Photography experts: How difficult is this?

[ivan2]

don't forget that you need a great flash and know how to bounce, in indoor pictures the difference is night and day (and I must think that he uses them in many outdoor shot as well).

 

[ghostman]

As others have already said, taking quality photos like the ones you linked to is almost entirely due to the photographer's skills. The camera and post processing is important, of course, but it's just a tool for the photographer. The camera and post processing is like the brushes and paint for an artist; the higher quality brushes/paints will definitely help a painting, but even the best brushes/paint will be not result in art without a skilled artist. With an SLR, you have a large sensor and full control of aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc., but you still need to know how to compose your photo, expose your photo properly and process it to to get the right "feel" to it.

Don't think for a second that you can pick up an DSLR without understanding aperture, shutter speed, etc. and expect to take those quality photos. I've owned my Canon XTi for two years, understand the technical aspects of photography and I still can't take those types of photos. In fact, when I started, I thought the quality of my photos were much, much worse than from a P&S camera - my photos were not as sharp and underexposed. My entire office seems to own a DSLR and most of their photos are no different from P&S quality.

Check out the Canon XTi/XSi, Nikon D40/D60, etc. cameras in store and see how they feel in your hands. Some people criticize the XTi/XSi for being too small, but I now prefer it to the larger Canon cousins. Weight will become a factor when you decide whether to bring your camera out hiking or to your vacation. Even with the XTi, I've left it at home due to it's size and brought out my Canon SD870IS instead. A larger, bulkier camera will stay home more than a smaller, lighter one. What good is a camera that stays in the closet?

 

[Triumph]

shallow depth of field is a function of sensor position, size, focal length, and aperture. the sensor itself does not focus (or defocus) certain parts of the image, it just sees a photon and reacts. but in the shallow body of a small point and shoot camera, the sensor is necessarily placed close to the lens. and you can imagine as you move backwords from the lens, much like a movie projector, the image gets larger on the screen, and thus you need a larger sensor. at least this is my understanding of it.

 

[angry hampster]

Missed this thread some how.


Buy a used 20D or 30D and sped the rest of the money on *quality* lenses and lighting equipment. The body is the least important part of your gear bag unless you're shooting sports.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: timswim78

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: vshah
the "nothing blurred" is due to the lack of an aperture control which will control depth of field. a small aperture will result in a wider range being in focus, while a large aperture will allow you to have the subject in focus and the background blurred.
some higher end point and shoots do have aperture adjustment, so check that out.

as to what created those pictures, skill first, then camera, lastly touchup. i think the biggest part of any picture is the composition. the camera is simply a tool that sometimes lets you compose a picture that would otherwise not be possible (like the depth of field issue)

there are tons of good options for DSLRs in the 2k range. might even be overkill for you. but post in the gadgets forum for more help there (i'm kinda out of touch these days)

have fun 🙂

Wrong. Most P&S have relatively high aperture settings. It's due to sensor size.

TFINCH is correct No matter how big your aperture is, you will never get that background "blur" on the small p&s sensors. Just google for bokeh.

Not true. One can set aperture priority on a P&S and get a shallow DOF.

Ever use a macro mode on a Powershot before?

Bokeh is a characteristic of a lens, not a sensor.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: timswim78

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: vshah
the "nothing blurred" is due to the lack of an aperture control which will control depth of field. a small aperture will result in a wider range being in focus, while a large aperture will allow you to have the subject in focus and the background blurred.
some higher end point and shoots do have aperture adjustment, so check that out.

as to what created those pictures, skill first, then camera, lastly touchup. i think the biggest part of any picture is the composition. the camera is simply a tool that sometimes lets you compose a picture that would otherwise not be possible (like the depth of field issue)

there are tons of good options for DSLRs in the 2k range. might even be overkill for you. but post in the gadgets forum for more help there (i'm kinda out of touch these days)

have fun 🙂

Wrong. Most P&S have relatively high aperture settings. It's due to sensor size.

TFINCH is correct No matter how big your aperture is, you will never get that background "blur" on the small p&s sensors. Just google for bokeh.

Not true. One can set aperture priority on a P&S and get a shallow DOF.

Ever use a macro mode on a Powershot before?

Bokeh is a characteristic of a lens, not a sensor.

Bokeh is a characteristic of focal length, maximum aperature, sensor size, focusing distance/camera to subject length.
And if you really want to get technical, you are not describing bokeh. You are describing just plain background blur.
Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Examples, specular highlights becoming circles are due to the aperture iris and how many blades it has. The 'creamy' bokeh is having a background blur that is smooth.

I'll try to describe this as easily as possible when it comes to the amount of background blur.
The subject is in focus. The area of focus gets narrower as focal length increases and if aperture increases.
Throw on the favorite 85 1.2 lens to a Canon 5d. Your in a position where you, the subject and the background make for a pleasing background blur in relations to distances.
Now, crop that image to an equivalent of a 1.6 crop sensor like most DSLRs sold. Now the subject fills the frame, and there is less of that blurred background.
Most is gone just from cropping. Now, imagine a tiny sensor that is in a P&S. Crop accordingly. Now, all that background is a goner. Probably most of your subject is too.
How to make up for that after all that cropping.
Well...you can increase the focal length of lens. How much? You are going to have to do some math. Depends on the P&S you are using. But most are 1/3 or 2/3",you are going to have to do this about 4 or 5 fold.
This will throw out any P&S to replicate the background blur that many can get with a DSLR.
Mainly, because a 400mm lens on a crop camera exposing as much light as a FF @ 1.2 is just downright silly.
And let's forget about all that backpedaling you would have to do away from the subject if one were to have this magical camera.

Or one more example. Same scenario. 85 1.2 and a 5D with a FF sensor. crap, battery is dead. Time to pull out the rebel xsi for your trusty back up. Rebel is a crop camera.
You look through the viewfinder, and notice that the subject is filling the frame, and you have less background. Right?
Now you want to back peddle from the subject a bit to get the same ratio of how much of that subject is filling the frame. Okay, snap a few. Review the images. What happened. Some of the creamy, blurred background isn't so blurred. Why? Because your subject is closer to infinity on the distance scale.

Is it possible to get subjects in focus while the rest is blurred out on some P&S's?
You hinted at a MACRO powershot. That's the key. You have to shoot something really close to your camera, and have the background, yards and yards away.

now with that said camera, try and shoot a couple posing together, a waist up shot and get the same effect with a P&S, it won't cut it.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: timswim78

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: vshah
the "nothing blurred" is due to the lack of an aperture control which will control depth of field. a small aperture will result in a wider range being in focus, while a large aperture will allow you to have the subject in focus and the background blurred.
some higher end point and shoots do have aperture adjustment, so check that out.

as to what created those pictures, skill first, then camera, lastly touchup. i think the biggest part of any picture is the composition. the camera is simply a tool that sometimes lets you compose a picture that would otherwise not be possible (like the depth of field issue)

there are tons of good options for DSLRs in the 2k range. might even be overkill for you. but post in the gadgets forum for more help there (i'm kinda out of touch these days)

have fun 🙂

Wrong. Most P&S have relatively high aperture settings. It's due to sensor size.

TFINCH is correct No matter how big your aperture is, you will never get that background "blur" on the small p&s sensors. Just google for bokeh.

Not true. One can set aperture priority on a P&S and get a shallow DOF.

Ever use a macro mode on a Powershot before?

Bokeh is a characteristic of a lens, not a sensor.

:thumbsdown:

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: timswim78

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: vshah
the "nothing blurred" is due to the lack of an aperture control which will control depth of field. a small aperture will result in a wider range being in focus, while a large aperture will allow you to have the subject in focus and the background blurred.
some higher end point and shoots do have aperture adjustment, so check that out.

as to what created those pictures, skill first, then camera, lastly touchup. i think the biggest part of any picture is the composition. the camera is simply a tool that sometimes lets you compose a picture that would otherwise not be possible (like the depth of field issue)

there are tons of good options for DSLRs in the 2k range. might even be overkill for you. but post in the gadgets forum for more help there (i'm kinda out of touch these days)

have fun 🙂

Wrong. Most P&S have relatively high aperture settings. It's due to sensor size.

TFINCH is correct No matter how big your aperture is, you will never get that background "blur" on the small p&s sensors. Just google for bokeh.

Not true. One can set aperture priority on a P&S and get a shallow DOF.

Ever use a macro mode on a Powershot before?

Bokeh is a characteristic of a lens, not a sensor.

Bokeh is a characteristic of focal length, maximum aperature, sensor size, focusing distance/camera to subject length.
And if you really want to get technical, you are not describing bokeh. You are describing just plain background blur.
Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Examples, specular highlights becoming circles are due to the aperture iris and how many blades it has. The 'creamy' bokeh is having a background blur that is smooth.

I'll try to describe this as easily as possible when it comes to the amount of background blur.
The subject is in focus. The area of focus gets narrower as focal length increases and if aperture increases.
Throw on the favorite 85 1.2 lens to a Canon 5d. Your in a position where you, the subject and the background make for a pleasing background blur in relations to distances.
Now, crop that image to an equivalent of a 1.6 crop sensor like most DSLRs sold. Now the subject fills the frame, and there is less of that blurred background.
Most is gone just from cropping. Now, imagine a tiny sensor that is in a P&S. Crop accordingly. Now, all that background is a goner. Probably most of your subject is too.
How to make up for that after all that cropping.
Well...you can increase the focal length of lens. How much? You are going to have to do some math. Depends on the P&S you are using. But most are 1/3 or 2/3",you are going to have to do this about 4 or 5 fold.
This will throw out any P&S to replicate the background blur that many can get with a DSLR.
Mainly, because a 400mm lens on a crop camera exposing as much light as a FF @ 1.2 is just downright silly.
And let's forget about all that backpedaling you would have to do away from the subject if one were to have this magical camera.

