03-06-2011, 02:55 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299412325' post='6550']
With little respect ( <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> ), you seem to have a problem reading. Or on purpose misquote Pixavida.
What he actually stated:
"To my knowledge, the "amount" of bokeh (or blurriness), depends highly on the size of the aperture."
The amount of bokeh. Which he then equals to "blurriness".
Bokeh very much IS the quality, the pleasantness of OOF transitions/blur. It has nothing to do with the amount of blur. That you apparently do not know what the term bokeh in photography stands for is fine, but don't then come here and tell me I am wrong in what I wrote.
What all this has to do with that one can change the shape of highlights by some silly kindergarten cut outs is not clear to me.
[/quote]
OMG... You really try to misunderstand people here BC...
Where did I say bokeh = blurriness??? English is not my native language but I think when I say "the amount of bokeh (or blurriness)", it must be obvious that I try to mean the amount of bokeh, or the amount of blurriness (and please check the continued part of the sentence and try to misunderstand it again please!)... The bokeh of a lens results from the amount and nature of the blurriness. That's how I know it...
But these all do not change the fact that you've made a really unfortunate statement. Maybe you need to think of it much more that others's linguistic mistakes.
Edit: Now I realized that you've made another unfortunate statement:
If the amount of blur (in foreground/background) does not have an effect on bokeh of a lens, then f/11 and f/2.8 would lead to same results for the same lens, right?...I wonder why people buy fast primes (with aperture mechanism!) and don't use their cell phones to create beautiful bokeh... If you misunderstand my statement about the amount of blurriness and aperture size, it's clear that you make such mistakes... The blurring is more apparent in the near distance from subject to background. After a certain distance, the amount of blurring does not change or changes very little. And this is only one of the facts, which explain that such kind of a generalization of yours about the lenses with different brands cannot be valuable at all.
With little respect ( <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> ), you seem to have a problem reading. Or on purpose misquote Pixavida.What he actually stated:
"To my knowledge, the "amount" of bokeh (or blurriness), depends highly on the size of the aperture."
The amount of bokeh. Which he then equals to "blurriness".
Bokeh very much IS the quality, the pleasantness of OOF transitions/blur. It has nothing to do with the amount of blur. That you apparently do not know what the term bokeh in photography stands for is fine, but don't then come here and tell me I am wrong in what I wrote.
What all this has to do with that one can change the shape of highlights by some silly kindergarten cut outs is not clear to me.
[/quote]
OMG... You really try to misunderstand people here BC...
Where did I say bokeh = blurriness??? English is not my native language but I think when I say "the amount of bokeh (or blurriness)", it must be obvious that I try to mean the amount of bokeh, or the amount of blurriness (and please check the continued part of the sentence and try to misunderstand it again please!)... The bokeh of a lens results from the amount and nature of the blurriness. That's how I know it...
But these all do not change the fact that you've made a really unfortunate statement. Maybe you need to think of it much more that others's linguistic mistakes.
Edit: Now I realized that you've made another unfortunate statement:
Quote:Bokeh very much IS the quality, the pleasantness of OOF transitions/blur. It has nothing to do with the amount of blur.
If the amount of blur (in foreground/background) does not have an effect on bokeh of a lens, then f/11 and f/2.8 would lead to same results for the same lens, right?...I wonder why people buy fast primes (with aperture mechanism!) and don't use their cell phones to create beautiful bokeh... If you misunderstand my statement about the amount of blurriness and aperture size, it's clear that you make such mistakes... The blurring is more apparent in the near distance from subject to background. After a certain distance, the amount of blurring does not change or changes very little. And this is only one of the facts, which explain that such kind of a generalization of yours about the lenses with different brands cannot be valuable at all.