"Bokeh"-Amature Bling?

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by sevo

Well, I understand the terminology, and the optical phenomena involved. Nonetheless I doubt that bokeh has that much real-life relevance. The bokeh believers should show a case where a considerable majority of us can agree that picture would be a general pleasure if it were not for its bad bokeh. As long as I haven't seen anything like that I consider it a parameter less relevant than flare, contrast and distortion - and even these will only very rarely kill a good picture...

Sevo

I'm not that 'bokeh believer' that you are seeking, but you can look in this very thread and find a range of bokeh examples - some OK bokeh and some that is very harsh and disturbing.

Not intending to offend the photographer... but I find the bokeh of the Zeiss Distagon 25/2.8 ZF really dreadful based on some pics posted earlier. I find the bokeh in those images to, largely, be very hard on the eyes. The image itself was a valiant attempt to focus the viewers attention using selective focus and what resulted is much better than anything that may have resulted by increased DOF.

What I consider harsh and disturbing bokeh, though, is my opinion alone and may not be shared by all. Bokeh is largely subjective and situational... as you prbably already know.

[Ade-oh]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

The bad bokeh thing totally mystifies me. To me all the lumps look the same, except some lumps are more elliptical than others, and some are donuts -- but that too, seldom is of notice to moi. I am not a fan of floating dots, they look too much like the floaters in your eye.

I couldn't agree more. Out of focus blobs are out of focus blobs and I don't think they are disturbing or distracting, harsh or mild, no matter what shape they are. Sometimes they appear in good pictures, and sometimes they appear in bad pictures, sometimes they enhance a picture and sometimes they don't. Threads like this suggest to me that a lot of people think that somewhere there is an ideal Platonic form for a photograph and that somehow, through the right combination of camera, lens, film, tripod, bag, half-case and strap, they can edge a little closer to it.

[yanidel]

Originally Posted by Ade-oh

I couldn't agree more. Out of focus blobs are out of focus blobs and I don't think they are disturbing or distracting, harsh or mild, no matter what shape they are. Sometimes they appear in good pictures, and sometimes they appear in bad pictures, sometimes they enhance a picture and sometimes they don't. Threads like this suggest to me that a lot of people think that somewhere there is an ideal Platonic form for a photograph and that somehow, through the right combination of camera, lens, film, tripod, bag, half-case and strap, they can edge a little closer to it.

It is true that bokeh is much more dependent on surroundings, distance to subject than the lens itself but some lenses do have characteristics that will bring different kind of bokeh.
To illustrate, follow this link and the test made by Guy Mancuso with a 35 Cron IV vs 35 Summarit (a girl portrait).
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...tml#post417795
If you look purely at the aesthetics of the pictures, it is evident that the bokeh or OOF, can be significantly different from one to the other for a given aperture. Moreover, in this case I think they influence the balance of the picture. The Cron IV bokeh distracts more from the subject, while the Summarit is smoother and maybe keeps attention on the girl. Is the Cron IV a bad or harsh bokeh ? Maybe, but I just happen to like this picture better. So here obviously comes into play personal preferences, and here nobody is ever going to get it right. Does one take a picture to illustrate a scene or subject or is it just a aesthetical shot with no meaning but a balance of colors and shapes ? Is one better than the other ? Obviously not.
I use a lot the 60mm Hexanon that constantly produce oval blobs with open boundaries, double-lining in linear shapes and a slight turn to green around black areas. I like it and have learnt to know when certain phenomenas are likely to happen. I also have found that the 35mm Cron IV is a good sibling for the Hex as they produce similar kind of bokeh characteristics wide open. Yet, obviously, I don't take pictures with bokeh as the first parameter, but I know it will contribute to "my aesthetic style".

There is no "ideal Platonic form for a photograph" as you said, only personal preferences that should not be influenced by a lens intelligentsia (that comes up with such things as "Bokeh King"). Theses preferences should show (and be part) consistantly in a photographer style, not a one time only evidence of great bokeh illustrated by a Tulip shot in one's garden. Maybe we see a bit too much of that on threads related to lenses and bokeh. Yet we cannot ignore the fact that it plays an important role in a picture and think of it as purely random event, over which we have no influence.

[Ade-oh]

Originally Posted by yanidel

It is true that bokeh is much more dependent on surroundings, distance to subject than the lens itself but some lenses do have characteristics that will bring different kind of bokeh.
To illustrate, follow this link and the test made by Guy Mancuso with a 35 Cron IV vs 35 Summarit (a girl portrait).
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...tml#post417795

Yanidel, I do understand that different lenses render out of focus areas very differently but looking at the pictures in Mr Mancuso's tests, my opinion is that they are simply uninteresting snapshots in which the unfocused areas have zero impact on the aesthetic quality of the image. FWIW, my view is that tests of this sort are completely meaningless. How can you make an aesthetic judgement on the quality of a lens's 'bokeh' in an image which is devoid of aesthetic qualities?

