From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sorry, perhaps my dialect fooled you. What that means in > Saskatchewanese is that it is far from being a point source. > Or, in other words, it is saying it is not only not a point > source, but it is not a point source by a large amount.
oh. > Is bokeh something to be measured from an out of focus point > source? I always thought it was from out of focus objects. If it > is supposed to be from a point source, I might try the test > again. You are right, of course. Yet, I've noted that there appears to be a relationship between the distribution of light across the out of focus aperature images and bokeh as I like it. If the light is solid in the center and appears to taper off at the edges, the Bokeh from the lens appears smooth and pleasing to me. On the other hand, if the illumination is stronger at the edges and thinner in the middle, the Bokeh appears harsh to me - OOF lines seem to double a little. Twigs, vegetation look disturbing. I Suspect (and believed I have observed) that a lens with excellent background bokeh may have sucky foreground bokeh, but I have done no tests and have no evidence. Regards, Bob... -------------------- "Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. - Samuel Adams, 1771 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