Or one more example. Same scenario. 85 1.2 and a 5D with a FF sensor. crap, battery is dead. Time to pull out the rebel xsi for your trusty back up. Rebel is a crop camera.
You look through the viewfinder, and notice that the subject is filling the frame, and you have less background. Right?
Now you want to back peddle from the subject a bit to get the same ratio of how much of that subject is filling the frame. Okay, snap a few. Review the images. What happened. Some of the creamy, blurred background isn't so blurred. Why? Because your subject is closer to infinity on the distance scale.

Is it possible to get subjects in focus while the rest is blurred out on some P&S's?
You hinted at a MACRO powershot. That's the key. You have to shoot something really close to your camera, and have the background, yards and yards away.

now with that said camera, try and shoot a couple posing together, a waist up shot and get the same effect with a P&S, it won't cut it.

:thumbsup:

 

[Balr0g]

Saying that good photos must be a result of the camera is saying that someone who makes an outstanding dinner must have used very nice pots and pans.

It is insulting to photographers to hear the "nice pictures, you must have a nice camera" line.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: timswim78

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: vshah
the "nothing blurred" is due to the lack of an aperture control which will control depth of field. a small aperture will result in a wider range being in focus, while a large aperture will allow you to have the subject in focus and the background blurred.
some higher end point and shoots do have aperture adjustment, so check that out.

as to what created those pictures, skill first, then camera, lastly touchup. i think the biggest part of any picture is the composition. the camera is simply a tool that sometimes lets you compose a picture that would otherwise not be possible (like the depth of field issue)

there are tons of good options for DSLRs in the 2k range. might even be overkill for you. but post in the gadgets forum for more help there (i'm kinda out of touch these days)

have fun 🙂

Wrong. Most P&S have relatively high aperture settings. It's due to sensor size.

TFINCH is correct No matter how big your aperture is, you will never get that background "blur" on the small p&s sensors. Just google for bokeh.

Not true. One can set aperture priority on a P&S and get a shallow DOF.

Ever use a macro mode on a Powershot before?

Bokeh is a characteristic of a lens, not a sensor.

Bokeh is a characteristic of focal length, maximum aperature, sensor size, focusing distance/camera to subject length.
And if you really want to get technical, you are not describing bokeh. You are describing just plain background blur.
Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Examples, specular highlights becoming circles are due to the aperture iris and how many blades it has. The 'creamy' bokeh is having a background blur that is smooth.

I'll try to describe this as easily as possible when it comes to the amount of background blur.
The subject is in focus. The area of focus gets narrower as focal length increases and if aperture increases.
Throw on the favorite 85 1.2 lens to a Canon 5d. Your in a position where you, the subject and the background make for a pleasing background blur in relations to distances.
Now, crop that image to an equivalent of a 1.6 crop sensor like most DSLRs sold. Now the subject fills the frame, and there is less of that blurred background.
Most is gone just from cropping. Now, imagine a tiny sensor that is in a P&S. Crop accordingly. Now, all that background is a goner. Probably most of your subject is too.
How to make up for that after all that cropping.
Well...you can increase the focal length of lens. How much? You are going to have to do some math. Depends on the P&S you are using. But most are 1/3 or 2/3",you are going to have to do this about 4 or 5 fold.
This will throw out any P&S to replicate the background blur that many can get with a DSLR.
Mainly, because a 400mm lens on a crop camera exposing as much light as a FF @ 1.2 is just downright silly.
And let's forget about all that backpedaling you would have to do away from the subject if one were to have this magical camera.

Or one more example. Same scenario. 85 1.2 and a 5D with a FF sensor. crap, battery is dead. Time to pull out the rebel xsi for your trusty back up. Rebel is a crop camera.
You look through the viewfinder, and notice that the subject is filling the frame, and you have less background. Right?
Now you want to back peddle from the subject a bit to get the same ratio of how much of that subject is filling the frame. Okay, snap a few. Review the images. What happened. Some of the creamy, blurred background isn't so blurred. Why? Because your subject is closer to infinity on the distance scale.

Is it possible to get subjects in focus while the rest is blurred out on some P&S's?
You hinted at a MACRO powershot. That's the key. You have to shoot something really close to your camera, and have the background, yards and yards away.

now with that said camera, try and shoot a couple posing together, a waist up shot and get the same effect with a P&S, it won't cut it.

I am sure you feel confident in your explanations, but you have way over complicated bokeh and attribute it to many things it is not attributed to. It has nothing to do sensor size or any of the other things you mention. All the items you mention have to do with DOF, not bokeh.

Bokeh is the rendering of out of focus light, the character of the out of focus blur. It is determined by the spherical aberration of a lens, nothing more. Your examples have nothing to do with bokeh itself, they just explain sensor size and DOF.

As far as your waist high shot of a couple example, you are describing the limitations of a P&S to get the right DOF, not the camera's ability to produce a good bokeh. The settings on a lot P&S can be changed manually to produce the right DOF. A properly composed shot with the right aperture setting on a point and shoot can produce good bokeh if the lens of the point and shoot is capable of it. The out of focus areas don't have to be yards away, plain and simple.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Balr0g
Saying that good photos must be a result of the camera is saying that someone who makes an outstanding dinner must have used very nice pots and pans.

