File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
could this be better?
>> Anonymous
yes
>> Anonymous
yes, by putting the lens cap back on...
>> Anonymous
ok, tell me.. what did I do wrong? was it that bad?
>> Anonymous
>>272153
You could have focused on one leaf and add moar borkeh, end of story.
>> Anonymous
>>272170
borkeh is gay! end of story.
>> Anonymous
>>272170
Just that? I thought you would complain about more than just the focus on just a leave.. I was afraid of like color, position or motive n' shit.
>> Anonymous
>>272180
Shouldn't that be enough to tell you to actually change your position and be moar enthusiastic when taking pictures? Liek taking pictures from the leaves height??? Jeezaz Christ, get a fucking book on basic photography and start reading before it's too late.
>> Anonymous
>>272170
new fag would like to ask what is 'borkeh'
>> Anonymous
ok, honest CC here with out being a dick
dont mean to offend - but here goes...

Its basically boring
ask your self, why would someone want to see this?

Its not artistic, you found some foilage and took a photo of it, right?

Colours look fine, exposure is also fine.

Maybe if you got down and as people said, could isolate 1 item and have the rest out of focus ist might look a little better - but it would still just be a leef....

i think your flogging a dead horse with this idea.

Maybe find a leef falling from a tree?
or if you really want it to be noticed these days....


Get a smoking hot blond chick
get an assistant to dump a bucket of dryed up foilage over her with a fan blowing it all around.

Get a 2 lightstands and a softbox to light her from 45 deg camera left and then a snooted flash to cross light her from behind on the otherside

then underexpose ambient by 1.5 stops...

basically simple off cam lighting shit ala strobist - done to death by everyone with a speedlight - but still looks good...
>> Anonymous
>>272192

if new fag is still interested. Bokeh is photography with a specific focal point or subject with the surrounding area thats out of focus.
>> Anonymous
>>272199
Actually bokeh is just the out of focus area of a picture taken with limited depth of field. It's not a specific 'kind' of photography.
>> Anonymous
>>272199
Not OP. Thanks anon, is it a /p/ specific slang term or jargon?

Also is there a tutorial about DOF anon would recommend?
>> Anonymous
>>272204
>>272199

I knew it would come to this. Stop messing with language, /p/, you confuse people like this.

"Bokeh" refers to the subjective quality of the way a lens renders the out of focus areas of the image. It has nothing to do with shallow depth of field, that just displays it more.

The picture in the OP appears to have been taken with a lens with somewhat mediocre bokeh, at least in this case not adding to or detracting from the image.
>> Anonymous
>>272225


damn you /p/!?? Damn you to HELL!
>> Anonymous
>>272222
Oh, and to this:

>Not OP. Thanks anon, is it a /p/ specific slang term or jargon?

No, common photography talk. The term is Japanese, literally meaning "blur," and is technically transliterated in one system or another as "boke." The editor of the magazine that did the first English-language article to use the term (Mike Johnston, great photography commentator) tacked on the "h" so no one would mispronounce it or make stupid rhyming jokes. So in English it's written as "bokeh." Someone on /p/ misspelt it as "borkeh" once and we call it that as a joke.

>Also is there a tutorial about DOF anon would recommend?

There's not really much to learn except through experience. Larger apertures (smaller f-numbers) have less depth of field and smaller ones (larger f-numbers) have more. Larger sensors (whether a microchip or ap piece of film or a glass plate or whatever) have less and smaller ones have more. Look up "prefocusing" and "hyperfocal distance."
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>272225
>"Bokeh" refers to the subjective quality of the way a lens renders the out of focus areas of the image. It has nothing to do with shallow depth of field, that just displays it more.
QFT.

I'm not sure sometimes whether "Borkeh means shallow depth of field" is a double joke (i.e., both the misspelling and the misdefinition of what's misspelled are part of the joke) or if people really think that bokeh just means shallow DoF. I suspect the latter. And that makes me kinda sad.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
     File :-(, x)
You are all wrong - its spelt Bjork; and here is an example.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>272240
pork?
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
     File :-(, x)
>>272241
fork?
>> Anonymous
>>272153

Im probably repeating what everyone else said with the borkeh stuff but basicly...

The problem with the photo is that it dosn't have a focal point. Something that draws the eye. What are you taking a picture of? If were left asking this, then it really doesn't make a statement.
>> sage rage
     File :-(, x)
>>272251
I did it all for the borkeh
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
     File :-(, x)
>>272305

...you mean this.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:01 22:23:15Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width554Image Height815
>> sage rage
     File :-(, x)
>>272317
hot damn... and i legitimately thought i was being original! i'm at work, so making a macro was out of the question...

fuck this, i'ma get a sammich bitches
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>272153
Not bad technically--lighting, focus, exposure, etc--but it's too representational to be a good abstract and doesn't have enough of a real subject to be a good non-abstract. The only real use for a shot like this would be as a wallpaper image.