Bokeh is a Japanese word that refers to the subjective visual impression of the out of focus areas of an image. Just because bokeh isn't objectively measurable doesn't mean it's BS, but there's certainly been a lot of BS written about it. What imaging characteristics contribute to beautiful bokeh? What kind of lenses that are most likely to be "bokeh monsters?"? Which vintage and contemporary lenses should bokeh fanatics go for? Just ask me and I'll give you my arrogant but educated opinions-🙂
The Great Bokeh Controversy: Snare or Delusion?
- Thread starter Jason Schneider
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 200
- Views 13K
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Mark, thanks, I see your comment on post [NODE="67"]67 [/NODE]only now. I don't think he was aware that he was photographed. He seemed particularly bad-tempered because of the cold. He paid no attention to his surroundings.
I think the photo is successful because the advertisement for a watch is precisely not aimed at people who do not have it easy because of their age.
Erik.
I think the photo is successful because the advertisement for a watch is precisely not aimed at people who do not have it easy because of their age.
Erik.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The term comes from the Japanese word boke (暈け/ボケ), which means "blur" or "haze", resulting in boke-aji (ボケ味), the "blur quality".
A definition: The quality of the blur seen in the out-of-focus portion of a photograph. The quality of bokeh is largely dependent on the construction of the lens. But it is also heavily influenced by the focus distance and the physical size of the aperture, and this latter is dependent for any given f/number on the focal length of the lens.
In general, good bokeh is considered to be smooth and pleasing, whereas "bad bokeh" is typically considered to have a jagged and discordant effect on the blur, and on the photo as a whole. Of course, one can imagine image situations where the effect desired for a given photo might prefer the "good bokeh" look just as easily as situations where the effect desired can take advantage of the "bad bokeh" look.
There are no useful metrics for bokeh.
Discussion: I have a fairly wide range of lenses that I use on APS-C, FF, and MF-D cameras, from 10mm to 360mm. Nominating any of them to being "good bokeh" or "bad bokeh" lenses is way too simplistic a way of looking at bokeh. What I usually want in an image is to allow the primary subject matter to be clearly presented and separated by sharpness, contrast, and tonal quality from other elements in the imaged space. Sometimes this is best done with using large apertures to limit the depth of field, other times it is better by framing such that the light and shadow demarcate the primary subject cleanly. Generally, any large masses of blur in the foreground are distracting from the primary subject, and jangly/blobby blurs surrounding or behind the primary subject similarly distract. With some lenses and some subjects, a wide open aperture produces exactly the bokeh I am looking for; with other subjects and intents, it does not and reducing the amount of blur by stopping down a little does a better job.
So ... "The Great Bokeh Controversy: Snare or Delusion?" seems a bit of bombast, a teaser to draw people into debate and argument. I've been making photographs for about sixty-some years now; the above discussion is how I've worked with cameras, lenses, and subjects for all this time in making photographs. The term "bokeh" came onto the scene as a quality to strive for about 15-20 of those years ago, and has always seemed to be just a faddish novelty term for discussion in these forums ... I mean, doesn't every thinking photographer see what kind of blur in their photos works well and what works poorly? Don't we all know that if we change our distance from a subject, change the focal length we're using, adjust the aperture, etc etc, we get different effects ... some of them pleasing, some of them not so much so, and that sometimes we're not looking to be "pleasing" and other times it's all that matters?
I don't think there's any controversy, snare, or delusion in "bokeh". Better time would be spent looking at photographs critically and understanding/discussing why some of them work—how the elements of equipment used, exposure settings used, sharpness, contrast, and the quality of the blurred parts of the photograph support the photographers' intents—and doing the same with other photographs that are perhaps not quite as successful in achieving the photographers' goals.
And, of course, this exercise is/would be a lot harder than just saying "a Summilux 35mm f/1.4 pre-ASPH is a bokeh monster!" 😉
G
Focal Length, Separation between prime focus and background, Depth of field, Over/Under correction for spherical aberration, astigmatism, vignetting, and physical aperture are major components of Bokeh. These can all be measured. A good understanding of the characteristics of a particular lens is required to use these aberrations as components that add to a photograph.
Or just grab a lens that you like, open it up, focus on the subject, and what will be will be.
Secret Garden, Occoquan by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
J3+, wide-open.