It is insulting to photographers to hear the "nice pictures, you must have a nice camera" line.

Completely agree.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Balr0g
Saying that good photos must be a result of the camera is saying that someone who makes an outstanding dinner must have used very nice pots and pans.

It is insulting to photographers to hear the "nice pictures, you must have a nice camera" line.

Completely agree.

To an extent, yes. However, the old expression "horses for courses" still applies.

If I give someone a camera that can't go above ISO 400 and has an f/5.6 lens and tell him to shoot action shots at an indoor dance recital with available light then that person isn't going to have nearly the same success that he would with a DSLR that can hit ISO 3200 and is using a f/1.4 lens.

Good photographers, like good cooks, are good first and then they acquire the quality tools, but the tools absolutely do enable a higher level of quality when used by someone with talent.

ZV

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: Balr0g
Saying that good photos must be a result of the camera is saying that someone who makes an outstanding dinner must have used very nice pots and pans.

It is insulting to photographers to hear the "nice pictures, you must have a nice camera" line.

Because DSLR cameras have built in sensors that can't be replaced, and sensor+image processing algorithm does make much difference when it comes to the quality of the image, it is not just about pots and pans: It is also about ingredient and recipes. Sometimes, you just gotta have to right tool and know the right tool for your work in order to come up with quality images. If not, the existence of crazy expensive MF cameras are meaningless not to mention all those varities of films in the market.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: timswim78

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: vshah
the "nothing blurred" is due to the lack of an aperture control which will control depth of field. a small aperture will result in a wider range being in focus, while a large aperture will allow you to have the subject in focus and the background blurred.
some higher end point and shoots do have aperture adjustment, so check that out.

as to what created those pictures, skill first, then camera, lastly touchup. i think the biggest part of any picture is the composition. the camera is simply a tool that sometimes lets you compose a picture that would otherwise not be possible (like the depth of field issue)

there are tons of good options for DSLRs in the 2k range. might even be overkill for you. but post in the gadgets forum for more help there (i'm kinda out of touch these days)

have fun 🙂

Wrong. Most P&S have relatively high aperture settings. It's due to sensor size.

TFINCH is correct No matter how big your aperture is, you will never get that background "blur" on the small p&s sensors. Just google for bokeh.

Not true. One can set aperture priority on a P&S and get a shallow DOF.

Ever use a macro mode on a Powershot before?

Bokeh is a characteristic of a lens, not a sensor.

Bokeh is a characteristic of focal length, maximum aperature, sensor size, focusing distance/camera to subject length.
And if you really want to get technical, you are not describing bokeh. You are describing just plain background blur.
Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Examples, specular highlights becoming circles are due to the aperture iris and how many blades it has. The 'creamy' bokeh is having a background blur that is smooth.

I'll try to describe this as easily as possible when it comes to the amount of background blur.
The subject is in focus. The area of focus gets narrower as focal length increases and if aperture increases.
Throw on the favorite 85 1.2 lens to a Canon 5d. Your in a position where you, the subject and the background make for a pleasing background blur in relations to distances.
Now, crop that image to an equivalent of a 1.6 crop sensor like most DSLRs sold. Now the subject fills the frame, and there is less of that blurred background.
Most is gone just from cropping. Now, imagine a tiny sensor that is in a P&S. Crop accordingly. Now, all that background is a goner. Probably most of your subject is too.
How to make up for that after all that cropping.
Well...you can increase the focal length of lens. How much? You are going to have to do some math. Depends on the P&S you are using. But most are 1/3 or 2/3",you are going to have to do this about 4 or 5 fold.
This will throw out any P&S to replicate the background blur that many can get with a DSLR.
Mainly, because a 400mm lens on a crop camera exposing as much light as a FF @ 1.2 is just downright silly.
And let's forget about all that backpedaling you would have to do away from the subject if one were to have this magical camera.

Or one more example. Same scenario. 85 1.2 and a 5D with a FF sensor. crap, battery is dead. Time to pull out the rebel xsi for your trusty back up. Rebel is a crop camera.
You look through the viewfinder, and notice that the subject is filling the frame, and you have less background. Right?
Now you want to back peddle from the subject a bit to get the same ratio of how much of that subject is filling the frame. Okay, snap a few. Review the images. What happened. Some of the creamy, blurred background isn't so blurred. Why? Because your subject is closer to infinity on the distance scale.

Is it possible to get subjects in focus while the rest is blurred out on some P&S's?
You hinted at a MACRO powershot. That's the key. You have to shoot something really close to your camera, and have the background, yards and yards away.

now with that said camera, try and shoot a couple posing together, a waist up shot and get the same effect with a P&S, it won't cut it.

I am sure you feel confident in your explanations, but you have way over complicated bokeh and attribute it to many things it is not attributed to. It has nothing to do sensor size or any of the other things you mention. All the items you mention have to do with DOF, not bokeh.

Bokeh is the rendering of out of focus light, the character of the out of focus blur. It is determined by the spherical aberration of a lens, nothing more. Your examples have nothing to do with bokeh itself, they just explain sensor size and DOF.

As far as your waist high shot of a couple example, you are describing the limitations of a P&S to get the right DOF, not the camera's ability to produce a good bokeh. The settings on a lot P&S can be changed manually to produce the right DOF. A properly composed shot with the right aperture setting on a point and shoot can produce good bokeh if the lens of the point and shoot is capable of it. The out of focus areas don't have to be yards away, plain and simple.

Bokeh is, in fact, related to the sensor. Pixel density does make difference in the size/quality of bokeh although the difference is not much.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: timswim78

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: vshah
the "nothing blurred" is due to the lack of an aperture control which will control depth of field. a small aperture will result in a wider range being in focus, while a large aperture will allow you to have the subject in focus and the background blurred.
some higher end point and shoots do have aperture adjustment, so check that out.

as to what created those pictures, skill first, then camera, lastly touchup. i think the biggest part of any picture is the composition. the camera is simply a tool that sometimes lets you compose a picture that would otherwise not be possible (like the depth of field issue)

there are tons of good options for DSLRs in the 2k range. might even be overkill for you. but post in the gadgets forum for more help there (i'm kinda out of touch these days)

have fun 🙂

Wrong. Most P&S have relatively high aperture settings. It's due to sensor size.

TFINCH is correct No matter how big your aperture is, you will never get that background "blur" on the small p&s sensors. Just google for bokeh.

Not true. One can set aperture priority on a P&S and get a shallow DOF.

Ever use a macro mode on a Powershot before?

Bokeh is a characteristic of a lens, not a sensor.

Bokeh is a characteristic of focal length, maximum aperature, sensor size, focusing distance/camera to subject length.
And if you really want to get technical, you are not describing bokeh. You are describing just plain background blur.
Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Examples, specular highlights becoming circles are due to the aperture iris and how many blades it has. The 'creamy' bokeh is having a background blur that is smooth.

I'll try to describe this as easily as possible when it comes to the amount of background blur.
The subject is in focus. The area of focus gets narrower as focal length increases and if aperture increases.
Throw on the favorite 85 1.2 lens to a Canon 5d. Your in a position where you, the subject and the background make for a pleasing background blur in relations to distances.
Now, crop that image to an equivalent of a 1.6 crop sensor like most DSLRs sold. Now the subject fills the frame, and there is less of that blurred background.
Most is gone just from cropping. Now, imagine a tiny sensor that is in a P&S. Crop accordingly. Now, all that background is a goner. Probably most of your subject is too.
How to make up for that after all that cropping.
Well...you can increase the focal length of lens. How much? You are going to have to do some math. Depends on the P&S you are using. But most are 1/3 or 2/3",you are going to have to do this about 4 or 5 fold.
This will throw out any P&S to replicate the background blur that many can get with a DSLR.
Mainly, because a 400mm lens on a crop camera exposing as much light as a FF @ 1.2 is just downright silly.
And let's forget about all that backpedaling you would have to do away from the subject if one were to have this magical camera.

Or one more example. Same scenario. 85 1.2 and a 5D with a FF sensor. crap, battery is dead. Time to pull out the rebel xsi for your trusty back up. Rebel is a crop camera.
You look through the viewfinder, and notice that the subject is filling the frame, and you have less background. Right?
Now you want to back peddle from the subject a bit to get the same ratio of how much of that subject is filling the frame. Okay, snap a few. Review the images. What happened. Some of the creamy, blurred background isn't so blurred. Why? Because your subject is closer to infinity on the distance scale.

Is it possible to get subjects in focus while the rest is blurred out on some P&S's?
You hinted at a MACRO powershot. That's the key. You have to shoot something really close to your camera, and have the background, yards and yards away.

now with that said camera, try and shoot a couple posing together, a waist up shot and get the same effect with a P&S, it won't cut it.

I am sure you feel confident in your explanations, but you have way over complicated bokeh and attribute it to many things it is not attributed to. It has nothing to do sensor size or any of the other things you mention. All the items you mention have to do with DOF, not bokeh.

Bokeh is the rendering of out of focus light, the character of the out of focus blur. It is determined by the spherical aberration of a lens, nothing more. Your examples have nothing to do with bokeh itself, they just explain sensor size and DOF.

As far as your waist high shot of a couple example, you are describing the limitations of a P&S to get the right DOF, not the camera's ability to produce a good bokeh. The settings on a lot P&S can be changed manually to produce the right DOF. A properly composed shot with the right aperture setting on a point and shoot can produce good bokeh if the lens of the point and shoot is capable of it. The out of focus areas don't have to be yards away, plain and simple.

Bokeh is, in fact, related to the sensor. Pixel density does make difference in the size/quality of bokeh although the difference is not much.

Alright, I give up. It's not worth arguing about, go ahead and believe bokeh has anything to with the sensor. At this point I honestly don't care enough about rather you guys get the meaning of bokeh to argue it anymore.

 

[Balr0g]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: Balr0g
Saying that good photos must be a result of the camera is saying that someone who makes an outstanding dinner must have used very nice pots and pans.

It is insulting to photographers to hear the "nice pictures, you must have a nice camera" line.

