post something that's wrong and try to pretend I'm right by linking to things and hoping you won't actually read them, and then accuse you of being argumentative because you corrected my incorrect statement that was a response to something you said!
Lost yet? I know Troy was from the start.