34:
247:
Bokeh isn't typically something the user can control, it depends on the optics of the lens, specifically, the shape and quantity of the aperture blades. The size of the aperture can sometimes be used to further refine the bokeh, but it's the lens more than anything. Anyway, blown highlights and the
184:
Thegreenj is right, but he's arguing semantics. It would have been more correct to say something like "In this particular photo, use of a wide aperture has created a scene with a small depth of field which is visually pleasing and has nice bokeh" or something. The wide aperture hasn't "created" the
52:
Heterochromia of the irides is a very beautiful natural occurrence. In this cat, it is particularly striking since it is complete heterochromia. In this particular photo, use of a small depth of field to create
171:) as in good or bad, not more or less. Lenses have good bokeh or bad bokeh depending on how pleasing the blur is (it's subjective). How much blur depends on DOF and perspective, not bokeh.
416:
421:
248:
eyes look very fake. I've seen odd eye cats and they look like regular eyes, not overly bright and saturated. I think some photoshopping involved.
17:
411:
138:
Low technical quality. BTW, you can't "create" bokeh; bokeh is a quality, not an aspect of a picture. You can create a shallow DOF, though.
207:
Thanks guys - so a proper sentence would be "That lens has nice bokeh," meaning it generates photos with pleasing differential focus?
126:
253:
123:
194:
397:
384:
359:
342:
323:
295:
280:
257:
227:
214:
198:
175:
158:
142:
130:
106:
90:
249:
355:
120:
86:
319:
351:
380:
211:
155:
338:
115:
272:
191:
82:
307:
103:
291:
224:
172:
139:
405:
376:
208:
152:
394:
332:
41:
368:
185:
bokeh, it has just allowed the bokeh that the lens innately produces to be seen.
168:
266:
186:
304:
99:
151:
What does it mean that one can't create a quality? Please use in a sentence.
33:
71:
54:
63:
167:
As in bokeh isn't a physical thing. Bokeh is quality (
44:, or a cat with complete heterochromia of the irides.
98:, technical problems: blown highlights, grainy. --
72:http://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Jorgebarrios
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
32:
114:- cat's face completely blown, noisy. —
417:Featured picture nominations/June 2008
288:- low technical quality - per Janke.
64:http://en.wikipedia.org/Heterochromia
7:
265:per Janke, low technical quality. —
422:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
369:Valued image candidate on Commons
169:definition 3, not definition 1
60:Articles this image appears in
1:
412:Featured picture nominations
438:
57:is very visually pleasing.
398:03:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
385:22:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
360:18:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
343:06:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
324:01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
303:for reasons set forth by
296:22:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
281:11:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
258:11:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
228:20:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
215:20:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
199:11:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
176:03:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
159:23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
143:22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
131:19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
107:17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
91:16:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
331:Cat's fur is overblown.
45:
367:This could be a good
36:
250:Capital photographer
79:Support as nominator
350:The fur is blown.
46:
371:within the scope
197:
28:Heterochromia Cat
429:
335:
316:
294:
189:
437:
436:
432:
431:
430:
428:
427:
426:
402:
401:
333:
315:
308:
289:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
435:
433:
425:
424:
419:
414:
404:
403:
391:Not promoted
388:
387:
362:
352:Elephantissimo
345:
326:
313:
298:
283:
260:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
218:
217:
202:
201:
179:
178:
162:
161:
146:
145:
133:
109:
93:
75:
74:
69:
66:
61:
58:
50:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
434:
423:
420:
418:
415:
413:
410:
409:
407:
400:
399:
396:
392:
386:
382:
378:
374:
373:Heterochromia
370:
366:
363:
361:
357:
353:
349:
346:
344:
340:
336:
330:
327:
325:
321:
317:
311:
306:
302:
299:
297:
293:
287:
284:
282:
279:
276:
275:
271:
268:
264:
261:
259:
255:
251:
246:
243:
242:
229:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
216:
213:
210:
206:
205:
204:
203:
200:
196:
193:
188:
183:
182:
181:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
165:
164:
163:
160:
157:
154:
150:
149:
148:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
132:
129:
128:
125:
122:
117:
113:
110:
108:
105:
101:
97:
94:
92:
88:
84:
80:
77:
76:
73:
70:
67:
65:
62:
59:
56:
51:
48:
47:
43:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
390:
389:
372:
364:
347:
328:
309:
300:
285:
277:
273:
269:
262:
244:
135:
119:
116:Vanderdecken
111:
95:
78:
42:odd-eyed cat
37:
27:
83:QueenStupid
406:Categories
274:discussion
195:(Contribs)
292:paranomia
225:Thegreenj
173:Thegreenj
140:Thegreenj
377:Slaunger
38:Original
395:John254
365:Comment
334:¢rassic
68:Creator
348:Oppose
329:Oppose
310:smooth
301:Oppose
286:Oppose
267:αἰτίας
263:Oppose
245:Oppose
212:Bivort
192:(Talk)
187:Diliff
156:Bivort
136:Oppose
112:Oppose
96:Oppose
49:Reason
375:. --
305:Janke
223:Yes.
100:Janke
55:bokeh
40:- An
16:<
393:. --
381:talk
356:talk
339:talk
320:talk
254:talk
104:Talk
87:talk
337:! (
408::
383:)
358:)
341:)
322:)
312:00
256:)
209:de
190:|
153:de
118:∴
102:|
89:)
81:--
379:(
354:(
318:(
314:7
290:—
278:•
270:•
252:(
127:φ
124:ξ
121:∫
85:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
