# Post your Christmas (bokeh) lights pics!



## DScience

Hi everyone, and happy holidays!

I got the idea to start this thread after seeing several members posts. So this is going to be dedicated to bokeh christmas lights. 

Go ahead and post em up everyone!


----------



## Markw

What lens did you take that with?  The bokeh is just beautifully round.  Almost oddly non-geometric. I like it.

Mark


----------



## DScience

Markw said:


> What lens did you take that with?  The bokeh is just beautifully round.  Almost oddly non-geometric. I like it.
> 
> Mark



Thanks Mark!

This was taken with my Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 AI-S


----------



## o hey tyler

This was one of the first shots I took after getting my SLR. I was driving by a Christmas tree downtown and I decided to take a photo of the lights. Instead I ended up with an abstract liney thingery. And yes, I know... There is a distinct lack of bokeh, but surely after my new camera arrives, I will be taking quite a few christmas bokeh shots.


----------



## DScience

o hey tyler said:


> This was one of the first shots I took after getting my SLR. I was driving by a Christmas tree downtown and I decided to take a photo of the lights. Instead I ended up with an abstract liney thingery. And yes, I know... There is a distinct lack of bokeh, but surely after my new camera arrives, I will be taking quite a few christmas bokeh shots.




That's crazy! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Wolverinepwnes

very nice


----------



## y0aimee




----------



## Rekd

Here's a couple of mine...





and...




Noobish I know, but I'm learning. Albeit slowly.


----------



## pharmakon

I posted one of these already this morning, but since you made a themed thread... 














http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2687/4164432273_b67d9b4db1.jpg


----------



## iflynething

Here is my go: Nikon 105D 2.8

f/3.5 Great Bokeh





f/8





f/22 Nice star and bad bokeh - actually, no bokeh!


----------



## Atlas77

Funny thing is I just came back from experimenting with bokeh christmas lights and then saw this. 

What lens did you use in your original post Dscience? My 18-70 cant get good bokeh lights for ****.


----------



## iflynething

Atlas77 said:


> Funny thing is I just came back from experimenting with bokeh christmas lights and then saw this.
> 
> What lens did you use in your original post Dscience? My 18-70 cant get good bokeh lights for ****.



USE YOU 50 1.8!!!!!

~Michael~


----------



## Darkhunter139

Im using a 18-55 and I cant do it at all haha.  I am just starting out with my camera but I tried it tonight for some practice. I think I could have got a few decent ones if I had a tripod but I could not get the right lighting at all!


----------



## Atlas77

iflynething said:


> Atlas77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is I just came back from experimenting with bokeh christmas lights and then saw this.
> 
> What lens did you use in your original post Dscience? My 18-70 cant get good bokeh lights for ****.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USE YOU 50 1.8!!!!!
> 
> ~Michael~
Click to expand...

 
Its imaginary, read the signature closely, *(hoping for one soon)! *Its on my wishlist I just cant afford it yet.


----------



## iflynething

OOOOOOh dang, didnt' read the fine print.....(who does anyways?)

~Michael~


----------



## DScience

y0aimee said:


>





Nice! I like bokeh reflections that are on the table.


----------



## Derrel

CANON---Santa doll shot Dec 15, 2007 with Canon 70-200--I didn't like 
the cat's eye effect caused by the rear element shroud 
Canon has on many of its L-glass lenses. My little son 
put this Santa doll on the couch near the coffee table so 
that "the real Santa" would know where the cookies would
be placed on the night of his arrival a few days later.





NIKON---Shot 27 December, 2007. The background here 
is made of up of minilights on the Christmas tree, at the
left, and some other mini-lights I set up as an indoor display
...I'm not keen on hours' worth of stringing up Christmas
lights outdoors, on  a ladder with a staple gun in one 
hand and a zillion bulbs on wire in the other hand.


----------



## DScience

Atlas77 said:


> Funny thing is I just came back from experimenting with bokeh christmas lights and then saw this.
> 
> What lens did you use in your original post Dscience? My 18-70 cant get good bokeh lights for ****.




It was shot with my 105mm f/1.8. It was in front of a store, they had lights in the window, with this lil tree outside.

what I would suggest is to just set your aperture wide open, change cam to manual focus, and then just shoot your Xmas lighhts out of focus. This will just give you the feel of it.


----------



## DScience

pharmakon said:


> I posted one of these already this morning, but since you made a themed thread...




This is what sparked the idea to start a dedicated thread. At first I was going to make it a 'general' Christmas one, but I figured having the bokeh topic would make it more interesting.


----------



## DScience

Derrel said:


> CANON---Santa doll shot Dec 15, 2007 with Canon 70-200--I didn't like
> the cat's eye effect caused by the rear element shroud
> Canon has on many of its L-glass lenses. My little son
> put this Santa doll on the couch near the coffee table so
> that "the real Santa" would know where the cookies would
> be placed on the night of his arrival a few days later.



Derrel, so it's certain lens elements that cause the so-called 'cats eye' bokeh? The imperfect circles that resemble a cat's retina? 

I have wondered about this! But since I have seen it with all my lenses, I thought it was a matter of distortion caused by the emitted light being off center from the focus point. My thinking was that only the light being focused on was coming into the lens at a straight line, hence the perfect circle from the wide open aperture. Then I thought that the 'cat eye' ones were caused because the light is being bent somewhat or refracted, and thus you get an imperfect circle.

Please explain, this is something that's bugged me.


----------



## Derrel

No, in this particular case, the case of the 70-200 f/2.8 L-IS, the lens is wide-open at f/2.8 and the cat's eye effect is caused by *mechanical vignetting* at the rear of the lens. For some reason, the rear of the lens, right near the lens mount, on many Canon lenses has a squared-off shape. That squared off shape often,and I mean often, leads to the cat's eye effect. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM lens also suffers from mechanical vignetting, due to a lens design 'decision'. In the Santa shot, the lens aperture,inside the lens, is 100 percent, totally round: the cat's eye effect is caused at the back of the lens itself.

On older lenses, delivering a perfectly round, perfectly-evenly illuminated, rounded OOF highlight was not so much of a concern as it is on the higher-end Nikkor lenses designed since around 2001 and to the present day. "Bokeh" outside of Japan caught on only beginning in 1996,and it took five years before many people had ever heard of it.

Maybe I'll snap a photo of the rear of the 70-200 2.8-L IS and illustrate what is causing the cat's eye effect. BTW, I see this effect a lot; the other day,there was a shot of a US Senator on the front page of the Huffington Post website,and I immediately knew it was shot with a Canon telephoto, since it had this same bokeh signature, as it is called.  EDIT--Here is a quick snap showing the rear, square-ish lens body structure that causes the cat's eye effect on the Canon 70-200 2.8 L  http://www.pbase.com/derrel/image/120099765


----------



## nateMN

My man Stanley the penguin.





A Christmas smoker my parents got me from Germany.


