Learning bokeh

R

Roger Hicks

Veteran
Local time
5:59 PM
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
23,920
The quality of the out of focus image is something I didn't even consider until about 15 years ago, when I bought a 150/4.5 Apo Lathar and a friend remarked that it gave particularly attractive results in the out-of-focus areas. A few years afterwards, 'bokeh' became a buzz-word.

Today, I'm still not very sensitive to bokeh UNLESS it's (a) really bad, as with the Leitz Thambar with the centre spot in place and the wrong background or (b) grossly exaggerated so that a huge area of the image is wildly out of focus and obtrusively mottled.

Even in the latter case, I find I don't really care in most cases unless the lens is used at a silly-large aperture in totally inappropriate circumstances, usually in good light with an ND filter or shutter speeds of 1/4000 second or faster. In other words, in low or even mediocre light, shallow d-o-f goes with the territory, while in good light, there have to be quite compelling aesthetic reasons for using it. In particular, in good light, out-of-focus leaves with light peeking through them mostly range from the tedious to the execrable.

Of course compelling aesthetic reasons can exist, and they are sometimes brilliantly exploited. But am I alone in feeling that while out-of-focus backgrounds are one thing, they are very different from pictures where the out-of-focus background is, in effect, the picture, because nothing that is in focus has the slightest hope of drawing the attention?

All too often, it seems to me, the out of focus bokeh tail is wagging the photographic dog. I'm not against razor-thin depth of field -- I've used it myself sometimes, albeit with less success than I had hoped -- but it really does seem to me that all too often, at the moment, this cannot even aspire to the status of a gimmick but is (as Sparrow says) a cliché.

Others' views?

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I sometimes take photos wide open and set to minimum focus so that everything is out of focus. I only use these as 'abstract' desktop wallpapers. :D

But as most of my photographs are in poor light, as you said a shallow depth of field goes with the territory. Therefore, I would at least prefer that it not be distracting. The bokeh or out of focus rendering is an important consideration for me. I dont really like hexagons and I dont like ringed donuts. They draw my eye away from my subject.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The quality of the out of focus image is something I didn't even consider until about 15 years ago, when I bought a 150/4.5 Apo Lathar and a friend remarked that it gave particularly attractive results in the out-of-focus areas. A few years afterwards, 'bokeh' became a buzz-word.

Today, I'm still not very sensitive to bokeh UNLESS it's (a) really bad, as with the Leitz Thambar with the centre spot in place and the wrong background or (b) grossly exaggerated so that a huge area of the image is wildly out of focus and obtrusively mottled.

Even in the latter case, I find I don't really care in most cases unless the lens is used at a silly-large aperture in totally inappropriate circumstances, usually in good light with an ND filter or shutter speeds of 1/4000 second or faster. In other words, in low or even mediocre light, shallow d-o-f goes with the territory, while in good light, there have to be quite compelling aesthetic reasons for using it. In particular, in good light, out-of-focus leaves with light peeking through them mostly range from the tedious to the execrable.

Of course compelling aesthetic reasons can exist, and they are sometimes brilliantly exploited. But am I alone in feeling that while out-of-focus backgrounds are one thing, they are very different from pictures where the out-of-focus background is, in effect, the picture, because nothing that is in focus has the slightest hope of drawing the attention?



All too often, it seems to me, the out of focus bokeh tail is wagging the photographic dog. I'm not against razor-thin depth of field -- I've used it myself sometimes, albeit with less success than I had hoped -- but it really does seem to me that all too often, at the moment, this cannot even aspire to the status of a gimmick but is (as Sparrow says) a cliché.

Others' views?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


You haven't seen the half of it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/insashi/2749072794/
 
Don't get me wrong. I don't want the out-of-focus area to look nasty. I'm not very sensitive to bokeh, but I can see it. I don't even have a problem with REALLY GOOD pictures that are all out of focus. What I dislike is, as I said, pictures where the o-o-f tail wags the dog: where the subject matter isn't interesting, and the background is queasily out of focus.

Cheers,

R.
 
ferider said:
What's "interesting subject matter" ?
Click to expand...

