Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Sonnar and harsh bokeh are oxymorons.I have thrown all sorts of difficult backgrounds at my CZO 50/1.5 and it's anything but harsh...
I have found that no lens is perfect in this regard. I've tried the Holy Sonnar ("original" Contax Mount 5cm f/1.5) and there are situations where double-lines can get pretty nasty.
A shot with uneven light through folliage in the background is also a way of making something bokelicious into something nastastic.
What can I say, I went to a few office meetings today, and you can sell anything by "making" a "new word" ending in "astic" or "icious".
raid
Dad Photographer
I think that visualization of how an image may/will result is an important part of creative photography. This includes depth of field and bokeh for a specific lens. Things get more challenging as you use multiple lenses of different focal lengths. I don't see a big difference between 50mm lenses as I previsualize images.
I posted this thread to get people involved in sharing their knowledge on this issue. Galen Rowell had an impact on my photography many years ago. I was then focusing on nature and not on people.
I posted this thread to get people involved in sharing their knowledge on this issue. Galen Rowell had an impact on my photography many years ago. I was then focusing on nature and not on people.
raid
Dad Photographer
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Preciselistastic.
Sonnartastic. BTW, I find the EVF of the Pana G1 much better at bokeh previewing than any SLR with a DOF preview.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
OK guys, I'm back from Starbucks ;-) Motion picture camera lenses back in the days before zooms had to have smooth bokeh and the negatives had to match in density (hence T-stops) so there'd be no jarring differences between shots when they were spliced together. A conversation between two actors might include an establishing overall shot and close ups of both actors from various angles, all using various lenses and probably two or more cameras. You'd want the least intrusive bokeh possible. Of course at the time nobody knew that the Japanese had come up with a name for the rendering of out of focus areas.
That 50mm Canon 0.95 that so many are lusting for is actually just one of a series of Canon 0.95 M.P. lenses in various focal lengths. Angenieux and Zeiss have similar line-ups.
The look of the image is in the eye of the beholder. Bad bokeh is subjective. For years Rolleiflexes were available with your choice of a Zeiss Planar or Schneider Xenotar lens in either f/3.5 or f/2.8. The photo magazines had endless discussions about the smoother look of the Xenotar image vs. the biting sharpness of the Planar. At the lower price points some people would put up with the seperate manual shutter cocking on the Xenar equipped Rolleicord because the Tessar on the more automated Rolleiflex T was perceived as giving a harsher rendition.
Now we have Zeiss designs competing with Leica lenses, all in M mount. Life is good again! Argue on! Whoops, I mean DISCUSS on.
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
That 50mm Canon 0.95 that so many are lusting for is actually just one of a series of Canon 0.95 M.P. lenses in various focal lengths. Angenieux and Zeiss have similar line-ups.
The look of the image is in the eye of the beholder. Bad bokeh is subjective. For years Rolleiflexes were available with your choice of a Zeiss Planar or Schneider Xenotar lens in either f/3.5 or f/2.8. The photo magazines had endless discussions about the smoother look of the Xenotar image vs. the biting sharpness of the Planar. At the lower price points some people would put up with the seperate manual shutter cocking on the Xenar equipped Rolleicord because the Tessar on the more automated Rolleiflex T was perceived as giving a harsher rendition.
Now we have Zeiss designs competing with Leica lenses, all in M mount. Life is good again! Argue on! Whoops, I mean DISCUSS on.
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Last edited:
JohnTF
Veteran
Anyone use the DOF indicators in the viewfinder of the M2? I never noticed them until I read the manual.
I once posted a shot of a kid in a jungle gym, and someone suggested I open up to knock out more of the background, I felt it was not intrusive or overly busy and soft enough, but no matter, it is what it is.
Lens was wide open when I shot-- you go with what you got.
I chose cameras with high shutter speed options and films that let me use them to control backgrounds, when I can.
I was trying out the CV 25, using the DOF scale, and got some surprises-- it's back to the drawing board, I shot for years with a scale focus, I should be better at it, or something is odd.
Have a feeling the new CV 50 is going to help?
Anyone make a Bokeh filter or plug in for PS? ;-)
Regards, John
I once posted a shot of a kid in a jungle gym, and someone suggested I open up to knock out more of the background, I felt it was not intrusive or overly busy and soft enough, but no matter, it is what it is.
Lens was wide open when I shot-- you go with what you got.
I chose cameras with high shutter speed options and films that let me use them to control backgrounds, when I can.
I was trying out the CV 25, using the DOF scale, and got some surprises-- it's back to the drawing board, I shot for years with a scale focus, I should be better at it, or something is odd.
Have a feeling the new CV 50 is going to help?
Anyone make a Bokeh filter or plug in for PS? ;-)
Regards, John
Last edited:
lorriman
Established
Having said that I use an SLR for this purpose while others feel they aren't useful for dof and bokeh previewing I ought to qualify that I agree with that but the OP seemed more concerned with oof background which SLR's show perfectly clearly and which has three factors that need calculating for which I reckon experience cannot foresee even for just one lens particularly at closer focus which is most pertinant to the portraits of the OP.
hans voralberg
Veteran
Back on topic, when I first started I ingrain myself with DOF by shooting one lens @ different aperture and try to visualize them. I still do this once in a while just to refresh it.
raid
Dad Photographer
Hans,
This is a good way to get used to one lens. I get similar "training" whenever I do my lens comparisons as I change the aperture and have a fixed distance from some object. When I inspect the results, I can see DOF/bokeh effects for many lenses and for different aperture settings.
I often have quick thoughts about DOF when I take photos in backlit situations where light is dim and where I should balance between accurate focus and accurate exposure while aiming at pleasing OOF look. I find myself tempted between a 1/8 @ 4.0 or 1/15 @ f 2.0 and a 1/30 @ 1.5 [or similar]. I start thinking whether using 1.5 with an old RF camera and my eye sight in relatively difficult focusing situations is better or whether getting a little more DOF at f 2.0 but slower speed is better [for my case].
Do you also have sometimes such thoughts?
FPjohn
Well-known
I have no neologism for it but in the absence of a great deal of experience with a partcular lens ( i cannot rember when I last looked at the dof scale on a 50mm) I look at the depth of field scale and use the marking for the next fstop down from the one in use ie f11 when using f16.
yours
FPJ
yours
FPJ
Bill58
Native Texan
I can't "envision" s___. I use this w/ my film RFs http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html printed on paper and laminated for my 21-50 mm focal lengths and carry in my bag. I refer to the respective one often out in the field.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
With stationary objects, I simply choose the widest aperture the situation allows, since I like to isolate my subjects.
Shooting people or pets I hardly ever open up more than f4.0 unless they are asleep (in which case, see rule 1). If room allows, I choose wide space behind them.
I know sharpness DOF usually is 1/3rd before the subject and 2/3 behind. I focus, see where the edges of the DOF are on the lens and then sometimes deliberatly defocus to get the subject sharpness closer to the edges of the DOF.
Anything moving I tend to shoot at f8.0 or smaller, and then use hyperfocal shooting. For those shots, I prefer 35mm or wider lenses, in which case I often crop later on to get to a 50mm-ish shot. Using a bigger DOF (=wide angle) lens and setting it to f8.0 or smaller allows me to use the camera as a point-and-shoot. Still, with these shots I first take the sun into account and right after that the biggest open space possible behind the subject.
These things make RF-shooting fun to me, I own three SLR cameras but they are basically shelf-sitters. I love the contemplating and the constant commitment you need to get good shots from RF shooting.
Shooting people or pets I hardly ever open up more than f4.0 unless they are asleep (in which case, see rule 1). If room allows, I choose wide space behind them.
I know sharpness DOF usually is 1/3rd before the subject and 2/3 behind. I focus, see where the edges of the DOF are on the lens and then sometimes deliberatly defocus to get the subject sharpness closer to the edges of the DOF.
Anything moving I tend to shoot at f8.0 or smaller, and then use hyperfocal shooting. For those shots, I prefer 35mm or wider lenses, in which case I often crop later on to get to a 50mm-ish shot. Using a bigger DOF (=wide angle) lens and setting it to f8.0 or smaller allows me to use the camera as a point-and-shoot. Still, with these shots I first take the sun into account and right after that the biggest open space possible behind the subject.
These things make RF-shooting fun to me, I own three SLR cameras but they are basically shelf-sitters. I love the contemplating and the constant commitment you need to get good shots from RF shooting.
JohnTF
Veteran
I probably would agree, until I bought three scale focus lenses, and several L bodies. ;-)
John
hans voralberg
Veteran
When I have enough light not to blur my pics I sometimes think about the DOF decision, but most of the time I just shoot wide open because I dont have time to think haha