>>4506421
I seriously fucking hate bokeh and most photos improve without it.
An absolute shame it is so fucking dominant in photography.

I’m not a bitter, angsty milennial with yellow fever and a retro japan fetish - I’m a chad ‘06 zoomer that played football and fucked white girls - so a blurry crispy smartphone pic sprinkled with AI is just that. Kinda shit.

Gen Z chads we f1.2n shit up

Was this taken in a phone?

>>4506421
what a fucking shit photo, nothing about it is nice

File: mar2024_a04_secretarycolumn.jpg (107.2 KB)

Agreed, I like bokeh for its own sake but studio portraits always look better than bokeh'd out snaps taken on the street.

File: IMG_6496.gif (1.3 MB)

>>4506421
Why is /p/ so full of contrarian boomers?

>>4506421
so i fap to this of model called lilmochidoll and she uses a camera sometimes instead of a phone and i think the phone pictures and videos are actually hotter. like she looks more pretty in the phone stuff

>>4506421
cameras are better than phones at high dof too but most gearfags aren't talented enough to make use of it

>>4506503
people jerk off to cartoon dogs with neon blue fur and anime “people” that look like gray aliens wearing wigs. that is not the measure of quality you think it is. its literally the opposite.

did you know your frontal lobes partially turn off when you’re masturbating?

>>4506643
i dont think i have cum to her photos. i just do duplicates removal and organization and so i look at photos and videos a lot

>>4506421
>bokeh
You're supposed to blur out the background not her

>>4506421
Most people do mock the bokeh thing, as it's pretty much "baby's first f1.4 lens" since people always do portraits as wide open as possible because they think DOF looks more professional. My guess is that smartphones lacking that for so long is probably the result, as people think a lack of blur looks too much like phones.

That OP image also looks absolutely disgusting in every possible way.

Nah OP is kinda right. Adding bokeh to something like this photo adds an element of intervention from the photographer that takes away from the essence of the scene. The picture as is conveys a better sense the emotions and "vibe" better than a staged photograph.

>>4511621
The girl is caked in so much greasy makeup that she looks AI, so any bokeh would just make it look even more fake at that point.

>>4511622
I agree that any more bokeh would ruin it. It already straddles the line between real and digital, which I think is part of the appeal.

>>4506421
Bokeh is for plebs who can’t create a nice background.

>>4511621
It would make it bad because its a soulless subject and bokeh is reserved for emphasizing the dreamlike qualities of the beautiful

It would be like drawing sparkly pink haze and cheery songbirds around a pile of garbage in india

>>4506421
hitting focus is still easier on a camera and you can use flashes to make portraits better

File: bear photographer.jpg (154.9 KB)

>>4506421
You're supposed to focus on the subject, not the background, retard

>>4506421
this looks terrible

>>4506503
>lilmochidoll
sure but in most phone camera stuff shes indoors and in warmer lighting

Bokeh is marketing prooaganda to make you think low f-stops are bright AND offer "better" bokeh (two positives) instead of bright BUT limit depth of field (a trade off you have to intelligently deal with).

>>4506421
bokeh is censorship. you use it to blur out ugly backgrounds. if you have a nice setting for your model, you don't need it. it's fairly important if you're shooting in public and there's a bunch of randoms in the background of your photo, you dont really want those to be in focus.

>>4512721
>bokeh is censorship.
never heard that one before

>>4512795
moreso shallow DOF i should say. why would you blur something that you wanted to see?

>>4512721
>>4512454
>applying poorfaggot cope to the arts
Get a job homie

>>4506516
Help a brotha out with the sauce on this