Because DSLR cameras have built in sensors that can't be replaced, and sensor+image processing algorithm does make much difference when it comes to the quality of the image, it is not just about pots and pans: It is also about ingredient and recipes. Sometimes, you just gotta have to right tool and know the right tool for your work in order to come up with quality images. If not, the existence of crazy expensive MF cameras are meaningless not to mention all those varities of films in the market.

Having the best sensor in the world isn't going to make your compositions suddenly good.

You're right that it's also about ingredients and recipes. But having a $100 bottle of spice isn't necessarily going to make the food good.

I am not saying that it doesn't help to have a nice newer camera, but I'm not talking strictly about how sharp the lens is or how nice the sensor is. I'm talking about the end product. Anyone can take a "good" picture from the standpoint that the lens made it come out sharp and the sensor was good enough to end up with some nice saturation and ability to blow it up to a 20x30. But that's not what makes a good photo. It's all the things that the camera has nothing to do with - composition, usage of light, subject placement/posing, etc. that make a photo good.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: Balr0g

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: Balr0g
Saying that good photos must be a result of the camera is saying that someone who makes an outstanding dinner must have used very nice pots and pans.

It is insulting to photographers to hear the "nice pictures, you must have a nice camera" line.

Because DSLR cameras have built in sensors that can't be replaced, and sensor+image processing algorithm does make much difference when it comes to the quality of the image, it is not just about pots and pans: It is also about ingredient and recipes. Sometimes, you just gotta have to right tool and know the right tool for your work in order to come up with quality images. If not, the existence of crazy expensive MF cameras are meaningless not to mention all those varities of films in the market.

Having the best sensor in the world isn't going to make your compositions suddenly good.

You're right that it's also about ingredients and recipes. But having a $100 bottle of spice isn't necessarily going to make the food good.

I am not saying that it doesn't help to have a nice newer camera, but I'm not talking strictly about how sharp the lens is or how nice the sensor is. I'm talking about the end product. Anyone can take a "good" picture from the standpoint that the lens made it come out sharp and the sensor was good enough to end up with some nice saturation and ability to blow it up to a 20x30. But that's not what makes a good photo. It's all the things that the camera has nothing to do with - composition, usage of light, subject placement/posing, etc. that make a photo good.

I am, too, talking about the end product. Why do you think there are people who wouldn't touch anything but Kodak DSLRs? Why do you think there are people who wouldn't use 35mm based DSLRs and only use MF cameras? The difference isn't just about sharpness or MP. Do you think those people use MF cameras just because of sharpnees/MP it provides?
"composition, usage of light, subject placement/posing," of course are important and it's true that those are critical factors of good photography. However, don't forget that there're other important factors in photography that you just have to rely on the cameras.

 

[troytime]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Bokeh is, in fact, related to the sensor.

So bokeh didn't exist for film cameras?
😕

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
I am sure you feel confident in your explanations, but you have way over complicated bokeh and attribute it to many things it is not attributed to. It has nothing to do sensor size or any of the other things you mention. All the items you mention have to do with DOF, not bokeh.

Bokeh is the rendering of out of focus light, the character of the out of focus blur. It is determined by the spherical aberration of a lens, nothing more. Your examples have nothing to do with bokeh itself, they just explain sensor size and DOF.

As far as your waist high shot of a couple example, you are describing the limitations of a P&S to get the right DOF, not the camera's ability to produce a good bokeh. The settings on a lot P&S can be changed manually to produce the right DOF. A properly composed shot with the right aperture setting on a point and shoot can produce good bokeh if the lens of the point and shoot is capable of it. The out of focus areas don't have to be yards away, plain and simple.

I don't know what world you live in. I think it's the "lala I know everything fantasyland", but there is no P&S that can ISOLATE the subjects often found in weddings like a DSLR and a fast telephoto lens.
I did not over complicate bokeh. You did. You are the one that cannot differentiate between bokeh and selective DOF.
OR YOU CAN'T READ. I don't know what your issue is, but I explained the difference between the two in plain English. If your reading comprehension sucks, that is an issue you have to work on.
The scenario's I listed above are the perfect example of why a P&S can't isolate the subject like a DSLR.

You also act like no DSLR owns any point and shoots, or know how they work.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: troytime

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Bokeh is, in fact, related to the sensor.

So bokeh didn't exist for film cameras?
😕

I think he means sensor size.

 

[Balr0g]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: Balr0g

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: Balr0g
Saying that good photos must be a result of the camera is saying that someone who makes an outstanding dinner must have used very nice pots and pans.

It is insulting to photographers to hear the "nice pictures, you must have a nice camera" line.

Because DSLR cameras have built in sensors that can't be replaced, and sensor+image processing algorithm does make much difference when it comes to the quality of the image, it is not just about pots and pans: It is also about ingredient and recipes. Sometimes, you just gotta have to right tool and know the right tool for your work in order to come up with quality images. If not, the existence of crazy expensive MF cameras are meaningless not to mention all those varities of films in the market.

Having the best sensor in the world isn't going to make your compositions suddenly good.

