Is Bokeh an overated property of an image?

Is Bokeh an overated property of an image?

  • Yes

    Votes: 191 51.8%

  • No

    Votes: 157 42.5%

  • I used to be decisive but I'm not so sure now

    Votes: 21 5.7%
  • Total voters
    369
  • Poll closed .
Obama and Lewinski! :eek:

This is news to me ... has the new prez also developed a hankering for those 'dipped' cigars?
 
OK, I apologize, Mrs. Obama & family... :)

Let's think -then- of an intimate, close focused shot of John F. and Marilyn...

Cheers,

Juan
 
When I shoot portraits I am using fstop 4 or 5.6 which means that I will be laying the subject onto the out of focus or Bokeh area. It is a serious consideration in the purchase & use of a lens. Sometimes you will be paying 1k or more for a portrait lens. You need to consider how the background will amplify your image.
 
Steve Bellayr said:
When I shoot portraits I am using fstop 4 or 5.6 which means that I will be laying the subject onto the out of focus or Bokeh area. It is a serious consideration in the purchase & use of a lens. Sometimes you will be paying 1k or more for a portrait lens. You need to consider how the background will amplify your image.
Click to expand...
Dear Steve,

Or compose the image so that the background doesn't show, or doesn't show bokeh. Thambar bokeh, with the wrong background, is really nasty -- and Thambars cost a lot more than $1K. Part of photography is learning to play to your equipment's strengths, and to minimize its weaknesses.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
i think bokeh is the biggest scam, the biggest waste of time and the cause of so much conversational drivel in the history of photography!

could i be more clear about how i feel?
 
back alley said:
i think bokeh is the biggest scam, the biggest waste of time and the cause of so much conversational drivel in the history of photography!

could i be more clear about how i feel?
Click to expand...

Better than arguments over the relative performance of different current APS-C sensors at high ISO. Not much better, I'll admit, but better nonetheless.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Is bokeh a property of the image? Yes.

Is bokeh important? Sometimes.

Is bokeh overrated? Often.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

My thoughts also... But, I do like smooth OOF fall off better.

back alley said:
i think bokeh is the biggest scam, the biggest waste of time and the cause of so much conversational drivel in the history of photography!

could i be more clear about how i feel?
Click to expand...

Yes, but, That f/1.1 Nokton.... Has it when you want it ;)
and, that f/1.5 C-Sonnar has it when I want it :D
 
Not sure if this will make much sense but here is my take on it:

For me the characteristics of a lens when resolving OOF areas within a photograph is a very important (perhaps subjective on my part?) part of seeing the image before I click the shutter. I like to think in terms of the depth of the entire image from foreground to back ground as far as the eye would travel when viewing the image and also how the image works as single flat plane in terms of positive and negative space (ie what happens at the edge of image - how does it end?). Using F1.4 or F2.0 or F2.8 or F4-5.6 on certain lenses creates this effect for me. Therefore the bokeh of a particular lens is important to me in the way it renders the subject and I pay attention to this as much as deciding exactly what the point of focus is but these aesthetic discussions are made after I have decided upon the content and context of the image and how the image will be seen.

This reasoning (which is purely personal), was the main reason why I sold my Noctilux years back having decided that in too many of the images taken at F1.0, the OFF areas dominated the image and the balance was found with the smaller 50/1.4 ASPH and non ASPH lenses and the way they rendered detail and OOF areas.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Plastic arts, and especially those in two dimensions are not a journey through a timeline, and all their elements live together in a constant balance... And different and progressive levels of defocusing as seen on a photograph are not a natural part of our eyesight...
Click to expand...

What of film, as in cinema? That is a journey through time. OTF rendering is well known to the best DPs, has been so for many years. Commercial filmmakers believe it is important and are willing to pay the price for the lenses that give them what they want. In that sense the marketplace has answered the question. I think at least some of us have been tuned in to these lens qualities through watching classic film.

For me it's what separates us from the apes!
 
Can't agree with that, but everyone is entitled to an opinion. Fast prime lenses are highly desired in cinematography. It's one of the big tools in the tool box. I think it's true for still photographers as well.
 
zumbido said:
I'm not an expert or anything, but my friends and acquaintances who do film professionally tell me that fast lenses are largely desired there not for thin DOF (think about it: you don't want 3cm DOF when a face is showing *any* movement at all). Rather, it's for the additional possibilities with lighting. Realistic environmental lighting, doing certain kinds of shots without setting the actors on fire with the arclights. Etc. Shallow DOF is the goal now and then for a certain shot but they talk about it more often as a (not really desired) side effect.
Click to expand...

That's right. The truth is most portraits require apertures around f/4... Some lenses have a lot less than 3cm DOF even if they are not ultrafast lenses... My Leica 90 Summicron wide open at f/2 and focused close, has very few milimeters of DOF, (I checked it on print after shooting a ruler) not even enough for both eyes on focus, so that makes those conditions usable and optimal for a small amount of photographs only...

A strange thing about bokeh is how easily people tend to generalize a lens has bad bokeh... There are situations, depending on scene, light, focus and lens design, in which lenses can show different levels of softness on OOF zones rendering, and some people point at those situations, show them on internet, and all the sheeps get educated in the most amazing and unreal ways... Lenses are unfairly tagged and people sell them or stop buying great lenses in the most absurd ways... The most recent case I remember is the nonsense around the Nokton 50 1.1, an amazing lens from any point of view... But it happens with older lenses too...

Here's an image I showed on another thread a few days ago after being asked for an Ektar example... Nikkor 50 Ai wide open at f/1.4:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40894234@N07/4908796616/

I've read lots of times "all Nikon 50 1.4 lenses show horrible bokeh"... Then you go and find the reason: a bad photographer not knowing about lenses or composition showed a photograph on a forum: close focusing on the shadows, and a background of leaves and branches under harsh direct sun, a weak and underexposed subject, no compositional skills and disturbing objects, etc., so all that person was able to say after looking at such waste of film was: "I should sell this lens and get another one with better bokeh..."

Bokeh is overrated and self perception underrated.

Cheers,

Juan
 
I'm sticking to my guns that bokeh has a huge emotional impact on the viewer of the image. The same is true for moving images in cinema.
You really "feel" it on the big screen. I'm not sure what Juan is talking about when he says OOF zones are less important because they vary.
First off, OOF is different than bokeh. So perhaps it's a language miscommunication.

Anyways, I love bokeh. It makes me feel good to have it around.



Nikkor 50 1.2 AIS on D3 @ 1.2



Nikkor 800 5.6 IF-ED AIS @ 5.6 on D3
 
Last edited:
Nikkor AIS said:
Im not sure what Jaun is talking about when he says OOF zones are less important because they vary?
Click to expand...

It's less important in a movie because on a photograph everything is there forever and doesn't change... The relevance any transitory scene has in a movie is lower: it's just a small part of the discourse... Good or bad things are constantly replaced by the following ones...

Cheers,

Juan
 
It is simply a matter of taste.

In some images, the look of the background doesn't match what the shooter wanted to capture. Sure, you can attribute this to using the wrong lens or using it in the wrong situation - shooting into leaves as others have pointed out, etc.

I like taking pictures at night. This often means shooting in places with small light sources and such. I also prefer wider angle lenses (if I had a fast 28mm-35mm i doubt I'd use much else - right now my fast lens is my Lynx 14). While some shots like the one below work, I find that I still discard otherwise good shots because the background pulls my eyes away from the subject too much. Double lines, harsh edges, it is distracting.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4593986268
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4593369381
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4590786467
 
Just like "close" is important w/ hand grenades, playing horseshoes, and dancing, bokeh is important to me in close-ups of people and flowers and other objects. Crazy/ busy bokeh ruins close-ups for me.
 
I think there seems to be various ways of viewing a photograph, two of which could be:

1) That one painted it.
2) That one photographed an instant in time without consideration for her equipment; one grabbed what was there and have laid it before us to her best ability.

If one paints it like Jeff Wall does, then I would like to believe he considers things such as bokeh, DOF and composition. When a Magnum photographer shoots I am looking for quality in subject, relevancy and interest first.

Maybe bokeh is more valuable to some than others.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
That certainly sums it up, and is a wonderful analogy.
Click to expand...



ampguy said:
but not a good one.

If you read the Zeiss and other articles on bokeh, you will understand it is qualitative, and quantitative. A lot of slide rules and now computers have been used at Leica, and other great lens companies specifically so they don't produce ugly bokeh...
Click to expand...



zumbido said:
With all due respect (and I'm not using that phrase sardonically) your extensive design experience doesn't speak to whether it's a good analogy or not. Your explanation in the second paragraph is an agreement with the "it doesn't matter as long as it's not terrible and your composition was acceptable" point of view. And that has, like I asserted and Juan explained, pretty much nothing to do with silence in music--which ALWAYS matters.
Click to expand...


You have to keep my statement in context with how it was quoted by another member in regard to the content regarding lens design. And, I did not do optical design myself, I hired two optical engineers to do the work. I bought the software for optical design that they asked for.

As for your interpretation of my second statement, the lens chosen for the image has a large effect on the out of focus areas independent of composition. It is a salient feature of the lens design. For example, optics that are over-corrected for spherical aberration will produce high-frequency in the blur circles. Lenses that are under-corrected for spherical aberration will produce smooth blur circles. The difference between hard rock and smooth jazz.

And as far as the analogy itself- it is a good one as it works for a lot of people. If it were perfect, it would work for everyone. And I guess I like my Bokeh like my music. Wide-Open and Close up with lots of artifacts, like "Close to the Edge" by Yes.

So, I do not agree with Juan and continue to hold my opinion which is based on the statements made.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom