Bokeh is a hipster concept.
+1,000Bokeh is a hipster concept.
I really don't know. One of the first users of photography were the well to do during the beginning of the 20th century. They made their photos soft and painterly. The Pictorialist were pretty bourgeois.
Bokeh is a hipster concept.
Bokeh is a hipster concept.
Shallow focus as an end in itself is a new phenomenon. In the 1960s Japanese photographers of the Provoke school valorised 'are-bure-boke', translated as 'grainy/rough, blurry, out-of-focus', but that was a complete look. Now people seem to think a sliver of focus at 1.2 or 0.95 or whatever denotes artistry. Portraitists (I worked for one as a young'un) often stopped their f1.2 lenses down to f2 to sharpen the image and ensure all the facial features were in focus.Bokeh predates hipsters. By the way hipsters think that they invented sex and anyone before them never knew about it.
Shallow focus as an end in itself is a new phenomenon.
You have my sympathy.No, my friends and I were using it extensively in 1965.
You have my sympathy.
If you can show me a serious artistic or commercial genre that was about sharpness combined with bokeh, I'll take your witticisms seriously. It wasn't pictorialism, it wasn't portraiture, it wasn't political photography. Commercially it's a millennial advertising look. If you can find sharpness and out of focus highlights in a serious context, I'm interested.I will consider the source, especially since were were experimenting pushing the limits in many ways. What did your buttered toast tell you today?
An argument about bokeh? Seriously? Nothing better to do today?
Where's the argument? I made a statement which someone challenged with sarcasm. That hardly denotes an argument.An argument about bokeh? Seriously? Nothing better to do today?
I've been doing it since 1973, w/marvelous results. And my pictures are so serious that hardly anyone understands themIf you can show me a serious artistic or commercial genre that was about sharpness combined with bokeh, I'll take your witticisms seriously. It wasn't pictorialism, it wasn't portraiture, it wasn't political photography. Commercially it's a millennial advertising look. If you can find sharpness and out of focus highlights in a serious context, I'm interested.
Karl Marx gave bourgeois a bad name.
Bourgeois is an outdated term I prefer Evil American Imperialist
If you can show me a serious artistic or commercial genre that was about sharpness combined with bokeh, I'll take your witticisms seriously. It wasn't pictorialism, it wasn't portraiture, it wasn't political photography. Commercially it's a millennial advertising look. If you can find sharpness and out of focus highlights in a serious context, I'm interested.
That isn't what's understood by bokeh. Hurrell's work is large format portraiture using tilt shift, three point lighting and most aren't shot open. Some are shot with a Petzval lens, some are pictorialist, which puts everything out of focus by intervening with the lens, negative or print. Bokeh as currently understood is about a sharp subject surrounded by out of focus areas, the more out of focus, the better. I suspect much of it is based on a misunderstanding of tilt-shift, and is an attempt to emulate lens movement on 35mm cameras, and the look of (some) cinema.
...Bokeh as currently understood is about a sharp subject surrounded by out of focus areas....
But your example doesn't demonstrate "bokeh" as currently described. It shows the movement of large format cameras in a studio setting, combined with specialised lenses and lighting. You won't get that look if you stick a 50mm f1.2 on your DSLR, which is what people assume off the shelf bokeh comprises of.Precisely!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?