03-06-2011, 10:42 AM
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1299353023' post='6538']
To my knowledge, the "amount" of bokeh (or blurriness), depends highly on the size of the aperture. The subject-to-background distance also has an effect but mainly on the near side (sure with shorter FLs, after a certain distance in background, the amount of blur almost does not change). I believe the correct amount of blur helps with the "smooth transitions", but it's not the only factor. There's color tonality and harmony, brightness and most importantly "spherical aberrations" (spherically under-corrected lenses claimed to have pleasent background blurriness with smooth transitions). And when we're talking about "spherical aberrations" (or positive focus shifts / undercorrected aberrations), we have to consider the possibility that at the same lens line this can change from sample to sample.
[/quote]
Bokeh is NOT the amount of blur. Nor the shape of highlights. Bokeh is the CHARACTER of the blur. Only that. The pleasantness. The aesthetic quality of the blur.
To my knowledge, the "amount" of bokeh (or blurriness), depends highly on the size of the aperture. The subject-to-background distance also has an effect but mainly on the near side (sure with shorter FLs, after a certain distance in background, the amount of blur almost does not change). I believe the correct amount of blur helps with the "smooth transitions", but it's not the only factor. There's color tonality and harmony, brightness and most importantly "spherical aberrations" (spherically under-corrected lenses claimed to have pleasent background blurriness with smooth transitions). And when we're talking about "spherical aberrations" (or positive focus shifts / undercorrected aberrations), we have to consider the possibility that at the same lens line this can change from sample to sample.
[/quote]
Bokeh is NOT the amount of blur. Nor the shape of highlights. Bokeh is the CHARACTER of the blur. Only that. The pleasantness. The aesthetic quality of the blur.