You're right that it's also about ingredients and recipes. But having a $100 bottle of spice isn't necessarily going to make the food good.

I am not saying that it doesn't help to have a nice newer camera, but I'm not talking strictly about how sharp the lens is or how nice the sensor is. I'm talking about the end product. Anyone can take a "good" picture from the standpoint that the lens made it come out sharp and the sensor was good enough to end up with some nice saturation and ability to blow it up to a 20x30. But that's not what makes a good photo. It's all the things that the camera has nothing to do with - composition, usage of light, subject placement/posing, etc. that make a photo good.

I am, too, talking about the end product. Why do you think there are people who wouldn't touch anything but Kodak DSLRs? Why do you think there are people who wouldn't use 35mm based DSLRs and only use MF cameras? The difference isn't just about sharpness or MP. Do you think those people use MF cameras just because of sharpnees/MP it provides?
"composition, usage of light, subject placement/posing," of course are important and it's true that those are critical factors of good photography. However, don't forget that there're other important factors in photography that you just have to rely on the cameras.

A good photographer can make a good photo with any camera. By knowing what the equipment is capable of, and coming up with the lighting and composing a shot to the strengths of the camera/medium you are working with, you can get a good shot.

The camera, like the pots and pans, is just a tool. It takes a talent with that tool to produce a quality product. So saying that a picture is good and must have a good camera is still, IMO, insulting. How do they know it wasn't taken with a disposable?

The camera only matters as much as it's capability to do the shot you envision. Use the right tool for the right job.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: dnuggett
I am sure you feel confident in your explanations, but you have way over complicated bokeh and attribute it to many things it is not attributed to. It has nothing to do sensor size or any of the other things you mention. All the items you mention have to do with DOF, not bokeh.

Bokeh is the rendering of out of focus light, the character of the out of focus blur. It is determined by the spherical aberration of a lens, nothing more. Your examples have nothing to do with bokeh itself, they just explain sensor size and DOF.

As far as your waist high shot of a couple example, you are describing the limitations of a P&S to get the right DOF, not the camera's ability to produce a good bokeh. The settings on a lot P&S can be changed manually to produce the right DOF. A properly composed shot with the right aperture setting on a point and shoot can produce good bokeh if the lens of the point and shoot is capable of it. The out of focus areas don't have to be yards away, plain and simple.

I don't know what world you live in. I think it's the "lala I know everything fantasyland", but there is no P&S that can ISOLATE the subjects often found in weddings like a DSLR and a fast telephoto lens.
I did not over complicate bokeh. You did. You are the one that cannot differentiate between bokeh and selective DOF.
OR YOU CAN'T READ. I don't know what your issue is, but I explained the difference between the two in plain English. If your reading comprehension sucks, that is an issue you have to work on.
The scenario's I listed above are the perfect example of why a P&S can't isolate the subject like a DSLR.

You also act like no DSLR owns any point and shoots, or know how they work.

Your scenarios have nothing to do with bokeh, get over it. Your own words explain your failed logic, but you don't even see it. Subject isolation has nothing to do with bokeh. Again another failed attribution.

If you haven't figured it out by now my contention is that a P&S can indeed give a shot with good bokeh. That's all. It has nothing to do with your scenarios and subject isolation, while you started on your attempt to educate me on the difference. Thanks for the explanation, but it does nothing to refute what I suggested, nor is it on topic. Go back and reread what I said.

My reading comprehension is perfectly fine, yours however needs some brushing up. It was timswim78 that incorrectly drew the comparison, I pointed out that what he was talking about was DOF, not bokeh.

I'm not even going to entertain your gibberish about what I think about a DSLR being better than a P&S, that's simply a moronic comment. Nor will I even attempt to entertain your spew about me not knowing how a DSLR works. I could care less that you feel the need to call me out on my skills, you have no idea what you are talking about.


In any event, continue to spew away on this topic, I am sure the rest of the folks here will continue to be highly entertained and miseducated by it. As I said before I'm not going to argue about this anymore, I haven't the time or the inclination. :beer:

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: dnuggett
I am sure you feel confident in your explanations, but you have way over complicated bokeh and attribute it to many things it is not attributed to. It has nothing to do sensor size or any of the other things you mention. All the items you mention have to do with DOF, not bokeh.

Bokeh is the rendering of out of focus light, the character of the out of focus blur. It is determined by the spherical aberration of a lens, nothing more. Your examples have nothing to do with bokeh itself, they just explain sensor size and DOF.

As far as your waist high shot of a couple example, you are describing the limitations of a P&S to get the right DOF, not the camera's ability to produce a good bokeh. The settings on a lot P&S can be changed manually to produce the right DOF. A properly composed shot with the right aperture setting on a point and shoot can produce good bokeh if the lens of the point and shoot is capable of it. The out of focus areas don't have to be yards away, plain and simple.

