View Full Version : Bokeh!!
SolaresLarrave
01-22-2004, 11:55
Let's share nice cases of bokeh! One thing: it's nice when it occurs unexpectedly, like here (Canonet, of course, on TCN400 film):
With this shot I was trying out a new Voigtlander 75mm on my M2... It was a dreary wet day and I was able to shoot wide open at f/2.5, and focused fairly close-up. So, primarily a test...
pshinkaw
12-17-2004, 09:37
I think this Bokeh (any Bokeh?) here is a distraction, but I was struck by how almost perfectly round it is.
This is a Jupiter-8 on a Zorki-4, 1/30@f2.8 with a Philips electronic flash set at 1/16 power. Ancient Panatomic-X I've had since 1984 developed in D-76. Sorry about the dust spots.
-Paul
That Guy
12-17-2004, 11:42
WOW! Great one, Doug! Really nice bokeh on that Heliar.
I may be wrong, but wouldn't the out of focus points of light for any lens used wide open be perfectly round since the iris blades are fully retracted. f2.8 would be wide open for this lens, yes?
It depends on aberation correction.
My Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.5 wide open renders OOF highlights in the zones as funky looking egg-shapes (getting quite circular at f/2.8), pointing away from the center of the frame. I'll try to post an example. Lotsa aperture blades (or round ones) is only one component of bokeh.
bmattock
12-17-2004, 12:06
My Bokeh Kitty...
Brian Sweeney
12-17-2004, 13:13
Bill, what lens did you use? Wide-open I take it!
The background is so smooth that it looks looks like a backdrop!
Brian Sweeney
12-17-2004, 13:15
Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5, Wide-Open and Closest Focus.
bmattock
12-17-2004, 13:22
Originally posted by Brian Sweeney
Bill, what lens did you use? Wide-open I take it!
The background is so smooth that it looks looks like a backdrop!
The lens is a Canon FL 135mm f2.5, wide open as you suspected. Sorry, an SLR! The background is a dirty glass window opening onto my backyard - you really can't tell, though, fortunately.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
pshinkaw
12-17-2004, 13:27
FrankS:
The Jupiter 9 is an f2.0 lens. It has lot of iris blades though.
-Paul
That Guy
12-17-2004, 13:40
Bokeh defined (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm)
I like this explanation.
SolaresLarrave
12-17-2004, 13:43
Nice to see that one's threads can come back full of vim and vigor! :)
jon_flanders
12-17-2004, 17:26
Posted this one in the gallery. I named the file bokeh-balls.jpg.
Fed 2 with Industar 2.8.
All bokeh in this shot because I miss the focus :) Have to be careful next time with Color-Heliar 75/2.5 close up and wide open.
Hmmm, Jon; "bokeh-balls"... cute play on words, if it refers to fullerenes. :)
Originally posted by pshinkaw Ancient Panatomic-X I've had since 1984 developed in D-76.
-Paul
Panatomic-X! ASA/ISO 32 IIRC. The first B&W film I ever used in 35mm. I was in the Philippines at the time and the light was so bright most of the time that I went with slow film. I used it in my Fujica-V2, a rangefinder camera with a fixed 45mm f/1.8 lens that gave extremely sharp images. I'm amazed that anyone still has it in useable condition.
Walker
bmattock
12-18-2004, 07:04
Originally posted by Doug
Hmmm, Jon; "bokeh-balls"... cute play on words, if it refers to fullerenes. :)
Ah, a play on Bucky Balls. Good old Buckminster Fuller. Love those domes.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Pherdinand
12-18-2004, 07:25
Kris, that photo is so great:)
The others too, of course! Nice thread.
I could contribute only with SLR shots, have no scanned RF frames that I remember having interesting OOF.
Regarding the round highlights question, I think lots of wider angle lenses have intentionally introduced coma aberration which leads to less light falloff in the edges (the cos^4 law for light falloff versus deistance from centre becomes cos^3 )but the result is that OOF highlights are not round but egg-shape, sometimes even hourglass-shape.
Normal and tele lenses don't have this, or not so pronounced anyway.
My Minolta 135/2.8 has very nice OOF highlights wide-open and there's a clear difference between wide-open and stopped down half stop.