----------



## y0aimee

DScience said:


> y0aimee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice! I like bokeh reflections that are on the table.
Click to expand...

 
actually, this shot was taken on the floor.  i was laying on my stomach and manually focusing my 50mm which helped me get that shot, and also a bad neck cramp.  LOL


----------



## Atlas77

DScience said:


> Atlas77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is I just came back from experimenting with bokeh christmas lights and then saw this.
> 
> What lens did you use in your original post Dscience? My 18-70 cant get good bokeh lights for ****.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was shot with my 105mm f/1.8. It was in front of a store, they had lights in the window, with this lil tree outside.
> 
> what I would suggest is to just set your aperture wide open, change cam to manual focus, and then just shoot your Xmas lighhts out of focus. This will just give you the feel of it.
Click to expand...

 
Waaaaayyyy Ahead of you I already did that tonight, Its a good feeling to get bokeh, man I wish I had the cash for a 50mm 1.8.

One day, and I guessed you took that with your 105, man you must love that lens.


----------



## inTempus

I guess it's unavoidable... even a simple Christmas lights thread is turned into a Canon vs. Nikon discussion.  

I don't believe the effect you're seeing is either the result of the rear element of the lens, nor is it unique to Canon lenses.

First, here's a shot taken a few moments ago with my 50mm f/1.2L lens for this discussion. The 50mm does not share the same rear element design as the 70-200 f/2.8L.






Here's the rear of the 50m lens:






A quick search on Flickr shows that several Nikon lenses and bodies also exhibit this effect.

A D300:
I will shine on on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Another D300:
Wage & The Holga Filter on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

A D90:
Merry Christmas on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

And a D200:
a new season on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Ironically, you can also see the effect occurring a little bit in DScience's original post as well.

So it would appear that it's not something unique to Canon.  I am curious as to what actually causes the effect, but that's probably a discussion for another thread.


----------



## inTempus

DScience said:


> Derrel, so it's certain lens elements that cause the so-called 'cats eye' bokeh? The imperfect circles that resemble a cat's retina?
> 
> I have wondered about this! But since I have seen it with all my lenses, I thought it was a matter of distortion caused by the emitted light being off center from the focus point. My thinking was that only the light being focused on was coming into the lens at a straight line, hence the perfect circle from the wide open aperture. Then I thought that the 'cat eye' ones were caused because the light is being bent somewhat or refracted, and thus you get an imperfect circle.
> 
> Please explain, this is something that's bugged me.


I think you're probably pretty close.  I suspect it has to do with the angle the light is coming into the lens, the distance from the camera to the subject, and other factors.  But I honestly don't know.  

What I do know is that since you're seeing it with your Nikon gear and I've found similar images on flickr taken by Nikon's... and the fact my 50mm does it in some cases and it doesn't share the same design as the 70-200, that it's not a Canon only phenomenon and it's not due to the square opening on the 70-200.

We could probably figure it out through experimentation... or some serious Google-Fu.


----------



## inTempus

Oh, and here's my submission for the thread.


----------



## FrankLamont

I hate to be the technical Gringe, but here we go...

'Good' bokeh means out of focus points of light that aren't distracting; instead, they're rounded (tick) and soft, meaning they tend to blur into each other (... perhaps not). 

Ask for examples of bad bokeh, then.


----------



## Derrel

This is the original, single-element Lensbaby, shot on Christmas Day around 5:30 in the afternoon, when my son was playing with his new wooden Thomas the train track set.





Lensbaby with f/2.8 aperture, 1/10 second at ISO 100. Nikon D2x. Notice how large and unusual the out of focus specular highlights are from the Lensbaby 50mm lens.


----------



## o hey tyler

Forgot about dis one...


----------



## DScience

inTempus said:


> Oh, and here's my submission for the thread.



I would have to say that this isn't the _best_ example of bokeh, but this shot is freaking awesome! There is something very mysterious about it, and I really like the lighting.


----------



## inTempus

DScience said:


> I have wondered about this! But since I have seen it with all my lenses, I thought it was a matter of distortion caused by the emitted light being off center from the focus point. My thinking was that only the light being focused on was coming into the lens at a straight line, hence the perfect circle from the wide open aperture. Then I thought that the 'cat eye' ones were caused because the light is being bent somewhat or refracted, and thus you get an imperfect circle.


This isn't an easy subject to get a technical explanation of... at least one that's easy to understand.  

Bokeh



> It is also well known that out-of-focus highlights (OOFHs) assume the shape of the  lens aperture. At reduced apertures the shape of the blur disk is the same as that of  the diaphragm opening. For instance, a six-sided diaphragm leads to hexagonal blur  patches. Generally, the better an aperture approximates a round opening, the more  pleasing the blur. However, when a lens is used at a large aperture, obliquely incident  light is confronted with a narrower aperture than normally incident light. Consequently,  the blur disk narrows from the image center towards the corner. This is known as the cat's eye effect, a result of optical vignetting. When there are many OOFHs  scattered across the frame, the cat's eye effect yields the impression of a rotational  background motion (Fig. 2).
> 
> ...
> 
> The consequences of optical vignetting for a subject that is in focus  (cf. Fig. 1) is merely a reduced brightness towards the image corners. However, optical vignetting can also have a pronounced effect on out-of-focus parts of the image. Because the shape of an out-of-focus highlight (OOFH) mimics the shape of the clear aperture, the bottom left situation of Fig. 2 leads to the so-called cat's eye effect [1]. Figure 3 evidences the resemblance between the appearance of OOFHs and the aperture shape. With an increasing distance from the optical axis the shape of the OOFH progressively narrows and starts to resemble a cat's eye. The larger the distance from the image center, the narrower the cat's eye becomes.


It would appear that the "cats eye" effect is caused by the size of the aperture and the angle at which the light enters the lens.  In my example above I used a f/1.2 setting to easily create the effect.  As we suspected, it's not only a result of the aperture size but also where the blurred subject appears in relation to the center of the lens.  In the center of the lens, the subject will appear round.  Out towards the edges it will begin to exhibit the cats eye effect.  This also holds true with my example in that the Christmas tree is left of center in my image.

So, it's caused by the aperture and the angle at which the light enters the lens which makes sense if you think about it.


----------



## inTempus

DScience said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and here's my submission for the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to say that this isn't the _best_ example of bokeh, but this shot is freaking awesome! There is something very mysterious about it, and I really like the lighting.
Click to expand...

Thanks.  I actually blurred and darkened the tree in the background to achieve the look I wanted.  You're right, it's not a good example of bokeh but I shot the image before I read this thread today.


----------



## Derrel

You did a bit of reseatch, but I did a bit more....


"Much of the "swirly bokeh" effect of the Helios 40 is due to the optical vignetting of the lens. That is, the out of focus highlights away from the center are partially obscured by the lens tube itself, due to its insufficient diameter in view of the large aperture of the lens. As a consequence, the out of focus highlights turn into a cat's eye shape, instead of their normal circular shape. For more on optical vignetting, see this excellent page on Paul van Walree's website: Vignetting 

"... it is more efficient to use a black cardboard tube mounted on the rear of the lens to artificially increase optical vignetting. Unfortunately, this usually is not possible with DSLRs, because there isn't sufficient space available at the back of the lens, due to the mirror clearance. The only exceptions are macro lenses designed to be used on bellows or medium format lenses used with adapters. "

Okay, so, if you WANT TO CREATE the cat's eye style of bokeh, an efficient way to do that is to use a black cardboard tube mounted to the rear of the lens--that is EXACTLY WHAT CANON HAS DONE with the design of the 70-200 f/2.8 L-IS lens; the rear element of the lens is recessed almost exactly 5/8 inch from the back edge of the lens mount, and the aperture is a SQUARE, with radiused corners. For the bokeh freaks, many of whom use rangefinder cameras and hang out at The Manual Focus Forum, they actually recognize what causes this issue. SOme people actually like the football-shaped bokeh--the Manual FOcus Forum has a few people, and I eben found the above thread that describes how to CAUSE the effect by adding a tube to the rear of the lens!

Here is the defacto black tube Canon slapped onto the back of the 70-200/2.8 L-IS lens--only it's not cardboard, it's solid metal! And it causes the cat's eye effect when the lens is shot at f/2.8. The Canon's rear element is recessed 5/8 inch, down inside that square-ish hole...thus leading to clipping off of the  edges of the light leaving the lens at what is known as "the exit pupil". The Nikon lens shown has an exposed rear element that is right at the top--making it unsuitable for use with a modern 1.4x or 2.0x autofocus teleconverter, which protrudes INTO the lens barrel.


----------



## inTempus

Derrel said:


> Okay, so, if you WANT TO CREATE the cat's eye style of bokeh, an efficient way to do that is to use a black cardboard tube mounted to the rear of the lens--that is EXACTLY WHAT CANON HAS DONE with the design of the 70-200 f/2.8 L-IS lens; the rear element of the lens is recessed almost exactly 5/8 inch from the back edge of the lens mount, and the aperture is a SQUARE, with radiused corners. For the bokeh freaks, many of whom use rangefinder cameras and hang out at The Manual Focus Forum, they actually recognize what causes this issue...


The only problem I can see with this is that the exact same effect can clearly be seen on lenses that have no such tube on the rear.  It's just as bad with lenses that lack this, as evidenced with my 50mm example above.  As a matter of fact, just about every lens available will experience this effect and it has nothing to do with Canon vs. Nikon from what I can tell, as I've clearly shown examples from both manufacturers.

So, as noted, it appears to be more of a factor based upon aperture size and the angle of light coming into the lens more than anything.


----------



## inTempus

Derrel said:


> Here is the defacto black tube Canon slapped onto the back of the 70-200/2.8 L-IS lens--only it's not cardboard, it's solid metal! And it causes the cat's eye effect when the lens is shot at f/2.8.


Then how do you explain it happening with other lenses that don't have this design, both Canon and Nikon?  I can easily cause the exact same effect with a 50mm lens, and to the same degree, and it lacks this "tube" on the rear.  I think that pokes a pretty big hole in that theory.


----------



## Dao

inTempus said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the defacto black tube Canon slapped onto the back of the 70-200/2.8 L-IS lens--only it's not cardboard, it's solid metal! And it causes the cat's eye effect when the lens is shot at f/2.8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then how do you explain it happening with other lenses that don't have this design, both Canon and Nikon?
Click to expand...



That was being discuss in the past.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ws/168536-strange-bokeh-canon-85-f-1-8-a.html


----------



## inTempus

Dao said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the defacto black tube Canon slapped onto the back of the 70-200/2.8 L-IS lens--only it's not cardboard, it's solid metal! And it causes the cat's eye effect when the lens is shot at f/2.8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then how do you explain it happening with other lenses that don't have this design, both Canon and Nikon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was being discuss in the past.
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ws/168536-strange-bokeh-canon-85-f-1-8-a.html
Click to expand...

It looks like folks came to the same conclusion that I have.  It's related to the aperture size and angle of the light coming into the lens.

As the OP in that thread noticed, he could cause it both with the 50mm and 70-200 pretty easily and they don't share the same design on the rear element.


----------



## Derrel

inTempus said:


> As a matter of fact, just about every lens available will experience this effect and it has nothing to do with Canon vs. Nikon from what I can tell, as I've clearly shown examples from both manufacturers.
> 
> 
> Sorry but NO your assertion is simply wrong, and the cat's eye bokeh effect will NOT occur with "just about every lens". The photo below was shot in front of the same Christmas tree and the same minilights. It was shot by a Nikon lens that displays almost perfect bokeh; this lens does not create cat's eye bokeh. Why are you trying to make this about Canon and Nikon--it is about lens design, Tim, lens design. And lens design choices the designers made. I am not generalizing this to brands--you are. I am talking about *specific* lenses and a *specific* issue relating to bokeh, which is actually an area I am pretty well experienced in...


----------



## inTempus

Derrel said:


> Sorry but NO your assertion is simply wrong, and the cat's eye bokeh effect will NOT occur with "just about every lens". The photo below was shot in front of the same Christmas tree and the same minilights. It was shot by a Nikon lens that displays almost perfect bokeh; this lens does not create cat's eye bokeh. Why are you trying to make this about Canon and Nikon--it is about lens design, Tim, lens design. And lens design choices the designers made. I am not generalizing this to brands--you are. I am talking about *specific* lenses and a *specific* issue relating to bokeh, which is actually an area I am pretty well experienced in...


First, I didn't say "every", I said most.  I have evidence to prove it too.  It's called Flickr.  

Here are some examples:
A D300:
I will shine on on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Another D300:
Wage & The Holga Filter on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

A D90:
Merry Christmas on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

And a D200:
a new season on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Your contention it's strictly the result of the 70-200's rear element design is inaccurate, and I've proven that with actual pictures (as have others).  

The effect is certainly the result of lens design, I don't argue that at all.  What I'm arguing is your assertion it's the result of a tube appearing on the back of "many L lenses" that is at fault.  That's simply inaccurate as lenses that do *not* share this design exhibit the effect in spades.

So, what we can agree upon is that not all lenses exhibit the effect.  It occurs in more lenses than Canon L glass (contrary to your assertion it's a Canon L lens design issue) and it's not something unique to any particular brand.


----------



## inTempus

Further proof it has to do with aperture size.  I suspect it also has to do with the distance of the camera from the subject, the subject from the background, and other elements that effect bokeh in general.

50mm f/1.2:





50mm f/2.8:





The only difference?  Aperture size.  I didn't put any cardboard tubes on the back of my 50mm lens.


----------



## ottor

I'm extremely new to photography, and personally have absolutely no experience with 35mm, but a friend of mine thought that Nikon used to have a series of "DC" or "Defocus Control" 35mm lenses that actualy allowed you to change the amount of spherical aberration for better control ? It apparently allowed you to place the 'good' bokah in either the foreground or background... Anyone who has 35mm experience have any comments or experience with these types of lenses?

tks,

r


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus

^^ yes ottor...   THIS ONE


----------



## inTempus

Derrel said:


> For more on optical vignetting, see this excellent page on Paul van Walree's website: Vignetting



From your own source (which ironically is my original source):



> Optical vignetting tends to be stronger in wideangle lenses and large aperture  lenses, *but the effect can be noticed with most photographic lenses*. Zoom lenses  are often saddled with a fair amount of optical vignetting.


Then your comment to me:



			
				Derrel said:
			
		

> Sorry but NO your assertion is simply wrong, and the cat's eye bokeh effect will NOT occur with "just about every lens".



So it appears your source agrees with my statement, the same statement you said I was wrong for making.  

I suspect _under the right circumstances_ even the Nikkor lens you're showing as an example of lenses that don't demonstrate the effect will actually demonstrate it to some degree.

Just a guess though.


----------



## Rekd

Derrel said:


> Is so!


 


inTempus said:


> Is not!





Derrel said:


> Is so!


 


inTempus said:


> Is not!





Derrel said:


> Is so!


 


inTempus said:


> Is not!




Bokeh bokeh BOOM! :lmao:


----------



## avilamillar

Snow!!


----------



## Hooker771




----------



## Dao

Happy Holidays!!


----------



## ottor

Using my Canon kit 75-300...

A skiing snowman..


----------



## Darkhunter139

My first one that actually looks decent after many attempts what do you think?

I stacked up books on a chair and put my D40 on there, set the self timer to 10 seconds and used the following settings:

Exposure: 0.25 sec (1/4) Aperture: f/5.6 Focal Length: 55 mmISO - 400


----------



## yvangkwheng

nice. this year's chrismas is around the corner. ive decided to make a trip to some famous place.


----------



## RancerDS

inTempus said:


> Oh, and here's my submission for the thread.



Wonderful shot!  The center gift package could possibly have been excluded due to lack of focus on a central subject area.  It was distracting to me, but otherwise a perfect picture!


----------



## mpasq66




----------



## Olympus E300

inTempus said:


> Oh, and here's my submission for the thread.


 
I really like this! Very nice!!


----------



## robertwsimpson

amera:	Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi
Exposure:	2
Aperture:	f/10.0
Focal Length:	50 mm
ISO Speed:	100




Camera:	Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi
Exposure:	0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture:	f/1.8
Focal Length:	50 mm
ISO Speed:	100


----------



## WimFoto

a little bokeh...


----------



## inTempus

RancerDS said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and here's my submission for the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonderful shot!  The center gift package could possibly have been excluded due to lack of focus on a central subject area.  It was distracting to me, but otherwise a perfect picture!
Click to expand...

I decided the group of packages looked more staged if I pulled the center one.  It's not a picture of a single box, it's a picture of a group of packages as they would appear on Christmas morning.  If it were intended to be more of a product shot, I would agree - the center box should probably go.

I'm glad you like it though.


----------



## Cojaro

[With the Nikon 18-55 VR]










[With the Nikon 55-200 VR]


----------



## VoLcOmKiDd911

a little out of focus and the plate got cut off a little. how could i have otherwise improved this one?


----------



## robertwsimpson

it's crooked.  also, a little flash to make the lighting more interesting couldn't have hurt.


----------



## VoLcOmKiDd911

the crookedness is because all i had available to use for a surface was a barstool. it was the only thing high enough. And for lighting I have no flash and the only light available was the light in the room which was on the side of the subject.


----------



## Pugs

robertwsimpson said:


> it's crooked.  also, a little flash to make the lighting more interesting couldn't have hurt.


And the color temperature is decidedly cool...


----------



## VoLcOmKiDd911

yea all i had was the natural overcast light from outside


----------



## Pugs

Do you have any editing software that you could use to fix the rotation and the color temp?


----------



## VoLcOmKiDd911

yeah ill see what i can do

edit: hows this?


----------



## Pugs

Much better!  It still looks a little cool, temperature-wise.  

This is a quick edit that I did in Lightroom.


----------



## Gene1219

my worn out boots getting a little bokeh light love.  I used a piece of paper with a cutout of a heart to acheive this.  I'm going to make another template with a better cutout heart.


----------



## jensgt




----------



## Rekd

Gene, I LOLed 

Jen, great capture!


----------



## Tostitos.

I guess this could count?
I tried taking a Bokeh photo of my neighbor's Christmas Lights, but ended up getting this wild and crazy effect. 

I love it though. <3


----------



## lisa_13

1. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




2. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




3. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




4.


----------



## Tostitos.

@Lisa: Those are amazing!!!

Here is another one that I took on my Christmas Tree.


----------



## Olympus E300

Being a beginner, I really wanted to give this a try. Below is my first real attempt at bokeh. I intentionally worked around the christmas lights theme so I could post my results in this thread. I feel that the image could be sharper and I'm aware of the shadows (all I had for lighting were a couple of table lamps). Perhaps its a little under exposed?  Not sure what to do with the over-powering redness of the Santa suit though?  Please share your C&C...

Cheers!!






Camera : Olympus E-300
Lens : Zuiko 40-150mm
Focul Length : 88mm
F-stop : f/5.6
Exposure Time : 1/2 sec.
ISO-Speed : ISO-100


----------



## Derrel

Dao said:


> Happy Holidays!!



Super job on this one Dao!


----------



## Scout




----------



## BIG RYAN




----------



## timfrommass

Won't compare to some of the great pictures on here, and I couldn't get the little bugger to sit still for a second haha.  But here's my entry


----------



## Olympus E300

Scout said:


>


 
This is awesome! Bravo!!


----------



## jeremycnwy

First Post here!
the is a glass snow flake, not as good as most of the other pics but i figured i'd contribute.
i'm very new to the dslr thing so cc is welcome.









thanks darkhunter!


----------



## Darkhunter139

jeremycnwy said:


> First Post here!
> the is a glass snow flake, not as good as most of the other pics but i figured i'd contribute.
> i'm very new to the dslr thing so cc is welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremycnwy/4176270734/
> 
> well i cant figure out how to post it, the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> didnt work?



You are trying to link to the image page rather then the actually image.  Right click the image, go to properties then copy the image url which will end in .jpeg 

Here is the url for you're picture

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2483/4176270734_5dfe70e0e6_b.jpg


----------



## y0aimee

a bokeh tree  =)


----------



## MrRamonG

Hawaiin Christmas bokeh


----------



## Stamp




----------



## DScience

Dao said:


> Happy Holidays!!



The best shot in here!


----------



## clbd39

Unfortunately I had my D40x with the 50mm f/1.8 when I took these and had my manual focus but I think it fits, not nearly as good as others in this thread, hopefully I get something meaningful for this year! 

Great thread too btw


----------



## Hooker771

Different.

merry christmas, I have a leaky faucet?

Not sure, but its my favorite pic to date I think


----------



## Rekd

Hooker771 said:


> Different.
> 
> merry christmas, I have a leaky faucet?
> 
> Not sure, but its my favorite pic to date I think



I'm in a room by myself and I said "Wow". 

Very original! And nicely done.


----------



## Olympus E300

I'm not getting any feedback on my posts so I assume that they aren't great.  Being noobish, I simply can't tell.  Regardless, I went and made a second attempt at this lastnight.  I think my second attempt is better than my first (posted further back in this thread).  As always, C&C welcomed and appreciated.  Brutal honesty works best...I'm a big boy!  LoL

Enjoy!


----------



## Josh66

My attempt at this:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

That's a nice shot Daniel!

O||||||||||||||||O's is 3 kinds of awesome, however!


----------



## Olympus E300

Bitter Jeweler said:


> That's a nice shot Daniel!
> 
> O||||||||||||||||O's is 3 kinds of awesome, however!


 
LoL...Excellent!  I've read many of your C&C's throughout this forum Bitter Jeweler...I respect your opinion.  After all, you certainly appear to have a handle on this whole photography thing!  Cheers!!


----------



## manicmike

Not sure how I feel about this one yet.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Olympus E300 said:


> LoL...Excellent! I've read many of your C&C's throughout this forum Bitter Jeweler...I respect your opinion. After all, you certainly appear to have a handle on this whole photography thing! Cheers!!


 
Heh, thanks. 
Just remember, I should be taken with a grain of salt! :thumbup:

I have been so busy...Didn't get a single "fall" photo, and now Xmas lights are passing me by all too quickly. :x


----------



## clbd39

*Rekd - *
No way! That is a ridiculous photo, great shot!
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/members/rekd.html


----------



## Derrel

Nikon 200/2 at f/2.8
Canon 70-200 2.8L IS-USM at f/2.8                                               










0
cat waiting for Santa, Dec 22 at 10:22 PM. 35mm f/2 AF-D wide open       

panning EOS 5D 24-105L at f/4.5 at 1/8 second ISO 125


----------



## Pugs

Olympus E300 said:


> I'm not getting any feedback on my posts so I assume that they aren't great. Being noobish, I simply can't tell. Regardless, I went and made a second attempt at this lastnight. I think my second attempt is better than my first (posted further back in this thread). As always, C&C welcomed and appreciated. Brutal honesty works best...I'm a big boy! LoL
> 
> Enjoy!


 
If you're talking about posts in this thread not getting C&C, that's because threads like this that are more theme oriented and open to everyone post pics in aren't really geared towards C&C.  If you want specific C&C, it's usually best to start a thread of your own with one to four pics (more than that and it's just difficult for folks to critique each one), state what you were trying to accomplish, and ask specific questions about what you want feedback on.  Questions like, "I was trying to do _this _with the composition, how did I do and how can I improve?" or "I'm trying for depth of field with aperture but I'm having trouble with exposure, how is the exposure here?" and so on...

For this particular pic, I love the composition; it fits the theme of the thread perfectly; your white balance looks off to me as the whites do not look white.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Pugs said:


> ...state what you were trying to accomplish, and ask specific questions about what you want feedback on. Questions like, "I was trying to do _this _with the composition, how did I do and how can I improve?" or "I'm trying for depth of field with aperture but I'm having trouble with exposure, how is the exposure here?" and so on...


 
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Scout




----------



## FrankLamont

I'd be posting, but I don't have Christmas lights up.


----------



## Olympus E300

Pugs said:


> If you're talking about posts in this thread not getting C&C, that's because threads like this that are more theme oriented and open to everyone post pics in aren't really geared towards C&C. If you want specific C&C, it's usually best to start a thread of your own with one to four pics (more than that and it's just difficult for folks to critique each one), state what you were trying to accomplish, and ask specific questions about what you want feedback on. Questions like, "I was trying to do _this _with the composition, how did I do and how can I improve?" or "I'm trying for depth of field with aperture but I'm having trouble with exposure, how is the exposure here?" and so on...
> 
> For this particular pic, I love the composition; it fits the theme of the thread perfectly; your white balance looks off to me as the whites do not look white.


 
Thanks for the input!! I appreciate you taking the time! Furthermore, I agree that the white balance seems a little wonky! Cheers!

- Dan


----------



## im_jacobf

Hey guys! So, I got inspired to try a bokeh, and messed around with my camera until I learned how this effect is actually achieved  This is my first bokeh ever, and I hope to take more because I like the effect. Let me know what you think.






Photo Information:
Camera - Olympus E-420
Lens - Zuiko Digital 14-42mm f3.5-f5.6

I forgot to take it in RAW format, so I don't remember the other settings =\ I'll do better next time


----------



## mommy22

Wow, I love the ornament pic. How you do it? What lens and settings if you remember?


----------



## K8-90

Some gorgeous pics on here!

I love this time of year! The lights, the music, the general "feeling" of it... I don't celebrate it myself (so I have nothing nearby to take shots of), but I still enjoy it! 

You've inspired me to go out and take some shots around the neighborhood.


----------



## Hooker771

Scout, WTF is that thing?  A mouse holding a star?  
Here is one more I tried today with some more colored beads.


----------



## mish

This is my first post, so please be gentle! This is a quick pic and I know it isn't great. The snowman is not in focus and it is too dark. It has bokeh though!


----------



## jeremycnwy

took this shoot at a Chick-fila infront of their christmas tree. it was my little cousin's second birthday party.


----------



## Wolverinepwnes

didn't put alot of time into it but here goes nothing:








cheers


----------



## im_jacobf

I really like the shape of the bokeh there Wolverinepwnes, pretty awesome.


----------



## Wolverinepwnes

thank you! the heart shape is not as smooth as i wanted them to come out


----------



## Flems




----------



## iBats

y0aimee said:


>



love these two shots especially the second even though it is a bit dark, still they are both really nice


----------



## mrredline05

My first post on here. I'm very new to the DSLR scene. Heres my christmas pictures. Were shot with a Sony Alpha A300


----------



## rocdoc

figured for this thread the bokeh itself should be the subject...


----------



## chris miss

Here are my attempts. I just played around and finally got some to work; others didn't work. I'm not sure how to get the effect all the time. These are from my 100mm lens. I tried with my 50mm but didn't succeed.

1. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




2. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




3. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Where can I find a good explanation on how to get this effect (consistently!)? I also think I need more lights on the tree. Thanks. I've enjoyed this thread.


----------



## Stosh




----------



## WimFoto

most excellent composition on this one christine.:thumbup:




> 3.


----------



## Pugs

chris miss said:


> Here are my attempts. I just played around and finally got some to work; others didn't work. I'm not sure how to get the effect all the time. These are from my 100mm lens. I tried with my 50mm but didn't succeed.
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where can I find a good explanation on how to get this effect (consistently!)? I also think I need more lights on the tree. Thanks. I've enjoyed this thread.


 
All three of these were shot with a very large aperture (f/4 on the first two, f/2.8 on the third) which is what you need to do to create the shallow depth of field needed for this type of shot. 

Basically, that's all there really is to it. Make sure that you're using an aperture thats wide open enough to blur the background significantly. Specular highlights (points of light) show the bokeh better than most anything else. Depth of field is what blurs the background. Bokeh is the quality of that blur; the softness of the blur, how round it is, how circular, etc...

So, put your camera in aperture priority mode.  Dial in a small f/stop number (wide aperture) and then focus on an object in front of and far enough away from the background for that background to blur out.  

I hope that helps!

In terms of these pics, the white balance appears off in all of them, otherwise you've got great compositions here!  Especially that third one!  I love it.  The composition is fantastic and catching the lights in the mirror was inspired!  I'd rotate it a bit so the lamp's stem is straight up and down, but you've done good work here!


----------



## chris miss

Thanks, WimFoto, for the compliment!

So, Pugs, if I were to use my 50mm f/1.8, I would keep the aperture nearly wide open. I did that, but the tree was a little too much in focus. I think the distance of the focal point (snowglobe or ornament) from the tree is important, too, right? I should have it a fair distance from the tree itself, otherwise the tree would be in focus, too. Correct? I guess it's a matter of shooting over and over until I find just the right spot.

I appreciate your explanation.


----------



## Pugs

chris miss said:


> Thanks, WimFoto, for the compliment!
> 
> So, Pugs, if I were to use my 50mm f/1.8, I would keep the aperture nearly wide open. I did that, but the tree was a little too much in focus. I think the distance of the focal point (snowglobe or ornament) from the tree is important, too, right? I should have it a fair distance from the tree itself, otherwise the tree would be in focus, too. Correct? I guess it's a matter of shooting over and over until I find just the right spot.
> 
> I appreciate your explanation.


Yep.  You need to have the point of focus far enough in front of the area that you want blurred out.  

You can use a depth of field calculator to help you figure it out.  Throw down some Google-fu on "depth of field calculator" and you'll find several online that you can use.  Basically you plug in your camera type, your lens focal length, how far away from the lens your point of focus is and it will tell you how far in front of that point of focus and how far behind that point of focus things will be in acceptable focus.  To achieve this kind of blurring, you have to make sure that the background is well outside that distance.  

In a case like the mirror, you count the distance to the mirror PLUS the distance from the mirror to the object being reflected.


----------



## chris miss

I just Googled it and found a place that gave me the following information for a 50mm f/1.8 lens. I arbitrarily chose the subject to be 5 feet from me and the aperture set at 2.8:

Subject distance  						5 ft 					 					 						 
						 					 					 						Depth of field  					 					 						 						Near limit  						4.85 ft 					 					 						 						Far limit  						5.16 ft 					 					 						 						Total  						0.32 ft 					 					 						  					 					 						 						In front of subject  						0.15 ft	(48%) 					 					 						 						Behind subject  						0.16 ft	(52%) 					 					 						  					 					 						Hyperfocal distance  						152.8 ft 					 					 						Circle of confusion  						0.019 mm 
So does this mean that the tree behind my focal point only needs to be more than 5.16' in front of me to obtain the bokeh effect? That doesn't seem to be much farther than the subject. Does that have to do with the fact that it's a 50mm lens? I won't be trying it tonight, but I will play around with it tomorrow. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## Pugs

That means that at 5.16 feet, the tree will start blurring out and the further past that you get, the more blurred it'll be.


----------



## shortpballer

Sorry its not really christmas themed, but I used christmas lights.


----------



## mommy22

Here's one that I took this afternoon, it seems to have a fair amount of noise and isn't as sharp as I had hoped but oh well-I'm still learning.


----------



## casualtimmy

hello everyone. first time posting. merry christmas! it's my favorite time of year.


----------



## mommy22

Oh, I just love this one. Talent!


----------



## mommy22

Maybe change the white balance a tad?


----------



## mommy22

What kind of flash are you using to get the lighting that way? I love it!


----------



## mommy22

That is a WILD pic!!!!!!!


----------



## Brieff




----------



## mommy22

Olympus E300 said:


> I'm not getting any feedback on my posts so I assume that they aren't great. Being noobish, I simply can't tell. Regardless, I went and made a second attempt at this lastnight. I think my second attempt is better than my first (posted further back in this thread). As always, C&C welcomed and appreciated. Brutal honesty works best...I'm a big boy! LoL
> 
> Enjoy!


 
Take my thoughts with a grain of salt as I am a newbie as well. Like I said in my last post to you, the wite balance seems a bit off. It may be just my screen, but the black looks as if it has a reddish tint to it and it seems a bit overexposed?


----------



## casualtimmy

really nice@brieff


----------



## shortpballer

mommy22 said:


> That is a WILD pic!!!!!!!



mommy - whos picture are you referring to.  If you want to ask questions, it would be helpful if you told us who's pic your referring to


----------



## K8-90

Brieff said:


>


  Very nice!


----------



## Foxman

BOKEH!!

A




B




C...Merry Christmas!


----------



## Pugs

mommy22 said:


> Here's one that I took this afternoon, it seems to have a fair amount of noise and isn't as sharp as I had hoped but oh well-I'm still learning.


 
And it's great that you're learning by doing.  The noise is because your ISO is at 1600.  I can't tell, but it looks hand-held so possibly a bit of the lack of sharpness is from camera-shake and a tripod might help.  

Your whitebalance is a bit off (look at that white parts of the snowglobe's base) and the pic is a little under-exposed.  

This is, however, a really great early effort as you're learning!  It is a bit of a tricky shot.  You're dealing with:

- Low light conditions
- Figuring out depth of field
- Controlling the aperture which then forces you to consider:
     - ISO
     - Shutter speed
- You have bright light sources in the background making the exposure trickier
- Multiple light sources affecting white balance temperature.  

I love that beginners are trying this and I love that there's so much for them to learn from it!

Great work everyone!


----------



## mishele




----------



## BuZzZeRkEr

Pretty cool thread!! It inspired me to snap one, and here it is!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

"I am the Juggernaut!"

Ok, but seriously why's the cute little guy gotta wear the helmet?


----------



## Iron Flatline

Specular rather than direct light, but in the spirit nonetheless:


----------



## BuZzZeRkEr

Bitter Jeweler said:


> "I am the Juggernaut!"
> 
> Ok, but seriously why's the cute little guy gotta wear the helmet?


 
Plagiocephaly.   He was a premie...long story but he only has to wear it for another month.


----------



## Olympus E300

BuZzZeRkEr said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am the Juggernaut!"
> 
> Ok, but seriously why's the cute little guy gotta wear the helmet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plagiocephaly. He was a premie...long story but he only has to wear it for another month.
Click to expand...

 
Poor littel fella! Happy to hear that he's losing the lid soon!


----------



## Scout




----------



## jackieclayton

great shots everyone!!! 

now i'm regretting being a scrooge this year... i didn't put up any xmas lights (its like 90 degrees outside, kinda hard to get in the xmas spirit).  maybe next year i can practice some xmas bokeh shots!


----------



## jackieclayton

Brieff said:


>



this is beautiful! love it!


----------



## PatrickCheung

:O my 365 of the day.  






yeah... my tree needs more lights!  but we normally don't put up lights... so i guess its an improvement :] 

a pretty bad photo... but merry christmas guys   favourite holiday of the year


----------



## dolphinstreet

Here's one I took tonight with my Olympus E-410 and 50mm F/2.0 lens.


----------



## Restomage

Here's a picture of a party I got hired to shoot. Cake in the foreground with a christmas tree in the back.


----------



## Olympus E300

I thought that I would give this another go tonight (I'm on a mission). My studio lights came in, so this time not having enough light wasn't a problem - I may have slightly over done it though. You be the judge. There was no PP done to this photo...It is how I shot it (minus the backboard and watermark). One thing that bugs me is the slight amount of "fluff" the snowman has in his broom (at the top). I might have to photoshop that out! LoL

C&C if you please!!


----------



## Rekd

Merry Newcastle Christmas.


----------



## dolphinstreet

Oh, I love Newcastle Ale! But that looks a bit fake though...


----------



## Rekd

Heh. Newp. Here's another that I don't like quite as well. (You drink this one.) These are straight from the camera with zero PP.


----------



## Olympus E300

dolphinstreet said:


> Oh, I love Newcastle Ale! But that looks a bit fake though...


 
I think its just how the light is reflecting around the edges of the bottle.  It does make it look a little cut and pasted but I like this photo none-the-less.  I've never tasted this beer myself but this picture makes we want to...LoL.

Cheers!
- Dan


----------



## FrankLamont

Not much bokeh, but it was merely from sunlight reflecting off a ball with glitter.


----------



## robertwsimpson

I took some sweater pics for a gag gift to my dad...


----------



## boogschd




----------



## Pugs

Olympus E300 said:


> dolphinstreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I love Newcastle Ale! But that looks a bit fake though...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its just how the light is reflecting around the edges of the bottle.  It does make it look a little cut and pasted but I like this photo none-the-less.  I've never tasted this beer myself but this picture makes we want to...LoL.
> 
> Cheers!
> - Dan
Click to expand...

In my opinion, what makes this shot different from the other pics in this thread is that it's shot at f/9.  The smaller aperture gives the "starburst" effect to the specular highlights as opposed to the "discs" that we're used to seeing and associating with "bokeh".  

The other version that Rekd posted is at f/3.5 and you get the disc-like bokeh.  

Personally, I like the f/9 version better.  It's a narrow enough depth of field to blur the tree just enough to make the in-focus bottle of Newcastle really stand out from the background.  The aperture is also small enough to give those starbursts off the lights.  

Shooting wide-open to get those discs is relatively easy.  Something like this is a little more unique, creative, and interesting to me.  Although, I've got to say that I LOVE the disc-like bokeh look, too and there are wonderful example of it in this thread!


----------



## robertwsimpson

Pugs said:


> Olympus E300 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dolphinstreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I love Newcastle Ale! But that looks a bit fake though...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its just how the light is reflecting around the edges of the bottle.  It does make it look a little cut and pasted but I like this photo none-the-less.  I've never tasted this beer myself but this picture makes we want to...LoL.
> 
> Cheers!
> - Dan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my opinion, what makes this shot different from the other pics in this thread is that it's shot at f/9.  The smaller aperture gives the "starburst" effect to the specular highlights as opposed to the "discs" that we're used to seeing and associating with "bokeh".
> 
> The other version that Rekd posted is at f/3.5 and you get the disc-like bokeh.
> 
> Personally, I like the f/9 version better.  It's a narrow enough depth of field to blur the tree just enough to make the in-focus bottle of Newcastle really stand out from the background.  The aperture is also small enough to give those starbursts off the lights.
> 
> Shooting wide-open to get those discs is relatively easy.  Something like this is a little more unique, creative, and interesting to me.  Although, I've got to say that I LOVE the disc-like bokeh look, too and there are wonderful example of it in this thread!
Click to expand...


shot at f/10:





you get the stars when the highlights are in focus... not just because you've got a smaller aperture.


also, here is one at f/1.8:


----------



## Pugs

Right!  In focus or near focus!  Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## robertwsimpson

Pugs said:


> Right!  In focus or near focus!  Thanks for the clarification!



I like the stars too


----------



## Olympus E300

This is a great thread!!  I'm learning so much here!!  Thanks folks!!  Keep up the really cool posts!!  There are some top notch photographers in here!!

CHEERS!!
Merry Christmas everyone!!
- Dan


----------



## Hill202

Pugs said:


> mommy22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one that I took this afternoon, it seems to have a fair amount of noise and isn't as sharp as I had hoped but oh well-I'm still learning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's great that you're learning by doing. The noise is because your ISO is at 1600. I can't tell, but it looks hand-held so possibly a bit of the lack of sharpness is from camera-shake and a tripod might help.
> 
> Your whitebalance is a bit off (look at that white parts of the snowglobe's base) and the pic is a little under-exposed.
> 
> This is, however, a really great early effort as you're learning! It is a bit of a tricky shot. You're dealing with:
> 
> - Low light conditions
> - Figuring out depth of field
> - Controlling the aperture which then forces you to consider:
> - ISO
> - Shutter speed
> - You have bright light sources in the background making the exposure trickier
> - Multiple light sources affecting white balance temperature.
> 
> I love that beginners are trying this and I love that there's so much for them to learn from it!
> 
> Great work everyone!
Click to expand...

 
If you are not a teacher of some kind, you should be. Your c&c is well worded, thoughtful and motivational. Very pleasant to read.


----------



## Pugs

Hill202 said:


> If you are not a teacher of some kind, you should be. Your c&c is well worded, thoughtful and motivational. Very pleasant to read.


 
Wow...

I'm truly humbled.  Thank you for that feedback.  I love teaching and it means a lot to me that you took the time to post that.  I've taught other subjects, but I only have been a TA for photography...  Maybe someday I'll actually get that MFA in Photography that I've been dreaming about and teach full-time!


----------



## inTempus

Blur!






...and bored.


----------



## keith foster

My 1st shot at this. Shot with my 50mm 1.4, I didn't realize how hard it was to do this. 
I noticed some of my bokeh are round but those at the top and bottom are cats eye. 
Thank you guys for sharing all your knowledge with us beginners.


----------



## FrankLamont

Who needs Christmas trees when you've got Bokeh trees?


----------



## EdelineM

DScience said:


> Hi everyone, and happy holidays!
> 
> I got the idea to start this thread after seeing several members posts. So this is going to be dedicated to bokeh christmas lights.
> 
> Go ahead and post em up everyone!




i just bought my Nikon D90 but I'm confused LOL
How to set the cam so I can shoot bokeh like this?


----------



## FrankLamont

Edeline, what you would be looking for is

a) points of light in the background, some distance away (preferably anywhere between 50cm to-) 
b) telephoto~ lens (ie, to compress background/foreground)


----------



## Pugs

Telephoto not necessary.  Wide aperture for shallow depth of field is pretty much the main thing here.  

If you read through the thread, there's several posts from me and folks more knowledgeable than I on how to do it.  

As a starting point, set your camera to Aperture Priority mode and dial in as small an f/stop number as you can and start playing with the distance between your subject and the lights in the background.


----------



## TJ K




----------



## LateModelSedan




----------



## FrankLamont

Pugs said:


> Telephoto not necessary.  Wide aperture for shallow depth of field is pretty much the main thing here.


Correct but also incorrect... it's not necessary, but it helps - a _lot_.

With a wide angle, the depth of field will gradually drop to unfocused, and also wider; whereas a telephoto (note I said 'telephoto~', meaning thereabouts, not necessarily a 200mm or even 100mm... relatively, ie, also 50mm +) will 'flatten' the image, draw the bokeh closer (thus 'bigger' in relation to the eye), and the DOF will drop off faster and it's narrower.


----------



## Pugs

FriedChicken said:


> Pugs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telephoto not necessary.  Wide aperture for shallow depth of field is pretty much the main thing here.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct but also incorrect... it's not necessary, but it helps - a _lot_.
> 
> With a wide angle, the depth of field will gradually drop to unfocused, and also wider; whereas a telephoto (note I said 'telephoto~', meaning thereabouts, not necessarily a 200mm or even 100mm... relatively, ie, also 50mm +) will 'flatten' the image, draw the bokeh closer (thus 'bigger' in relation to the eye), and the DOF will drop off faster and it's narrower.
Click to expand...

Not incorrect at all.  You said "telephoto~" in response to a beginner's question.  You told the new photographer that s/he was "looking for" a "telephoto~" lens.  No mention of depth of field.  No mention of aperture.  

I was merely correcting wrong information.  The new photographer is NOT "looking for" a "telephoto~" lens.


----------



## FrankLamont

Pugs said:


> FriedChicken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pugs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telephoto not necessary.  Wide aperture for shallow depth of field is pretty much the main thing here.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct but also incorrect... it's not necessary, but it helps - a _lot_.
> 
> With a wide angle, the depth of field will gradually drop to unfocused, and also wider; whereas a telephoto (note I said 'telephoto~', meaning thereabouts, not necessarily a 200mm or even 100mm... relatively, ie, also 50mm +) will 'flatten' the image, draw the bokeh closer (thus 'bigger' in relation to the eye), and the DOF will drop off faster and it's narrower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not incorrect at all.  You said "telephoto~" in response to a beginner's question.  You told the new photographer that s/he was "looking for" a "telephoto~" lens.  No mention of depth of field.  No mention of aperture.
> 
> I was merely correcting wrong information.  The new photographer is NOT "looking for" a "telephoto~" lens.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, I didn't make it clear: I assumed that aperture and shutter speed, she already knew but still could not make it. It was incorrect to say that telephoto is necessary; strictly speaking, it's not, but it's very hard to get the type of bokeh pictured in her quoted post with a wide angle.

But relax, mate; it's Christmas Day - keep the spirits up!


----------



## MrRamonG

Got my wife a Coolpix.


----------



## Turbo




----------



## Jon0807

My daughter's first Christmas


----------



## Craig G




----------



## Olympus E300

Turbo said:


>



Good photo but that sure is one creepy looking santa!!  LoL.

Cheers!!
- Dan


----------



## EdelineM

aww thank you for the tips.. i will try mine soon


----------



## thebeatles

Does day after christmas bokeh count?


----------



## ottor




----------



## Turbo

Olympus E300 said:


> Good photo but that sure is one creepy looking santa!!  LoL.
> 
> Cheers!!
> - Dan



Yes it is... I don't want to know why he's looking down and grinning.


----------



## kundalini




----------



## Pugs

thebeatles said:


> Does day after christmas bokeh count?


Not my thread, but in my book, if it looks this good... HELLZ YEAH it counts!

GORGEOUS PIC!


----------



## Pugs

ottor said:


>


Oh, WOW!  This is another INCREDIBLE PIC!


----------



## SushiWarrior

(focus is pretty soft on this one)

Happy holidays folks!


----------



## Hooker771

Here are some new ones from the week














http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2783/4220046987_112cdf425a.jpg


----------



## Craig G

Hooker, that second one is great.


----------



## mishele

Yes, I know my lens was dirty..........


----------



## kundalini




----------



## jubb




----------



## thebeatles

Pugs said:


> thebeatles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does day after christmas bokeh count?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not my thread, but in my book, if it looks this good... HELLZ YEAH it counts!
> 
> GORGEOUS PIC!
Click to expand...


Thanks


----------



## NateS




----------



## mJs




----------



## kachung

Christmas decorations were coming down today, but thought I'd try bokeh for the first time... here's my take.


----------



## matt62485

a lil different stroke here, but Holiday Wine!  whatcha think?


----------



## dolphinstreet

I like that wine pic! Nice.


----------



## johngpt

Our Christmas reindeer sniffing for bokeh berries...


----------



## matt62485

^ lol


----------



## boomer

Testing out my new Nikon 85mm @ f/1.8! Just got it from the UPS man a few hours ago!


----------



## matt62485

from one alcoholic beverage to another!  cool shots.  wish that one cluster of lights wasn't so gathered though!


----------



## boomer

matt62485 said:


> from one alcoholic beverage to another!  cool shots.  wish that one cluster of lights wasn't so gathered though!



I agree! They are a little clustered. It's a small tree, so i may try to move it and try something a little different.


----------



## Casshew

matt62485 said:


> a lil different stroke here, but Holiday Wine!  whatcha think?




Now that's my kind of Christmas lights!


----------



## Casshew




----------



## BAmereihn




----------



## boomer

Here's a different shot i got over my parents house.


----------



## Psycho

bokehtastic!






That dripping tap shot is amazing btw


----------



## johngpt

boomer said:


> Here's a different shot i got over my parents house.



Outstanding!


----------



## Layspeed

Some very nice photos in this thread.  I've been meaning to post one but have been busy.  This is the first time I've ever tried Bokeh, it's fun!


----------



## johngpt

Well, one more before we get too out of season. 

Our Christmas cactus.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler




----------



## ajandnickysmom




----------



## ph0enix

Does this count?


----------



## misstwinklytoes

christmasdez by jenangeljen, on Flickr

I've been waiting on experimenting with Christmas light bokeh since I got my camera in June! Expect more from me here!


----------



## Darkhunter139

I remember this thread! Ill try some more this year once the lights go up.


----------



## johngpt

LOL, I'm glad misstwinklytoes reminded us!


----------



## misstwinklytoes

someone else reminded me!


----------



## bluetibby1

I have been reading this thread for about an hour, didn't notice the post dates til y'all said something. Haha. Talked the wife into pulling all the fall stuff down to put up lights. Guess I'll wait a couple days. Man am I slow. 
blue


----------



## robertwsimpson

oh dang, time to get some new christmas light bokeh pics from this year!


----------



## RauschPhotography




----------



## RalphP13

My lights are up so I figured I give it a go:







Ralph


----------



## misstwinklytoes

Wow!  What were your settings??


----------



## Geaux

Exif data is: 
Focal Length: 105.0mm (35mm equivalent: 157mm)
Aperture: f/3.5
Exposure Time: 0.100 s (1/10)
ISO equiv: 640


IMPRESSIVE SHOT!


----------



## RalphP13

Thanks.
Glad you like it.


Ralph


----------

