Photographer, writer, teacher :: Live honestly. Progress through knowledge. Achieve by teaching. Communicate in writing. Speak in pictures. Every day, improve the world a little...
Was it a happen-upon or created for the image? Very clever, whatever.
There's something a little strange about the blurring in the bokeh, I'm finding it uncomfortable to look at. Could it be the result of reducing the file size - or maybe it's just me?
But the classic composition is very pleasing and the temperatures of the hues are really well balanced; so remiscent of the 'feel' of that sort of beach.
@dulciknit - The bokeh is the natural result of the distance differential and the great lens. Taken with the fantastic Canon 24-70, the extra diaphragm blades really make the bokeh effective. Er, own up time, it was a happen upon. There are photogs on that beach all the time and the balancing thing is very popular at the moment (Dinosaur Egg Beach). This was the only shot really worth while. Not that special.
Does a shot have to be particularly special to have pleasing aspects? But I understand what you mean : you're not entirely satisfied with it - and that's what really counts.
Erm, I'm actually finding the bokeh uncomfortable to look at, it's having a strange effect on my eyes. Looking at other shallow dof images is producing a similar effect, though, so I think my eyes might be the problem. I'd had a feeling my vision has changed. I'm due an eye test soon, so we'll see. 0:-)
In fact the term bokeh actually relates to the quality of the blur. The latter relates to the circular nature of the individual points of light in the image. When each point of light from the originating sensor pixel is presented on screen it represents an on-screen, single pixel too.
However, when the point of light is outside of the depth of field, it is blurred. This blur circle is resolved accross a number of pixels and is called the circle of confusion (see: http://www.photokonnexion.com/circle-of-confusion-definition/ ). What I don't say in the definition (link) is that a cheaper lens tends to have fewer diaphragm blades. That means the circle of confusion is not a true circle - it tends to be more hexagonal or like one. As the number of blades increase the more circular the circle of confusion.
The greater the blade number, the more expensive (more engineering), and the more the type of effect you are talking about. When the circle of confusion is many-sided rather than circular the tessellated shapes make it easier to resolve by eye and therefore less effective as blur. You may indeed find it uncomfortable on your eyes because you are trying to properly resolve it as blur, not a tessellation. You may not find that easy if your glasses or eyes are not as good a match as they could be.
Hope that is a clear explanation. It is a fairly complex matter.
Thank you for taking the time to explain, much appreciated. When I've read the definition of circles of confusion in the past, it's made sense at the time but my brain's failed to hang on to the understanding. Maybe revision, experience and the passage of time will produce a better outcome now.
I had to stop wearing my computer specs recently because they'd begun creating problems rather than correcting them . I'm guessing the short-sighted eye has become longer-sighted.
Yes, that is clear, thank you. It is complex and Physics is definitely not my strong suit but I always live in hope of better understanding.
There's something a little strange about the blurring in the bokeh, I'm finding it uncomfortable to look at. Could it be the result of reducing the file size - or maybe it's just me?
But the classic composition is very pleasing and the temperatures of the hues are really well balanced; so remiscent of the 'feel' of that sort of beach.
Erm, I'm actually finding the bokeh uncomfortable to look at, it's having a strange effect on my eyes. Looking at other shallow dof images is producing a similar effect, though, so I think my eyes might be the problem. I'd had a feeling my vision has changed. I'm due an eye test soon, so we'll see. 0:-)
In fact the term bokeh actually relates to the quality of the blur. The latter relates to the circular nature of the individual points of light in the image. When each point of light from the originating sensor pixel is presented on screen it represents an on-screen, single pixel too.
However, when the point of light is outside of the depth of field, it is blurred. This blur circle is resolved accross a number of pixels and is called the circle of confusion (see: http://www.photokonnexion.com/circle-of-confusion-definition/ ). What I don't say in the definition (link) is that a cheaper lens tends to have fewer diaphragm blades. That means the circle of confusion is not a true circle - it tends to be more hexagonal or like one. As the number of blades increase the more circular the circle of confusion.
The greater the blade number, the more expensive (more engineering), and the more the type of effect you are talking about. When the circle of confusion is many-sided rather than circular the tessellated shapes make it easier to resolve by eye and therefore less effective as blur. You may indeed find it uncomfortable on your eyes because you are trying to properly resolve it as blur, not a tessellation. You may not find that easy if your glasses or eyes are not as good a match as they could be.
Hope that is a clear explanation. It is a fairly complex matter.
I had to stop wearing my computer specs recently because they'd begun creating problems rather than correcting them . I'm guessing the short-sighted eye has become longer-sighted.
Yes, that is clear, thank you. It is complex and Physics is definitely not my strong suit but I always live in hope of better understanding.