cahyman

LOL. I had to stop by and agree with you on bokeh. It's not just little blurry round points of light! I also have to laugh at "Kyricom's" comment on Wikipedia, which has been proven time and again to be way more accurate than the "official" encyclopedias, which are usually shamefully out of date for one thing. How can they compete with millions of authors updating the thing in real time? A: They can't.

Welcome to pxleyes! It looks like, from the little I've seen so far, that you have some great talent to share. I can't wait to see more. As far as bokeh goes, notice how many times your own definition refers to points of light. Of course there are always people who expand definitions of stuff, but I (just personally) would never, ever... EVER use wikipedia as a legitimate source for anything. But that's besides the point. The theme supplied a specific link to what was considered bokeh for the purposes of this contest... they seem like pretty standard, accepted types. Best of luck to you. Keep entering. I like your stuff (but no matter how good it is, it has to meet the theme or it will be removed).

Welcome to pxleyes! It looks like, from the little I've seen so far, that you have some great talent to share. I can't wait to see more. As far as bokeh goes, notice how many times your own definition refers to points of light. Of course there are always people who expand definitions of stuff, but I (just personally) would never, ever... EVER use wikipedia as a legitimate source for anything. But that's besides the point. The theme supplied a specific link to what was considered bokeh for the purposes of this contest... they seem like pretty standard, accepted types. Best of luck to you. Keep entering. I like your stuff (but no matter how good it is, it has to meet the theme or it will be removed).