BTW, poor Mr Mancuso's daughter, being used as the model in the 'ugly test'

[yanidel]

Originally Posted by Ade-oh

Yanidel, I do understand that different lenses render out of focus areas very differently but looking at the pictures in Mr Mancuso's tests, my opinion is that they are simply uninteresting snapshots in which the unfocused areas have zero impact on the aesthetic quality of the image. FWIW, my view is that tests of this sort are completely meaningless. How can you make an aesthetic judgement on the quality of a lens's 'bokeh' in an image which is devoid of aesthetic qualities?

BTW, poor Mr Mancuso's daughter, being used as the model in the 'ugly test'

These being test shots, it is obviously difficult to discuss their aesthetics, yet my point was that there is a significant difference in rendering and this can be used as part of the aesthetics within style. Just like the FOV, framing, subjects can also be part of one's style.

As for Miss Mancuso, she surely must not be aware that she is portrayed in her dad's ugly test. I would add that she must not like very much the Cron IV rendering

[_mark__]

Good bokeh, seductive!
Bad bokeh, sickening!

Can you go out bokeing?

[Ade-oh]

Originally Posted by yanidel

These being test shots, it is obviously difficult to discuss their aesthetics, yet my point was that there is a significant difference in rendering and this can be used as part of the aesthetics within style. Just like the FOV, framing, subjects can also be part of one's style.

Of course. Different lenses do things differently but IMHO there is no 'good' or 'bad' about it - at least as far as 'bokeh' is concerned. Amongst the photographic gear I've acquired over 30 or so years, I have a 1940's Summitar and the 135mm DC Nikkor, both of which I primarily use for portraits. They render out of focus areas completely differently but I'm just as likely to use one as the other, depending on what I'm trying to achieve.

My point is, I suppose, that people like Ken Rockwell (who I think is generally great) have introduced this concept of 'good' and 'bad' bokeh, and I think it's just a crock of shi-ite.

[yanidel]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

The images are not visible to outsiders, so the link is not useful. I have been considering opening a thread about using really awful photos to illustrate aesthetics, personally when something is awful, I just can't think it is an example of anything, but awful.


Some of us actually do ignore it, and in no way consider it as "important." The problem is some of us just don't much like any "blobs," so the shape of the blobs is really of trivial interest.

So basically if the blob had the shape of a dog sh.t, you would not mind ?

Photography is like painting, Monet or Vermeer, personal tastes. But you can't simply discredit other's interests in having a satisfying bokeh because it is of no importance in your style/preferences of photography. And even if it is of no importance to you, some viewers of your pictures will notice, though I agree that good bokeh will never outweight a bad picture.

Sorry about the link, I looked for it on forum.getdpi.com but could not find it.

[maddoc]

The discussion about "bokeh" is indeed a "boke" discussion ...

[yanidel]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

If they notice in my photos they are really missing the point, for me personally if someone commented on the boke, it would be equivalent to saying "I love the frame." But not really the point you are making.

I do agree if the shape of the grain or the shape of the blobs is important to you (and yes I do see the difference) then you are right, you might want to discuss it ad infinitum.

And your mention of "Photography is like painting, Monet or Vermeer, personal tastes, " interesting, but I like them both.

But I would think your discussion is more about Monet vs. Seurat, since we are taking boke, not out of focus. edit: Which do you like better, boke-wise, Monet or Seurat?

Easy :
Monet = F2
Vermeer = F5.6
Seurat = F11 zoomed in 1:1 pixel

As for the Boca jokes, they are ok but unluckily mostly US people will get it. Because to 99% of the rest of the world population, Boca is the famous Boca Juniors Football Club.
Your Boca is Boca Seniors, retirement town in Florida.

[Ade-oh]

Originally Posted by MikeL

But I do notice backgrounds, and when too noticeable due to funk (not defined), I'd rather use something else. One reason I like medium format and larger is that while background objects may be less in focus, they are still recognizable as objects. Content and intent are still key, of course.

I suspect we all notice backgrounds when they get in the way of the subject of the photograph, whether because there is too much in-focus or too much out-of-focus, but I honestly doubt that many people get that wound up by the OOF rendition of the lens which took the photograph.

[aizan]

shallow depth of field is a novelty because small sensor digicams produce very deep dof. it doesn't hurt that the softness can look emotional, romantic, sentimental, etc. etc. another reason people usually don't like harsh bokeh; it ruins the effect they're looking for.