I don't know what world you live in. I think it's the "lala I know everything fantasyland", but there is no P&S that can ISOLATE the subjects often found in weddings like a DSLR and a fast telephoto lens.
I did not over complicate bokeh. You did. You are the one that cannot differentiate between bokeh and selective DOF.
OR YOU CAN'T READ. I don't know what your issue is, but I explained the difference between the two in plain English. If your reading comprehension sucks, that is an issue you have to work on.
The scenario's I listed above are the perfect example of why a P&S can't isolate the subject like a DSLR.

You also act like no DSLR owns any point and shoots, or know how they work.

Your scenarios have nothing to do with bokeh, get over it. Your own words explain your failed logic, but you don't even see it. Subject isolation has nothing to do with bokeh. Again another failed attribution.

If you haven't figured it out by now my contention is that a P&S can indeed give a shot with good bokeh. That's all. It has nothing to do with your scenarios and subject isolation, while you started on your attempt to educate me on the difference. Thanks for the explanation, but it does nothing to refute what I suggested, nor is it on topic. Go back and reread what I said.

My reading comprehension is perfectly fine, yours however needs some brushing up. It was timswim78 that incorrectly drew the comparison, I pointed out that what he was talking about was DOF, not bokeh.

I'm not even going to entertain your gibberish about what I think about a DSLR being better than a P&S, that's simply a moronic comment. Nor will I even attempt to entertain your spew about me not knowing how a DSLR works. I could care less that you feel the need to call me out on my skills, you have no idea what you are talking about.


In any event, continue to spew away on this topic, I am sure the rest of the folks here will continue to be highly entertained and miseducated by it. As I said before I'm not going to argue about this anymore, I haven't the time or the inclination. :beer:

So you can't comprehend that I started my first reply with the difference between bokeh and selective DOF.
And they are only going to be entertained by your comments, not mine.
I know what I am talking about. You don't.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: troytime

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Bokeh is, in fact, related to the sensor.

So bokeh didn't exist for film cameras?
😕

Bokeh being related to the sensor does not mean Bokeh didn't exist in Film.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: Balr0g

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: Balr0g

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: Balr0g
Saying that good photos must be a result of the camera is saying that someone who makes an outstanding dinner must have used very nice pots and pans.

It is insulting to photographers to hear the "nice pictures, you must have a nice camera" line.

Because DSLR cameras have built in sensors that can't be replaced, and sensor+image processing algorithm does make much difference when it comes to the quality of the image, it is not just about pots and pans: It is also about ingredient and recipes. Sometimes, you just gotta have to right tool and know the right tool for your work in order to come up with quality images. If not, the existence of crazy expensive MF cameras are meaningless not to mention all those varities of films in the market.

Having the best sensor in the world isn't going to make your compositions suddenly good.

You're right that it's also about ingredients and recipes. But having a $100 bottle of spice isn't necessarily going to make the food good.

I am not saying that it doesn't help to have a nice newer camera, but I'm not talking strictly about how sharp the lens is or how nice the sensor is. I'm talking about the end product. Anyone can take a "good" picture from the standpoint that the lens made it come out sharp and the sensor was good enough to end up with some nice saturation and ability to blow it up to a 20x30. But that's not what makes a good photo. It's all the things that the camera has nothing to do with - composition, usage of light, subject placement/posing, etc. that make a photo good.

I am, too, talking about the end product. Why do you think there are people who wouldn't touch anything but Kodak DSLRs? Why do you think there are people who wouldn't use 35mm based DSLRs and only use MF cameras? The difference isn't just about sharpness or MP. Do you think those people use MF cameras just because of sharpnees/MP it provides?
"composition, usage of light, subject placement/posing," of course are important and it's true that those are critical factors of good photography. However, don't forget that there're other important factors in photography that you just have to rely on the cameras.

A good photographer can make a good photo with any camera. By knowing what the equipment is capable of, and coming up with the lighting and composing a shot to the strengths of the camera/medium you are working with, you can get a good shot.

The camera, like the pots and pans, is just a tool. It takes a talent with that tool to produce a quality product. So saying that a picture is good and must have a good camera is still, IMO, insulting. How do they know it wasn't taken with a disposable?

The camera only matters as much as it's capability to do the shot you envision. Use the right tool for the right job.

A camera isn't just a tool that photographers could care less about. As much as I'm sick of those who think a good camera produces quality images no matter what, I'm sick of those who think cameras are just tools and that good photographers would just pump out quality images with any cameras.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees


A camera isn't just a tool that photographers could care less about. As much as I'm sick of those who think a good camera produces quality images no matter what, I'm sick of those who think cameras are just tools and that good photographers would just pump out quality images with any cameras.

Precisely. Myself and the other photogs that I work with are very particular about the cameras that we use. However, we care more about our glass and lighting. The body really doesn't matter that much and you guys have taken this argument way too damn far.


I *hate* being at a family gathering and people hand me their $100 fuji point and shoot piece of junk and say, "you're the photographer, I'm sure you'll take better photos with this than me." What do I do in those situations? Put the camera to my face, then giggle like an idiot when I realize that it doesn't have an optical viewfinder, then hit the shutter button without thinking twice about anything else. No, I probably can't take *technically* better photos than you can with your crap camera. My compositions may be more attractive, but that's where it ends.