Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 21, 2006, 1:49 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
jabilson007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 182
Default

I think the bokeh is great in both photos. But bokeh for me is an afterthought. The subject is much more important and interesting in these and all photos. I do hate the hexagram ones from the kit lens.
jabilson007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2006, 2:21 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
rfortson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 349
Default

RiceHigh wrote: I think it's pretty nice. I like how the focus gradually and evenly dissolves into the picture. BTW, is this one of your shots?

Russ


rfortson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2006, 2:38 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
oreo57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 152
Default

Would have been better if it was his image, it's not........
Some may consider that "bad form old chap".....
As to the Bokeh of the, I assume 70mm pancake wide open, too ringy for my taste in the extreme background highlights............. de-enlarged (?) it's not so bad....and the foreground softness is fine to me.


I take it back... Mr. Day has a thred going on this at dpreview.. Sorry.


BenjaminXYZ wrote:

Quote:
No wonder...NO REPLY, because it was RiceHigh's thread. I was at firstthinking....hmmm, what the?? I thought threads in this Pentax forum (as long as it is about posting pictures) will surely get a lot of replys...hmmm.

I then glanced at theposter's nameand, lol and behold, it was RiceHigh.

BTW RiceHigh, the color looks rather "sleepy" IMO, and the bokeh also looks rather fuzzy (smoky)like IMO!...I like bokeh withthe "dept" andcrystal clearfeelingto it. (I don't know how to really explain it)

Probably this example could speak for it;
oreo57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2006, 7:56 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

Replying to the original question from Ricehigh. . .

I am fairly new to photography so I should probably keep my mouth shut and listen to my elders. However, never being one to heed my own good advice I will offer my own $.02. My understanding of bokeh was the background being so out of focus that it was more of a colored field with no detail discernable. If that is the case, I don't know that you really have any bokeh to speak of. As far as the lens goes, it looks like it is capable of some nice pictures though, which one is it? If my understanding of what bokeh means is incorrect, hopefully one of my elders will correct me.

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2006, 3:26 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 344
Default

RiceHigh wrote: My impression is that the bokeh in this picture is rather fuzzy and is not quite smooth throughout the whole frame for the out-of-cocus areas.

Actually this is the new Pentax Pancake DA 70/2.4 Limited lens and the sample picture is not mine. It is just posted by a new owner recently on the net.

Whilst I was surprised to see this user result (a bit disappointed too), the official samples taken by the K10D with this Pancake lens seems to be quite good (also for the bokeh, too).

So, I wonder why..

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh
RiceHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2006, 4:13 AM   #16
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

Next time please post the photographers name and a link to where you found the image too please.

Please respect the author, it's the least you can do...

TDN
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2006, 4:39 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 344
Default

TDN wrote:
Quote:
Next time please post the photographers name and a link to where you found the image too please.

Please respect the author, it's the least you can do...

TDN
Before you make unreasonable accuse that I do not respect the author, what's your ground on this?

I quoted the link, but not attached the image to the post. The pbase link shows clearly that it is under the author's name as the folder name, too. Moreover, I have never mentioned the picture is mine.

Thus, do everyone quotes any link in any post needed to make an achnowlegment to the author. Just say do you EVER need to quote "Pentax" when a Pentax gear user manual link is quoted, just becoz Pentax is simply the author??

Do note also that any copyrights rule is simply that no one can duplicate any contents without prior permission and achnowledgement. But quoting a link is not copying! Get it?

Whilst you ask some body to respect others, it seems that you don't, not even for the minimal respectiveness. I have the feeling that you replied to my post in a very personal way. Nothing more than that.

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh
RiceHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2006, 8:14 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
oreo57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 152
Default

I've already made my "apology" but I do feel that a few things should have been clearer because 1) As we sometime use aliases, the link told people nothing. Afterall it COULD really be you. 2)People often just assume things. 3) On a forum things could be read fast w/ little thought and subtile things missed.
A brief explaination of where the image was from probably should have been given. It is polite and customary to cite a reference, especially at a forum where things are read fast and it is easy to overlook the obvious, so to speak...
So lets just leave it at that........ I'd say the same to Ben but he has already corrected his faux-pax......:-)

RiceHigh wrote:
Quote:
TDN wrote:
Quote:
Next time please post the photographers name and a link to where you found the image too please.

Please respect the author, it's the least you can do...

TDN
Before you make unreasonable accuse that I do not respect the author, what's your ground on this?

I quoted the link, but not attached the image to the post. The pbase link shows clearly that it is under the author's name as the folder name, too. Moreover, I have never mentioned the picture is mine.

Thus, do everyone quotes any link in any post needed to make an achnowlegment to the author. Just say do you EVER need to quote "Pentax" when a Pentax gear user manual link is quoted, just becoz Pentax is simply the author??

Do note also that any copyrights rule is simply that no one can duplicate any contents without prior permission and achnowledgement. But quoting a link is not copying! Get it?

Whilst you ask some body to respect others, it seems that you don't, not even for the minimal respectiveness. I have the feeling that you replied to my post in a very personal way. Nothing more than that.

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh
oreo57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2006, 9:24 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

Benjaminxyz

I think I can barge in this one as the subject matter of this thread is a lot less subjective and negative than the others. Normally I would not.

Ricehigh posted on Sat 3 a.m. (EST) and you were impatient enough for some reply by 5 a.m.

FYI this forum is of slower pace than that of Phil and a lot of no-so-interesing posts (like my lousy pix) were not getting any response at all.

Daniel
Toronto

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
No wonder...NO REPLY, because it was RiceHigh's thread. I was at firstthinking....hmmm, what the?? I thought threads in this Pentax forum (as long as it is about posting pictures) will surely get a lot of replys...hmmm.

I then glanced at theposter's nameand, lol and behold, it was RiceHigh.

danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2006, 9:44 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

I am not sure why we are discussing Richard's photo, without him posting it, but the bokeh is fairly minimal considering it was shot at 2.4 and is not what I would consider good bokeh. I would have responded to this question no matter who posted it.

I like it to take out the background enough to place emphasis on the subject of the shot like this one does. This was shot a f/4 with a 80-200 f/2.8 lens.

I realize it is easier to get bokeh like this with a longer lens, but the posted image just doesn't work for me so far as bokeh goes.

1/350 sec, f/4, 80-200mm @ 200mm


Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:05 PM.