[SSGGeezer]

(Laughs)

It's a pretty interesting subculture, SSGG. You can see the set of pics this came from here:

Melbourne Tattoo Show - PentaxForums.com

I have no problems with the Tattoos, Just clowns...really, who likes clowns other than other clowns? I also live less than 50 miles from Steven King of "IT" fame. so pardon me for asking.

Do you have Juggalos in Oz?

If you are unfamiliar with the genre, use google as I have no links for Juggalos. I have friends who claim to be Juggalos but it isn't my thing.

[honey bo bo]

(Laughs)

It's a pretty interesting subculture, SSGG. You can see the set of pics this came from here:

Melbourne Tattoo Show - PentaxForums.com

Nokeh - Bokeh - Frokeh - Snokeh - Holy Smokeh - No Room For MOM and MOTHER isn't even a starter !!!!!!



1987 Nokeh Digitally Transferred (Poorly) Flash Used ( Gun Powder in a Pie Plate)

[clackers]

I have no problems with the Tattoos, Just clowns...really, who likes clowns other than other clowns? I also live less than 50 miles from Steven King of "IT" fame. so pardon me for asking.

Do you have Juggalos in Oz?

If you are unfamiliar with the genre, use google as I have no links for Juggalos. I have friends who claim to be Juggalos but it isn't my thing.

Yeah, I think John Wayne Gacy presented clowns with a severe Public Relations problem.

We do have Insane Clown Posse fans in Australia, but not in great numbers, I'd have thought.

[Not a Number]

Jokeh

[KingDavid73]

bo·keh / bōˈkā
noun: the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens.

[SSGGeezer]

Someone who didn't get the Sarcasm tags (invisible of course,) that were used throughout this thread.

Nice to see new folks jumping in there though. Welcome KD73

[Lord Lucan]

I call it ugly photography. I really don't like out of focus stuff in the foreground.

Sorry, but I don't like it either. In the picture on Page 1 looking down a river towards a church, I just cannot get my full attention past the out-of focus foreground stuff. It is like someone waving a baseball bat in my face. I just keep thinking "Why didn't the photographer hold the camera a bit higher?". OTOH the pictures of the deer and goose are OK because the bokeh grass is not deliberately included (standing higher would not have cleared it, or frightened the deer) and goes with them naturally. Also foreground bokeh without background bokeh to balance it seems disturbing - like the photographer just left the lens on infinity without any effort to focus on the subject.

Personally I am not a fan of any foreground framing, focussed or not, it seems chocolate-boxy to me.

[gaweidert]

I think that this is one of my better efforts at using "fokeh".

[honey bo bo]

Sorry, but I don't like it either. In the picture on Page 1 looking down a river towards a church, I just cannot get my full attention past the out-of focus foreground stuff. It is like someone waving a baseball bat in my face. I just keep thinking "Why didn't the photographer hold the camera a bit higher?". OTOH the pictures of the deer and goose are OK because the bokeh grass is not deliberately included (standing higher would not have cleared it, or frightened the deer) and goes with them naturally. Also foreground bokeh without background bokeh to balance it seems disturbing - like the photographer just left the lens on infinity without any effort to focus on the subject.

Personally I am not a fan of any foreground framing, focussed or not, it seems chocolate-boxy to me.

I

I'm sorry but without Bokeh or fokeh or jokeh you are damned to a life of mediocracy with no dimensions and joy. I would rather throw (an empty of course) beer can into a large expanse of water in the forground than leave it sterile or have a gull crapping in a large expanse of sky than leave it barren and no dimensional vibes coming from the scene. IMHO P.S. this is a show and tell Thread.

[Tas]

Sorry, but I don't like it either. In the picture on Page 1 looking down a river towards a church, I just cannot get my full attention past the out-of focus foreground stuff. It is like someone waving a baseball bat in my face. I just keep thinking "Why didn't the photographer hold the camera a bit higher?". OTOH the pictures of the deer and goose are OK because the bokeh grass is not deliberately included (standing higher would not have cleared it, or frightened the deer) and goes with them naturally. Also foreground bokeh without background bokeh to balance it seems disturbing - like the photographer just left the lens on infinity without any effort to focus on the subject.

Personally I am not a fan of any foreground framing, focussed or not, it seems chocolate-boxy to me.

Your feedback is an example of how different people perceive and appreciate things in their own way. And I can appreciate diversity when decent people discuss this sort of stuff as we all get to learn from it.

