Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photo of the Day - August 2009
- Thread starter Phrasikleia
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you look in my signature, you'll see that I shoot Nikon. These portraits were taken with my 55-200.
Not to start a war of words, but do you know what specular means? Specular means perfectly reflected, or reflected with mirror like qualities. A specular highlight would be like the bright shiny spot on a cue ball. The definition of bokeh is the visual quality of the out of focus areas. So, Romanaz's assessment of the term is pretty accurate.
New one for today, did the Glamour Glow in Color Efex Pro cleaned up the part of the table you could see. C&C welcome
Really nice lighting effect. I don't the the composition with the large black area on the right though.
Look what I found
Sitting in my closet... I wonder if it still works.
Taken with my iPhone 2G, just wanted to show you guys. It's a Minolta Maxxium 3000i
Sitting in my closet... I wonder if it still works.
Taken with my iPhone 2G, just wanted to show you guys. It's a Minolta Maxxium 3000i
Very cool! Share how? Filter? Also, work a little on the letters, they still look a little like a photo
Yeah I see. I guess that my frame of mind I always try to take pictures with space for copy.
Again, the traditional usage is for highlights, not simply the blur itself- or is more commonly claimed here just the fact that it's blurred- but the rendering of the highlights.
From Wikipedia:
While there has been a trend to sub-classify different areas into different types of Bokeh (Nisen, Linear, Specular Highlight...) traditionally it's been applied to highlights as described in the first Wikipedia definition. Note the term "Specular highlight" is a traditional usage, not my own invention. See cf: http://www.roentarre.com/ViewComments.aspx?blg=192
Wikipedia source does not mention specular highlights and the blog link identifies "specular highlight" as one of the types of bokeh. If you read his "Bokeh: Part 1" he starts by indicating:
• The starting area which is immediately next to the lens and is the out of focus area in front.
• The area which is in focus.
• The area in the end which is again out of focus.
Now the two out of focus or blurry areas which we have seen form the ‘Bokeh’.
In his section on "Specular Highlight" he correctly refers to "an area of dominant highlight" and is simple cautioning the reader to be aware of specular highlights when they appear in the blurred area.
It is true that the diaphragm in the lens creates your circular/polygonal shapes that are more noticeable in areas of contrast (like where a specular highlight might occur), but these shapes occur throughout the blurred area, not just where there are specular highlights.
Edit:
Attached is a photo with circular bokeh taken with a 100mm macro lens. Note, there are no specular highlights, but the bokeh is noticed because of the contrast between the yellow flowers and green leaves. I think you may be confusing the often used term "point of light" that is used in the description of bokeh. Point of light just refers to light entering the camera and hitting the sensor, not "highlights".
Attachments
I'm quite aware of what I quoted- note that "point of light" doesn't mean light hitting the sensor (especially because there weren't DSLRs when the term was coined, but I digress) It's traditionally meant point of light from a reflection, typically referred to for at least 6-8 years as a specular highlight.
As I said, the sub-categorization is a relatively recent thing- as people try to refine what they see and apply the same words to a larger thing, and as people try to change the meaning of a term to fit their understanding- just like the term "baud" in the mid-80's the original definition and the popular meaning were different and I've yet to see a 9600 baud modem, despite millions of people thinking they had one... The author of the second post is in no way canonical, just an example of people using the term "specular highlight" in relation to Bokeh, which you seemed to have an issue with.
Right, which is where the term originally was used- the further refinements are recent artifacts of the last few years.
No, it was originally all about the highlights- nobody talked about points of light hitting film when the term was originally introduced to the West. In fact, originally the most popular illustration of the time was of the "donut" rings that mirror lenses produced at the highlights.
Thanks! It's quite simple actually its a combination of three different artistic filters, with three different blending techniques, using of course three layers.
The first layer is you go to Artistic filter and choose cutout filter. Adjust the settings to your liking, whichever works for your image and then choose its blending option as Luminosity.
The next layer you make will also use the artistic filter but this time Dry Brush. I went 10, 8, 3 on these options but like I said- it's up to you. You also have to adjust this blending option to screen mode.
The next and final layer we will go to the Noise filter and select media and set it at a value from 10-15, but again dependent on picture. Set this blend mode to soft light and WALAAA. FLAT AND DONE!
There's probably a simpler way to do it, I don't know because I'm very very new to photoshop (only using it for about a month) so yeah. Hopefully it works for you.