Probably NOT a coffee mug, a camera or a cat. Sure, I take your point that anything can be made interesting through composition and seizing the moment.

But the subject matter doesn't have to be especially interesting. A portrait, a still life, anything. All it needs to be is more interesting than a blurry background.

For David: as an example of the kind of pic I mean, which isn't much with deep focus but is even less with shallow focus, the beaker/tables/chair shot in http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews summilux 24.html is part-way there.

I hesitate to link to others' shots, because of the implied criticism.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
It is a matter of taste, I find "everything in focus"-images boring, I value lenses with great bokeh and use them accordingly.
 
I tend to optimize my lenses for close-up and wide-open use. Part of it is the Engineer in me. And working in an Optics lab doesn't help much either.

picture.php


and remember, shooting pictures with very shallow DOF means your wife can't accuse you of "getting a picture of that blond in the background". Did not even know she was there. Good thing I shot this one at F2!
 
I don't much care about it, as long as it doesn't look bad -- like somebody said, hexagons and donuts don't do much for the rest of the picture. As for light peeking through leaves, that's about the only kind I really like. Not for itself, because it makes a nice random pleasantly colored backdrop to whatever you're shooting, without being distracting. Like a nice wallpaper...I think Bokeh works best in mood shots, where the OOF parts are readily identifiable, but blurred...like bridge lights fading away into the darkness, while the subject, much closer, is well-lit.

JC
 
I think the problem stems from the fact that there is no good taxonomy for bokeh.

The best I can come up with is this list:

* Über-Smooth bokeh: DC lenses for Nikon, or that bokeh-optimized Minolta 135 STL lens, for example:

http://www.the135stf.net/galleries/new/Caught_in_a_net.jpg
Caught_in_a_net.jpg


* Normal bokeh: anything made by a planarish or sonnarish lens (90% of available lenses). (cf. from the Ultimate Bokeh Thread)
225597489-XL.jpg


* Swirlies: barf-inducing circular distorsion of bokeh common to Petzval lenses, certain triplets, and other low-tech lenses

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/AfterTheSwirlies/PamsGardenS.jpg
PamsGardenS.jpg


* Ring bokeh: at various degrees. Worst case being catadioptric lenses:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Donut_bokeh.jpg
Donut_bokeh.jpg



Many lenses have it to a certain extent, for example (again from the Bokeh thread):
175373321-L.jpg


I'd like to conclude with the question of lens/background interaction. The so-called "painterly" bokeh of Sonnar lenses to me is a misnomer, the particular interaction of a lens with Normal Bokeh as shown above with a grassy background. Creates an Impressionist feel, but it's not a species of bokeh. Cf. for example, a picture of mine that I think would qualify under the term "painterly"

attachment.php


All in all, I call bull**** on anybody who says that such-and-such lens has "smooth transition from in-focus to out-of-focus" (what? because some lenses don't have a transition between sharp and soft? beats me.), and bull**** on anyone who claims their lens has "creamy" or "painterly" bokeh.

But then, I also call shenanigans on the "Leica Glow" or the "3D Effect". As far as I'm concerned, yes, not all lenses have the same rendition, but some people are wankers and split hair when in fact they have no ability to make real comparisons.
 

Attachments

  • flowers.jpg
    flowers.jpg
    36.6 KB · Views: 0
I would have to disagree a bit there, if you compare say a fast zeiss 85 with a fast leica 80, you can see differences in how they transition from sharp to non-sharp. wether or not this is important to you, is another debate wholly.
 
I did not read the 'ultimate bokeh' thread, after looking at this one.......I'm glad!....ugh!
(just had a whiskey to settle the stomach!)
 
Last edited:
I'm tempted to start another thread about the largest fad among the hipsters at flickr: using film and using film and cross processing it..
 
It took two thousand years for us to "learn" perspective, it started as a Greek theatrical effect, like Plato's CGI, Nero had it on the walls of his golden villa but it wasn't good enough for his art, his art was cognitive.

By the renaissance perspective was ingrained but we still haven't got the hang of converging verticals although both are the same effect of the Plainer projection .. and we know what we are looking at

Try explaining bokeh to a layman ...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom