Moose wrote
> On 5/31/2012 4:39 PM, Rick Beckrich wrote:
> > Thanks all... I don't know if it was the distance or the aperture,,, I
> > think I've had softer results
> >
> > in the past... I think.
>
> My limited experience is the closer the subject in focus and the farther
> the background, the worse it gets. Limited experience because I was
> shooting film and stopped wasting it on shots I knew I wouldn't like.
>
> Macro Bokeh Moose
I am quite puzzled by this on several counts.
1) The background was already busy, and lousy bokeh could have been
expected as a matter of course. Now that I think of this, I remember Wayne
H asking us a few years ago to comment on the relative rendering of the
bokeh of about 20 lenses - and in my opinion none of them had a chance
because the background consisted of a lot of tortuously bent branches that
were simply too close to the subject - one of his daughters if I remember
correctly.
2) The background was too close to the subject. Moose wrote " the closer
the subject in focus and the farther the background, the worse it gets"..
My experience is opposite, as I recall. The closer the subject usually means
the background is relatively far away ( better).
The further away the background is ( especially when highly detailed and
messy), the better. Better because every little bit of detail becomes
relatively
smaller, more out of focus, and therefore matters less.
My 2 cents.
Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|