Danbooru

Tag Implication: depth_of_field -> blurry

Posted under General

glasnost

Fred1515 said:
There are pics in depth_of_field (like post #500871) that aren't blurry at all, so they should be kept separate.

I think posts like that be in foreshortening alone, not depth_of_field. In photography, depth of field is basically defined as "the area of a picture which isn't blurry", so using it on pictures without a blurry region strikes me as strange.

So yeah, I support this implication. More importantly, depth_of_field needs a wiki.

Reply
Fred1515

I see, you're quite right.

It seems other people apart from me had the wrong idea about this, there seem to be quite a few posts that don't have the correct tag. Some cleanup may be necessary before an implication is put in place.

In any case, I made a depth_of_field wiki and added some things to the foreshortening wiki, mainly examples to make it clear which tag should be used when. Check them out in case anything needs to be added or clarified.

Updated

Reply
Dogenzaka

Bokeh is a different type of blur, it seems. Regular blur can happen with objects and whatever, but bokeh happens with light fragments in the background, that when blurred, form a octagonal shape. A lot of photographers do it on purpose, and it looks awesome.

Updated

Reply
glasnost

Dogenzaka said:
Bokeh is a different type of blur, it seems. Regular blur can happen with objects and whatever, but bokeh happens with light fragments in the background, that when blurred, form a octagonal shape. A lot of photographers do it on purpose, and it looks awesome.

Actually, the shape of the bokeh varies depending on the setup of the camera. Basically, an out-of-focus point of light entering the lens will exit the lens as a blur spot with a shape corresponding to the shape of the lens. Ordinarily, this would be a uniform circle, but the shape of the aperture blades (and other stuff in between the aperture and the lens in a camera) changes the shape of the light that hits the lens. So in a catadioptric system, where light hits two mirrors between the time it enters the aperture and the time it hits the lens, one of which is positioned smack in between the aperture and the lens, the bokeh is doughnut-shaped.

So to get back to tagging, I'm certain I've seen some drawings with simulated bokeh (though I can't find them now, naturally), so it should definitely be a tag. It should probably imply depth_of_field, since bokeh appears because of the unfocused lens effect that depth_of_field describes.

Reply
1