I just wonder what the Sonnar 50/1.5 will do - with the lots-of-iris-blades (13 or something), around f/4 the iris has a funky sunflower-shape. Anybody, any experience with it?
Here's the Voigtlander 50mm Nokton wide open. Notice the speculars in the poster off to the right.
This was bulk Kodak 100 speed film shot at 1600. It's a "tad" grainy, but I like the results.
JD, I can't say I like the specular highlights in that Voigtländer shot - although in this case those turned out quite well, and not too irritating.
I've seen such stuff before, and although "interesting", I can't say I'm pleased to see such ringlets in a shot.
One recent example, which my brother sent me a while ago, is particularly irritating. Shot with an old manual Minolta SRT and Minolta 50/2 lens:
Retina IIa on FP4+. I don't think this was shot wide open either.
Canon AE-1, 55mm F1.2 wide open on FP4+
Originally posted by denishr
JD, I can't say I like the specular highlights in that Voigtländer shot - although in this case those turned out quite well, and not too irritating.
I've seen such stuff before, and although "interesting", I can't say I'm pleased to see such ringlets in a shot.
One recent example, which my brother sent me a while ago, is particularly irritating. Shot with an old manual Minolta SRT and Minolta 50/2 lens:
Oh, I agree- the oblong ovals look a bit funky, but still, the lens has a pleasing look. I've been shooting the lens to see if I do like it- and as it turns out, it's quite pretty under almost all conditions I can find. I'm working on some other images right now to demonstrate the Bokeh better...
The attack of the pentagonal Canonet...
JD, your photos prove that you have to know your lens to bring out the best from it! Your shots show a very ingenious use of the lens "faults" :)
Apart from less than ideal rendering of those "rings", the lens has a very pleasing "character", at least for me.
I've noticed that there are very few lens which can render those specular, "pointy", sources of light in a pleasing way.
Here's another - Summicron M 50/2 collapsible...
ALL very attractive images! Bokeh is just another play-toy!
Denis, the Summi is quite obviously very sharp- and the out-of-focus highlights are very gentle. I like the look.
Oscar, the 5 sided speculars/highlights have never bothered me. The Best Lens Ever (Mamiya Universal 100mm f/2.8) has them too, and they've never made any distraction for me in any photo I've taken.
I think this thread really demonstrates that rangefinders are indeed "people cameras."
Another. Voigtlander Prominent with the Nokton 50mm f/1.5, wide open, Kodak T-Max 100 shot at 1600 and slightly pushed in T-Max (12 minutes, 70 degrees!)
Brian Sweeney
12-18-2004, 19:16
Canon 50mm F1.4 on the Canon 7, Wide-Open, Kodacolor 200.
Brian Sweeney
12-18-2004, 19:34
Nikon F2AS w 55mm F1.2 AI, Wide-Open. Kodacolor 400.
Interesting shape on the x-Mas tree lights, Brian. I'm beginning to wonder if the ones on my Nokton are like that- and apparently from mechanical vignetting, or something to that effect. I was looking at some of my other shots, and they do show a loss of light in the corners.
Originally posted by bmattock
The lens is a Canon FL 135mm f2.5, wide open as you suspected. Sorry, an SLR!
But, you can use the same lens on a Canon 7 or 7s... if you can find the RF version, and a Canon Mirror Box 2 to mount it on!
(And if you've got all that stuff, I'd love to see pix!)
Not wide open, but 1/30th sec. @ f/2 (Fuji Neopan 400, Carl Zeiss f/1.5 50mm Sonnar (c. 1953-61).
Originally posted by Pherdinand
I just wonder what the Sonnar 50/1.5 will do - with the lots-of-iris-blades (13 or something), around f/4 the iris has a funky sunflower-shape. Anybody, any experience with it? [/B]
Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton, Prominent Mount (Fuji Neopan 400, 1/15th sec. @ f/1.5).
Originally posted by jdos2
Interesting shape on the x-Mas tree lights, Brian. I'm beginning to wonder if the ones on my Nokton are like that- and apparently from mechanical vignetting, or something to that effect. I was looking at some of my other shots, and they do show a loss of light in the corners.
And here's a similar shot using the Cosina Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton Asph. (Tri-X @ 800, 1/30th sec. @ f/1.5), if you want to compare vintage w/modern glass.
