Here are some shots I took trying to work some bokeh into the shots. It has been a pretty steep learning curve since I bought this camera and finding sites like this. I have come to understand the need to put as much thought into the background and use of bokeh as the main subject.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2906003210_ee344aa701_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/2906001908_531648e834_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/2906001356_d4b8673e08_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/2906000948_0efb16779c_b.jpg

In a recent lens review Carl made a statement that hit home with me:
He said "the bokeh is good (not just depth of field most get confused with bokeh)"

I'm one of those people who think that bokeh is just new term used to describe depth of field.
I wonder if someone can show me a photo that shows good or bad bokeh and then explain how this is different from depth of field, I would appreciate it.

I'm one of the many people who just don't get it.

Dave

Hi all,

Here are two images I took last month with the A300 and Minolta 70-210mm 'Beercan' lens. These were taken with the camera low down to the ground on a tripod, as such I made good use of the live view on the A300.

I have processed them lightly in Aperture with the main alterations being the crop in the first image with a slight reduction in vibrancy and a small vignette added. The last image is pretty much a straight conversion.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2651176610_cb7c35303a_o.jpg