I notice in your comment that you would find an image with bokehed content in the foreground with no background bokeh disturbing. In the image below I deliberately chose to focus on my subject and use the rails as a leading line/framing device and chose a moderate DoF which meant there's detail in the background but it's slightly soft further isolating my subject.


I was really familiar with the subject location and felt this provided a lot of the scene for the lone subject to be immersed in. So the image is about a person in an environment and as I didn't know the bloke, I felt this framing allowed the image to be as much about the location as the person but he's the main thing in focus so it gives a sense of the world closing in on him, if you know what I mean.

I was shooting with an 85mm prime and I'm no expert so I'd appreciate how with the way you see things, you might have chosen to capture this bloke instead (acknowledging of course that you're not familiar with the location).

OP, hope this query is still on topic, will remove if you think I've missed the boat.

Tas

[honey bo bo]

I was shooting with an 85mm prime

To each his own of course and I think the Foreground is perfect and Using the HD 55-300 WR @ f5.8 it would have brought the bokeh up into the beginning of the ramp on the water side of the man which I personally would have liked more. And it depends on DOF of the particular lens your'e using. I don't understand and don't want to understand the technicals but using the 55-300 all the time I have become familiar with its capabilities. Shooting a lot of Wild Life and none of them being in Zoo's I need the 55-300 to isolate the prime subject from the cover that I usually find the Critters surrounded by. Health reasons also require me to shoot from the cab of my truck mostly so the 55-300 takes over the lack of moving around to compose. Nice Shoot.

[goatsNdonkey]

The bokeh thread is a good place to see variations in how and what might be out-of-focus, including several variations in what to call it. 'Keh?

The Bokeh Club - PentaxForums.com

The thread is only 702 pages long (so far), but you might find it helpful.

[timb64]

Sorry, but I don't like it either. In the picture on Page 1 looking down a river towards a church, I just cannot get my full attention past the out-of focus foreground stuff. It is like someone waving a baseball bat in my face. I just keep thinking "Why didn't the photographer hold the camera a bit higher?". OTOH the pictures of the deer and goose are OK because the bokeh grass is not deliberately included (standing higher would not have cleared it, or frightened the deer) and goes with them naturally. Also foreground bokeh without background bokeh to balance it seems disturbing - like the photographer just left the lens on infinity without any effort to focus on the subject.

Personally I am not a fan of any foreground framing, focussed or not, it seems chocolate-boxy to me.

Sorry, but based on what I've seen of your work (nothing) your opinion means less than nothing to me

Here's another one I was quite pleased with,front and back bokeh!

[honey bo bo]

The bokeh thread is a good place to see variations in how and what might be out-of-focus, including several variations in what to call it. 'Keh?

The Bokeh Club - PentaxForums.com

The thread is only 702 pages long (so far), but you might find it helpful.

Thanks Goats Done

[Lord Lucan]

I'm sorry but without Bokeh or fokeh or jokeh you are damned to a life of mediocracy with no dimensions and joy. I would rather throw (an empty of course) beer can into a large expanse of water in the forground than leave it sterile

I did not say I did not like anything in the foreground, only that I wanted it in focus and the avoidance of deliberate "framing". For example these :-

Sorry, but based on what I've seen of your work (nothing) your opinion means less than nothing to me

Fair enough; I have posted pictures on PF before, but not many and I have a job to find them myself as there are so many threads here. But whatever you think of my work, or whether I even have any work, is nothing to do with personal preferences for picture styles, which as this thread shows can differ. I can prefer Holman Hunt to Joshua Reynolds, even though I would not know how to hold a paint brush.

Returning to topic, the human eye is only focussed near the centre of view so it is arguable that out-of-focus foregrounds and backgrounds (and sides for that matter*) are authentic. However that is not generally how the human eye works; because we look around a scene (or as much of it as we want to see), and as we scan it each area comes into focus when we look in its direction. The same happens when we look at a fully focussed photo, but if some parts of the photo are unfocussed then the eye is frustrated in its natural function. I find that uncomfortable. The case of people or animals in the picture (like the deer photos earlier) is different because they tend to grab our whole attention; there is a primaeval instinct on our part to assess whether a living creature is a threat or an opportunity, and our brain then tends to exclude the surroundings anyway.

* And centre too, if you like the work of Margaret Julia Cameron