This was taken with a 90mm pre-war uncoated Elmar mounted on a IIIc Leica. The film was FP-4 and the aperture approximately f/4.5.
Walker
The film was, again, Ilford FP-4. The camera was a Kiev-4A with a Jupiter-9 85mm f/2 lens. Taken wide open under florescent lighting at approximately 1/25.
Walker
The bokeh adjustment stand - sometimes it's left to the photographer to render himself pleasantly out of focus. (Beerkeh?)
(CV APO 90/3.5).
A typical situation, which I use in testing new lens bokeh is to sit your subject in shade, with a tree behind, so you have many "pointy" sources of light coming from behind. Another possible situation are shots in cafés, etc. - indoors, like JD's shots, or my portrait above - where you have multiple light sources in the background.
I've also noticed that my Jupiter 12 has a very peculiar tendency to render such specular highlights as triangles - more prominent in the corners/edges of the frame.
I've noticed the same in the furcafe's Sonnar "tatooed DJ" shot above. Sonnar renders those more pleasantly, though.
Did any of you who use J12 notice the same?
Here's an example - it's a lousy shot, bur illustrates the issue. In the center of the frame, you get circles, but towards the edge, those turn to triangles, which can be very irritating sometimes.
I wonder if this is characteristic of Jupiter 12 (Zeiss Biogon?) design, or is it just my sample?
I probably haven't done as much testing as you have (@ least not for the purpose of testing boke), but I associate triangular highlights (& yes, towards the edges of the frame) most often w/pre-WWII Sonnar shots taken wide-open, which may accord w/the fact that the Jupiters are based on pre-WWII Zeiss designs. I haven't noticed it as often w/shots taken using my post-WWII Zeiss lenses (Sonnar or Biogon--I don't have a pre-WWII Biogon only Sonnars), but will have to root around in my archives to confirm. The Noctilux also does the triangle specular highlight thing (the Noct's Sonnar-like behavior may be why I'm not as bothered by its notorious boke as others).
Originally posted by denishr
I've also noticed that my Jupiter 12 has a very peculiar tendency to render such specular highlights as triangles - more prominent in the corners/edges of the frame.
I've noticed the same in the furcafe's Sonnar "tatooed DJ" shot above. Sonnar renders those more pleasantly, though.
Did any of you who use J12 notice the same?
Here's an example - it's a lousy shot, bur illustrates the issue. In the center of the frame, you get circles, but towards the edge, those turn to triangles, which can be very irritating sometimes.
I wonder if this is characteristic of Jupiter 12 (Zeiss Biogon?) design, or is it just my sample?
That's interesting bokeh especially in terms of the fact that according to the article cited farther up the thread, these 'condom-shaped' highlights epitomize 'bad bokeh.'
(For those with long memories for the Saturday Night Live TV show, can't you almost hear Dan Ackroyd's Leonard Pinth-Garnell character? "This is simply bad bokeh. Bad, bad bokeh.")
And yet in this image it doesn't cause any problems.
Also, note that the out-of-focus areas in the other poster (the one closer to the camera) have nice, smooth out-of-focus areas. This fits in with the info I read in the bokeh page on the Luminous Landscape site, which said that the lens designer can distribute aberrations in such a way as to have either good foreground bokeh and bad background bokeh, or vice-versa... but not both. (The DC-Nikkors let you choose which, but you still have to choose one or the other.)
I think this brings out the idea that desirable bokeh in a lens is really a philosophical preference as much as anything else!
The author cited earlier in the thread said he wants his good bokeh to be in the background, because he always composes his pictures to avoid out-of-focus areas in the foreground.
But for many of us -- particularly all of us documentary-style RF shooters -- it isn't always either possible OR desirable to eliminate out-of-focus foreground objects. And in that case, wouldn't you want the "good bokeh" area to be in the foreground? After all, the foreground out-of-focus areas are likely to be larger, so it makes sense that you would want them softer and less intrusive.
It looks as if the designers of the Nokton agree with this idea...
Some coming from the wide open Helios 103 f/1.8 lens...
No lizard was hurt for making this picture
bmattock
12-21-2004, 09:55
Leonard Pinth-Garnell says:
Nice roses, Bill. I love the idea of blooms past their prime. Very metaphorical.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.