Bokeh is the focus - Open thread

[sury]

Seeing some of the great shots from Andy, JB and others that have great bokehs,
I felt the least that could be done is showcase the bokeh from these masters.
Here is the open invitation to all to post any image where you feel bokeh is the "focus"
(no pun intended).

Let me start with mine.A900 + Hasselblad 250f5.6

[Cogito]

Both with my Minolta XM.

[sury]

Love the second one Tony.

Sury

[Birma]

Nice idea for a thread, Sury That little purple flower is set off beautifully by that gorgeous creamy background - great stuff!

Some really creative bokeh there Tony - it definitely becomes the focus of the picture

[Birma]

I can't remember if I've posted this one before, but here goes anyway. An experiment with a very shallow DOF in a field of barley, to try and focus on the hairs on the ears of barley, set off of course by the bokeh background.

2014 Broadway - Barley Field (Shallow DoF) by Birm, on Flickr

A99 with SAL 135 STF

[bakubo]

All nice photos so far!

Sury, just to be clear about the word bokeh, here is the definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

Bokeh has been defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light"

Sometimes people say bokeh when they mean shallow dof. I post this just so that everyone is on the same page.

Here is my beautiful friend, co-worker, and officemate in 1998. She came in to work one day like this and noticed that I had my camera on my desk. She asked if I would take a few photos. I recall that I used my Minolta Alpha 9xi + Sigma 90mm f2.8 macro lens and Fujicolor Super G 100 film. I am not saying the bokeh of this photo is great or anything, but not bad, I guess.

[Birma]

The green of the trees / grass and the light look great in that picture, Henry, as well as the subject of course

[sury]

Henry,
I read somewhere the literal meaning means fuzziness. Is that true?

My understanding at the time of creating the thread:
Shallow DoF, Wide Open lens, mirror lens etc cause blurry background.
How well the blurriness is rendered is qualitatively measured as having
a (good) bokeh. But then I felt who am I to decide WHAT is good bokeh?
So I kept it open for submitters to make the call.
So based on above understanding, I thought since we typically "focus"
(no pun intended) on a primary subject or two, why not make background
the subject and what better way than speak to bokeh.

At the most I am guilty of using the wrong term, and it wouldn't be the first
time, I am wrong. The intent is to have images that show case the
aesthetics of an out of focus background. My apologies if I used an incorrect
term to describe my intent.

Sury

[bakubo]

Sury, relax. Since many people don't know what bokeh means and you didn't define it I thought it would be useful to them to know. I didn't assume anything about what you know.

[sury]

And my wife will vouch for me. She thinks I think I know more than I do.
By the way, your friend's face looks awfully familiar. Was the photo taken somewhere
in Bay Area?

And getting back to thread....

[Cogito]

Nice barley, Birma! With genuine shallow DOF.

[Birma]

Thanks Tony

More nice blurry backgrounds, Sury

[Cogito]

It's a quite interesting thread topic. I can recognise both Suri and Bakubo's "definitions". Perhaps it's a case of "Is there any definition in the background?". My own opinion is that there should be some sort of "accuracy" to the background, not just a blur.....

[sury]

Thank you Andy.

[Birma]

There is a nice transition from the sharpness of the petal tips to the very out of focus ground.