FJR1 wrote:
I hesitate to beat a dead horse, but the Petapixel article about bokeh makes some valid points, and the authors' qualitative study, though imperfect, provides some decent insight. Understand that the survey respondents were non-photographers and the authors indicate that their study was not totally "scientific." However, their 50+ sample size, for a qualitative study, was big enough based on "saturation" theory.
The most widely used principle for determining sample size and evaluating its sufficiency in a qualitative study is that of saturation. The notion of saturation originates in grounded theory – a qualitative methodological approach explicitly concerned with empirically-derived theory development – and is inextricably linked to theoretical sampling. Theoretical sampling describes an iterative process of data collection, data analysis and theory development whereby data collection is governed by emerging theory (saturation) rather than predefined characteristics of the studied population.
In a nutshell, the two authors concluded that bokeh was not a huge issue to non-photographers based on their (the non-photographers') responses skewed heavily toward their preferences for photos of a smaller (slower) aperture. Individuals may disagree, but the article provided some valid and fairly reliable food for thought.
This is a photography forum and I have it on good authority the "horse" never dies. All opinions and data welcome.
This thread caused me to check out the Petapixel article about bokeh too. I can't comment on the validity of the approach used to collect the data, but seems like you can and you raise some interesting point(s)
OTOH, one of the user comments to the same article also caught my attention:
"...The average person doesn't care about 90% of what "photographers" do. Bokeh is only one part. They also don't care about dynamic range, color science, or any of that other garbage. All that matters is what a photo communicates. Doesn't matter if it's 6MP, 50MP, a 4k still, or 35mm film. When photographers focus on the result they want, they [get] a good photo. That's how it always is."
But I must admit, I always get a thrill all over again, each time when I hear comments about my images like " I really like that blurry background" or my M10 usually gets this kind of response, "what camera did you use to take that picture with?"
My point being that I think non photographers some times see things in an image that they like or that catches their attention or appears to be unusually pleasing but they don't really know what it is or how it got there...but we do
FJR1 wrote:
I hesitate to beat a dead horse, but the Petapixel article about bokeh makes some valid points, and the authors' qualitative study, though imperfect, provides some decent insight. Understand that the survey respondents were non-photographers and the authors indicate that their study was not totally "scientific." However, their 50+ sample size, for a qualitative study, was big enough based on "saturation" theory.
The most widely used principle for determining sample size and evaluating its sufficiency in a qualitative study is that of saturation. The notion of saturation originates in grounded theory – a qualitative methodological approach explicitly concerned with empirically-derived theory development – and is inextricably linked to theoretical sampling. Theoretical sampling describes an iterative process of data collection, data analysis and theory development whereby data collection is governed by emerging theory (saturation) rather than predefined characteristics of the studied population.
In a nutshell, the two authors concluded that bokeh was not a huge issue to non-photographers based on their (the non-photographers') responses skewed heavily toward their preferences for photos of a smaller (slower) aperture. Individuals may disagree, but the article provided some valid and fairly reliable food for thought.
This is a photography forum and I have it on good authority the "horse" never dies. All opinions and data welcome.
This thread caused me to check out the Petapixel article about bokeh too. I can't comment on the validity of the approach used to collect the data, but seems like you can and you raise some interesting point(s)
OTOH, one of the user comments to the same article also caught my attention:
"...The average person doesn't care about 90% of what "photographers" do. Bokeh is only one part. They also don't care about dynamic range, color science, or any of that other garbage. All that matters is what a photo communicates. Doesn't matter if it's 6MP, 50MP, a 4k still, or 35mm film. When photographers focus on the result they want, they [get] a good photo. That's how it always is."
But I must admit, I always get a thrill all over again, each time when I hear comments about my images like " I really like that blurry background" or my M10 usually gets this kind of response "what camera did you use to take that picture with?"
My point being that I think non photographers some times see things in an image that they like or that catches their attention or appears to be unusually pleasing but they don't really know what it is or how it got there...but we do
Dec 08, 2020 at 10:53 AM
Previous versions of LBJ2's message #15427715 « Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399) »
