Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well they called features on the watch face "complications" so why not just run with bokeh?
One problem with the use of the term 'Bokeh' is that it actually refers to "the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in the out-of-focus parts"* not the presence or even degree of background blurring. If you wanted to use the correct technical term for the effect it tries to simulate, it should be called "Shallow DOF".

* Quoting Wikipedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: thettareddast
One problem with the use of the term 'Bokeh' is that it actually refers to "the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in the out-of-focus parts"* not the presence or even degree of background blurring. If you wanted to use the correct technical term for the effect it tries to simulate, it should be called "Shallow DOF".

* Quoting Wikipedia

I hear you. Even with SLR, you need a fairly decent lens with smooth aperture to get the effect. But since the complications really aren't real, why not? :D Portrait doesn't make any sense at all.
 
Maybe that is the photographer in me speaking, but when I hear the word 'portrait' I immediately think of an image of a person (and similarly for 'landscape', I think of an actual landscape) and I only interpret it to mean the orientation of a non-square rectangle if it is used together with the word 'orientation' (or similar).
portraitgallery1.jpg
 
Best comment I've seen in a long time.
[doublepost=1474586237][/doublepost]
I hear you. Even with SLR, you need a fairly decent lens with smooth aperture to get the effect. But since the complications really aren't real, why not? :D Portrait doesn't make any sense at all.
I think Portrait works very well, in fact when they revealed the name it immediately felt like a great fit. All other suggestions in this thread don't pass the 'keep it simple, stupid' test.
 
All dslr cameras cannot show live depth of field in the view finder or the display screen. I know that for a fact because my cannon dslr I had about 5 years ago couldn't do it. Maybe there are a few dslr cameras on the market now that can do it live on the display screen, I don't know because I haven't seen any.

But I do believe Apple have the right to brag since this is a huge feat. This is a game changer in cellphone photography. Now add two FaceTime HD cameras to the front and give us this feature for selfie portraits and it will change the game again.

My Canon 6D, 5d3, & 70D all do
 
I hear you. Even with SLR, you need a fairly decent lens with smooth aperture to get the effect. But since the complications really aren't real, why not? :D Portrait doesn't make any sense at all.

This is a photo I took in Philadelphia that has both Bokeh (in the background on the trees) and a separated background. Took it in 2004 with a SLR with a, I think 125mm zoom lense).

Small_photo_Cim.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Teon
This is a photo I took in Philadelphia that has both Bokeh (in the background on the trees) and a separated background. Took it in 2004 with a SLR with a, I think 125mm zoom lense).
bokeh is not a binary status , of whether you have it or dont have it. when discussing bokeh it is a matter of what is the quality of bokeh -- smooth or nervous, pleasant or harsh, etc.... aperture blades affect the balls (see top right) in their shape and consistency and definition. round ones with single-defined edges are considered good bokeh.


its training existing staff to take photos as a replacement for the photo staff. its not hiring new staff with new equipment for the sole purpose of taking photos. further, print journalism has never been about photo quality. its about turnaround time. context of original comment was about commercial photography: advertising, product, portraiture, fashion, events, etc...... what most of paid photography is
 
its training existing staff to take photos as a replacement for the photo staff. its not hiring new staff with new equipment for the sole purpose of taking photos. further, print journalism has never been about photo quality. its about turnaround time. context of original comment was about commercial photography: advertising, product, portraiture, fashion, events, etc...... what most of paid photography is
Holy cow, captain literal. I assume the staff they trained in iPhone photography were then paid for their work in iPhone photography, no? And if you think print journalism has never been about quality then you're sorely mistaken. Of course expediency is important as well, but the photos are what grab people's attention and get them to read the news. The Sun Times previously had a Pullitzer Prize winning photographer on staff. I'm guessing he didn't win it for his punctuality.
 
Holy cow, captain literal. I assume the staff they trained in iPhone photography were then paid for their work in iPhone photography, no? And if you think print journalism has never been about quality then you're sorely mistaken. Of course expediency is important as well, but the photos are what grab people's attention and get them to read the news. The Sun Times previously had a Pullitzer Prize winning photographer on staff. I'm guessing he didn't win it for his punctuality.

Holy cows leaping in logic. You realize that prize is awarded ONLY to photographers in the journalism field, not those working in fine arts.

So some publishing bodies or other news media institution MUST have pulitzer winners.

A news media institution having a pulitzer winning photographer does not prove that aesthetic and technical qualities are concentrated in the news media field.

It's like saying the most improved basketball player every year, only plays in the NBA, because the NBA gives away the m.i.p. award.

Nobody cares about the minnesota gazette staffer taking photos of a house fire....

Circling back to the point, when you are Nike/Rolex/Coca Cola/Gucci/Lufthansa/Hollywood, and throwing $$$$$$ at photographers to make posters and print ads and promote your products and services and people by having them *look* the best way possible..... are those photographers using iPhones?
 
Holy cows leaping in logic. You realize that prize is awarded ONLY to photographers in the journalism field, not those working in fine arts.

So some publishing bodies or other news media institution MUST have pulitzer winners.

A news media institution having a pulitzer winning photographer does not prove that aesthetic and technical qualities are concentrated in the news media field.

It's like saying the most improved basketball player every year, only plays in the NBA, because the NBA gives away the m.i.p. award.

Nobody cares about the minnesota gazette staffer taking photos of a house fire....

Circling back to the point, when you are Nike/Rolex/Coca Cola/Gucci/Lufthansa/Hollywood, and throwing $$$$$$ at photographers to make posters and print ads and promote your products and services and people by having them *look* the best way possible..... are those photographers using iPhones?
How are you arguing so seriously about this? I said what I said in jest. By no means was I literally giving someone proof they could make a serious living via iPhone photography. A comment was made - it reminded me of the time the second largest paper in Chicago fired their photography staff and trained their employees in iPhone photography - so I shared a story. But by all means, go ahead and continue your quest to debunk forum posts which you feel aren't grounded in enough reality. Who needs humor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.