[wgerrard]

I"ll admit I've read little of this thread. I'm not psyched about bokeh one way or the other. For every background someone thinks is wonderful, I think it is ugly. And, vice versa.

That said, it's been my experience that an out-of-focus background is seen by non-photographers as a mark of a professional shot. (Yes, really.) Why? They can't do it on their cameras. None of them, though, has ever commented on the background itself.

[ferider]

I was really proud when I got the shot below. Because of the rare bird, it looking at me, focus being right on, etc.
What prevents it from hanging at the wall at home is that the background really annoys me.



I seriously would consider it one of my better photos, if the background was smoother.

Maybe it's just me ... what do you guys think ?

Roland.

[DanOnRoute66]

Originally Posted by ferider

I was really proud when I got the shot below. Because of the rare bird, it looking at me, focus being right on, etc.
What prevents it from hanging at the wall at home is that the background really annoys me.



I seriously would consider it one of my better photos, if the background was smoother.

Maybe it's just me ... what do you guys think ?

Roland.

Have you ever considered cropping out some-most-almost all of the background?

[yanidel]

It is nice shot ... why do you need the whole picture to be smooth ? There is duality in this shot ... lovely bird in a rough world. I think it works well.

[oftheherd]

Originally Posted by chippy

blue eyes dont have as nice bokeh as brown eyes, green eyes have terrible swirly bokeh

red eyes render everything as bokeh !

Which is why many people have given up drinking.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

Well there are only two ways it could be "smoother" if the lens was faster (or longer) and the background more out of focus, or if the lens was softer, and then the in-focus areas would be "smoother."

Not true. There are a lot of extremely sharp lenses that do not suffer that godawful double-line effect that you see in the little branches in the background. My Leica summicron 50 doesn't render out of focus areas like that. That bird was shot with a long lens, and I know my Olympus 135/3.5, 100/2.8 and 85/2 lenses don't render backgrounds that way. They are all sharp lenses, especially the 100/2.8.

[ferider]

Thanks guys. I was shot with a lens from the 70s, a Tokina ATX 100-300/4 (@ 300), and I now hope I had used a 300 Zuiko .... to avoid the double lines.

[ampguy]

What if you soft focused around the bird? See the attached example.

Originally Posted by ferider

I was really proud when I got the shot below. Because of the rare bird, it looking at me, focus being right on, etc.
What prevents it from hanging at the wall at home is that the background really annoys me.



I seriously would consider it one of my better photos, if the background was smoother.

Maybe it's just me ... what do you guys think ?

Roland.

[Nikkor AIS]

The subject of bokeh is of special concern to those who are interested in subject isolation and in cases where telephotos are in use, compression. I think it's interesting how a similar subject can be given a different treatment depending on the lens and aperture used. Of course, your point of view, distance to the subject, subject distance to the background and the nature of the background are also factors to consider. Everything comes into play when shooting wide open with long fast glass. Fast is relative; sometimes a long fast glass can be a Nikkor 800 at F5.6. Focus is critical, and paying close attention to your position relative to the subject and background has a huge impact on the bokeh. What's interesting (at least to me) is how similar different lenses with different apertures can give amazingly similar bokeh when the lens-to-subject distance is altered to give the same relative magnification in the view finder. A point worth nothing: if bokeh is amateur bling, then I’m nearly broke in the never-ending quest for the ultimate bokeh.

A few examples:

Back bokeh:



Taken with a Leica M3 50 1.0 Noctilux:

]

Taken with a Nikkor 28 1.4 D AF on a Nikon D3:



Thoughts?
-Gregory


Attached:
LEFT: Nikkor 300 2.0 IF ED AIS @ 2.0
RIGHT: Nikkor 600 IF AIS @ 4

[chippy]

Bokeh seemed pretty important to the 3D film [animation/cgi] i just saw 'Avatar'

the cat pics look nice, i didnt notice the bokeh because the eyes in the last pic look, kinda, creepy

creepy eyes are becoming amateur bling

[Brian Sweeney]

Uncoated 1936 CZJ Sonnar 5cm F1.5, converted to LTM, wide-open.



Wartime CZJ Sonnar "T" 5cm F1.5 in LTM.



Don't spend a lot of money searching for perfect Bokeh.

Just get a Zeiss Sonnar.

And occasionally let sunlight strike across the front element.

[Brian Sweeney]

Although Calcium Fluorite lenses are kind of nice for Bokeh.







But they cost 10x as much.

[Gabriel M.A.]

So much "amature" bling, Brian!