On Nov 5, 5:18*pm, Boater wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:47:11 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:03:45 -0500, Boater
wrote:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/29737c6c.jpg

This was shot handheld, no "VR," at 56mm, f9 at 1/200th from a
considerable distance, and cropped. See if you can read the words just
below the center top row of windows...

Relatively inexpensive lens, too.
Very sharp. *They gray sky and gray building didn't help out any, but
overall, crisp.

Pretty good for a handheld shot at that distance.
This was the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. *I haven't shot anything with the lens
wide open yet. I'm hoping it has nice bokeh.

I have had a long running "discussion" about bokeh and the relative
value of induced bokeh vs "faux" bokeh with my pro buddies which pops
up every once in a while when we're dissecting images.

My position is that bokeh is strictly aperature induced at the camera
- basically how exact the spherical component of the shutter is in
relation to the spherical component of the lens and, of course, the
speed of the medium and shutter. *The "hard" position is that it
depends on the temper of the glass, how it's ground and it's surface
structure. *Probably the most accurate is in the middle.

I really don't want to get into another "discussion" of the relative
merits of either argument other than to say that in my opinon, the
subject is not clearly understood by most amateurs and even the pros
have problems truly understanding the whole concept. * :)

My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a
lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon
lens. If you focused properly and opened up the lens, you'd get a nice
portrait with the background in soft focus around your subject. For
about a year, I did a feature for one of the union news services in
which I interviewed an AFL-CIO exec council member. When possible, I'd
drag the union prez over to the park down the street from the AFL-CIO
(the park across the street from the front of the white house), where
there was a nice park bench and interesting foilage. I had no lights
other than a flash, so I always wanted to go outdoors where lights were
not an issue.

The lens was a real gem, always one of my favorites.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pfffttt... .more bull****.. you should start your posts with "Once
upon a time..."

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:18:36 -0500, Boater
wrote:

My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a
lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon
lens.

When ever this subject comes up, it's inevitable that Kim Kirpatrick's
name pops up as a superior example of how to properly induce bokeh
into a photo.

http://www.kimkirkpatrick.com/

He works in the DC area. I had to look him up to find his website, so
I cheated slightly. :)

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:18:36 -0500, Boater wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:47:11 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:03:45 -0500, Boater
wrote:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/29737c6c.jpg


This was shot handheld, no "VR," at 56mm, f9 at 1/200th from a
considerable distance, and cropped. See if you can read the words just
below the center top row of windows...

Relatively inexpensive lens, too.
Very sharp. They gray sky and gray building didn't help out any, but
overall, crisp.

Pretty good for a handheld shot at that distance.
This was the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I haven't shot anything with the lens
wide open yet. I'm hoping it has nice bokeh.

I have had a long running "discussion" about bokeh and the relative
value of induced bokeh vs "faux" bokeh with my pro buddies which pops
up every once in a while when we're dissecting images.

My position is that bokeh is strictly aperature induced at the camera
- basically how exact the spherical component of the shutter is in
relation to the spherical component of the lens and, of course, the
speed of the medium and shutter. The "hard" position is that it
depends on the temper of the glass, how it's ground and it's surface
structure. Probably the most accurate is in the middle.

I really don't want to get into another "discussion" of the relative
merits of either argument other than to say that in my opinon, the
subject is not clearly understood by most amateurs and even the pros
have problems truly understanding the whole concept. :)


My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a
lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon
lens. If you focused properly and opened up the lens, you'd get a nice
portrait with the background in soft focus around your subject. For
about a year, I did a feature for one of the union news services in
which I interviewed an AFL-CIO exec council member. When possible, I'd
drag the union prez over to the park down the street from the AFL-CIO
(the park across the street from the front of the white house), where
there was a nice park bench and interesting foilage. I had no lights
other than a flash, so I always wanted to go outdoors where lights were
not an issue.

The lens was a real gem, always one of my favorites.

Who gives a schitt about your lenses, Krause?
--
A Harry Krause truism:

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Narcissistic Hypocrite]

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:18:36 -0500, Boater wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:47:11 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:03:45 -0500, Boater
wrote:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0/29737c6c.jpg


This was shot handheld, no "VR," at 56mm, f9 at 1/200th from a
considerable distance, and cropped. See if you can read the words just
below the center top row of windows...

Relatively inexpensive lens, too.
Very sharp. They gray sky and gray building didn't help out any, but
overall, crisp.

Pretty good for a handheld shot at that distance.
This was the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I haven't shot anything with the lens
wide open yet. I'm hoping it has nice bokeh.
I have had a long running "discussion" about bokeh and the relative
value of induced bokeh vs "faux" bokeh with my pro buddies which pops
up every once in a while when we're dissecting images.

My position is that bokeh is strictly aperature induced at the camera
- basically how exact the spherical component of the shutter is in
relation to the spherical component of the lens and, of course, the
speed of the medium and shutter. The "hard" position is that it
depends on the temper of the glass, how it's ground and it's surface
structure. Probably the most accurate is in the middle.

I really don't want to get into another "discussion" of the relative
merits of either argument other than to say that in my opinon, the
subject is not clearly understood by most amateurs and even the pros
have problems truly understanding the whole concept. :)

My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a
lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon
lens. If you focused properly and opened up the lens, you'd get a nice
portrait with the background in soft focus around your subject. For
about a year, I did a feature for one of the union news services in
which I interviewed an AFL-CIO exec council member. When possible, I'd
drag the union prez over to the park down the street from the AFL-CIO
(the park across the street from the front of the white house), where
there was a nice park bench and interesting foilage. I had no lights
other than a flash, so I always wanted to go outdoors where lights were
not an issue.

The lens was a real gem, always one of my favorites.

Who gives a schitt about your lenses, Krause?

I want to know if blew out all of the highlights when he took his
'Portraits"?

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:42:30 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:18:36 -0500, Boater
wrote:

My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a
lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon
lens.

When ever this subject comes up, it's inevitable that Kim Kirpatrick's
name pops up as a superior example of how to properly induce bokeh
into a photo.

http://www.kimkirkpatrick.com/

He works in the DC area. I had to look him up to find his website, so
I cheated slightly. :)

Just drop the camera and the lens get bokehed. Easy.

LOL!!!

True.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:42:30 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:18:36 -0500, Boater
wrote:

My limited experience with *deliberate* "bokeh" was when I used to do a
lot of "head shots" with my 35mm film camera and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikon
lens.

When ever this subject comes up, it's inevitable that Kim Kirpatrick's
name pops up as a superior example of how to properly induce bokeh
into a photo.

http://www.kimkirkpatrick.com/

He works in the DC area. I had to look him up to find his website, so
I cheated slightly. :)

Just drop the camera and the lens get bokehed. Easy.


Another f*ing keyboard full of coffee!
--
A Harry Krause truism:

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Narcissistic Hypocrite]