And since today is a new day... NEW PIC. Another look I'm working on, comic book inspired.
It seems that my previous picture sparked quite a lengthy conversation regarding bokeh. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not, but hopefully this picture is less controversial.
Clickable!
Clickable!
You. Women. In the Woods. With a Camera. and the only thing that comes from this is portrait pictures... I don't believe it!
JK but I like the portraits good stuff. I really wish I could afford a DSLR right now. Maybe after I start working, going off to SVA in two weeks so I'll have some cash to spare.
JK but I like the portraits good stuff. I really wish I could afford a DSLR right now. Maybe after I start working, going off to SVA in two weeks so I'll have some cash to spare.
No 'fun' effects on this one, but this was taken with Canon's 45mm T/S that arrived today (10 day Rental), However, I did utilize the shift feature to get the lines straight despite the low angle for the shot. Other than cleaning off dust spots, image is untouched.
Canon EOS 20D :: 45 mm :: f 10 :: 4 sec :: iso 100 :: Tungsten WB during 'blue hour'
Canon EOS 20D :: 45 mm :: f 10 :: 4 sec :: iso 100 :: Tungsten WB during 'blue hour'
No 'fun' effects on this one, but this was taken with Canon's 45mm T/S that arrived today (10 day Rental), However, I did utilize the shift feature to get the lines straight despite the low angle for the shot. Other than cleaning off dust spots, image is untouched.
Canon EOS 20D :: 45 mm :: f 10 :: 4 sec :: iso 100 :: Tungsten WB during 'blue hour'
I think it needs just a small touch more tilt to straighten things up completely. Does your viewfinder have grid lines available? You also might try a gradient in Photoshop to even out the lighting, though with the lights on the towers, bracket and HDR seems like it might produce better results...
I have a pretty lousy tripod, it's such a pain to get level. My viewfinder doesn't have grids, Liveview would have been handy for this. I took some bracketed earlier before the sky was a good blue and the lights were at full bright, but I opted for just a... well, WYSIWYG photo.
I think you realize that I said sensor because the majority of users in this forum are familiar with digital technology. You still need light entering the camera to expose film.
My issue is with the incorrect use of the term having it thrown about to confuse another user when you knew precisely what they were referring to. A specular highlight may occur in the OOF area and become emphasized. The circular/oval/polygonal patterning, however, does not have to occur with highlights as I illustrated with the attached image. They are definitely more noticeable with light areas because of the high contrast, but these are not highlights, just areas of more intense light.
As for baud rates (not sure why this is a good analogy), you cannot blame people for what a package says (if it says 9600 baud on the box, would you say differently?). Original modems packed 1 bit per baud, so if you had a 2400 baud modem you were transmitting 2400 bits per second. As the technology improved, manufacturers could pack more bits per baud. While a the modem may still have been 2400 baud, it may have packed 4 bits per baud giving you 9600 bits per second. Given the original relationship of baud to bits, how else would you market a new modem? I don't make a clear connection of your analogy to bokeh except that they both start with b.
So, by your understanding/definition, the flower picture I posted has no bokeh because there are not any "highlights" being distorted in the OOF area. Should we just call it the out of focus area and save bokeh for when there are highlights in the OOF?
A personal preference... I don't like highlights in the out of focus area. For me the idea is to emphasize the sharpness of your object of interest, not be distracted by high contrast, distorted highlights.
I am reading your discussion here and I'm just wondering, are you saying that your blog reference (http://www.roentarre.com/ViewComments.aspx?blg=192) is good for the fact that it mentions highlights, but not good when it refers to bokeh as
? That definition seems to be what Romanaz said way back.
sorry, I must have missed seeing your signature.
I didn't mean to spark a big huge discussion on bokeh, What I was referring to was the out of focus area. Now, I'm not saying the picture was bad, in fact, I quite like it. To me its a pleasing composition, great subject, lighting etc... up until the highlights in the out of focus portion of the pictures. To me, its the second thing my eye see's and it takes away from the picture.
just my two cents!
anyhow, heres another shot from my set around oxford, nj. My friends seem to like this picture a lot, so here it is. I do prefer the other one I posted, but let me know what you guys think.
This is of the old mattress store in town, its rundown and looks abandoned, but I'm told its not, and that somebody actually lives inside?
Attachments