Or just grab a lens that you like, open it up, focus on the subject, and what will be will be.
Secret Garden, Occoquan by fiftyonepointsix, on FlickrJ3+, wide-open.
oldhaven
Well-known
I have recently been setting myself up to shoot and project slides and bought a Braun D47 projector for not much money, and it turned out it is likely unrepairable. Too bad because it is a very well-built machine. Anyway, it has a pristine Rodenstock Splendar 100/2.8 lens. I have seen a lot of buzz lately about adapting projector lenses, so I thought I would give it a try. I bought a 13 dollar used early simple Pentax bellows I and a Chinese made m42 aperture device and put it all together. It turned out that removing the M42 lens ring on the bellows allowed the Rodenstock lens to fit perfectly in the bellows. (The D47 Rodenstock has a short 5 start m42 thread barrel instead of the more typical spiral groove.) The way it worked, when the bellows is completely collapsed, I can focus to just beyond infinity, and when fully extended, I get into some serious macro territory. The aperture diaphragm seems to work OK placed externally to the lenson the camera body and makes the lens flange distance about right. I always thought a aperture had to be internal to the lens to help with depth of field, but apparently not, since I can increase depth by stopping down. It does cause some vignetting when the bellows is fully extended but is fine at normal ranges. It allows me to control the lenses tendency to produce serious background bokeh. I am quite pleased with the result of this experiment. This is a nice lens, though I don't know how it is constructed or how many elements it has.
Here are shots from the combination. The difference in similar shots is the result of using the aperture device. I did not stop down much, just enough to show some DOF. Also I noticed that the wide open lens was rather soft and this was improved by using the aperture. Of course, if the whole point is to get a heavy bokeh, it would not be necessary, but it is nice to have an option.
Here are shots from the combination. The difference in similar shots is the result of using the aperture device. I did not stop down much, just enough to show some DOF. Also I noticed that the wide open lens was rather soft and this was improved by using the aperture. Of course, if the whole point is to get a heavy bokeh, it would not be necessary, but it is nice to have an option.
oldhaven
Well-known
More fun with the Rodenstock Splendar 100/2.8 projector lens. It has a purple or violet coating that does violence to some colors. I wonder how the designer thought this would be fitting for a slide projector lens? I see three reflections so it has three groups I assume. I think I read that it is similar to a trioplan.
Last edited:
Dogman
Veteran
I'm a muddler--a snapshooter, a gun-and-run photographer. I don't think much when I'm shooting. Framing and composition, light and subject are important to me. Not getting a traffic sign or a spindly tree growing out of someone's head is about as much as I try to work with the background. Getting the subject in decent focus is my main goal. I'm lucky to have some really nice lenses. I can see that in the pictures I take with them. But I seldom pay much attention to the bokeh I see in my own or other people's photos. I'm interested in how all the elements come together, not in slicing up the photo into parts and evaluating each of them for quality. I was reading a blog post the other day with a photo of the photographer's wife that I thought was really nice. But the author pointed out that there was a ladder or something out of focus in the background with highlights that he said ruined the shot for him. Hell, I never noiticed the thing until he pointed it out and then I couldn't help but waste time looking at it and trying to find the distraction involved. It's a nice photo of the guy's wife. Probably the only person seeing reflection on a ladder is the guy who took the picture. The more I looked at the picture, the less I noticed the ladder. His wife had very pretty eyes. Important. Ladder...not so much.
There's too much minutiae in photography these days. We're getting bogged down in it. Just grab a lens you like and take pictures.
...........................
rick oleson
Ancient Wizard
My version is, first, blade count is at best a very minor peripheral factor: lenses with bad bokeh still have bad bokeh wide open where there are no blades at all.
The main cause of bad bokeh that I’ve found is overcorrected spherical aberration. This causes background highlights to appear like donuts with a bright edge and a darker center, and lines become double images.
www.dropbox.com
The main cause of bad bokeh that I’ve found is overcorrected spherical aberration. This causes background highlights to appear like donuts with a bright edge and a darker center, and lines become double images.
Dropbox
www.dropbox.com
Muggins
Junk magnet
The Olympus Trip 35 has awful bokeh - it looks pixellated - because it has a square aperture. Took me ages to work out wy the first time I saw it...
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I just want what I think is a nice image. The lens can help with warmth and/or some retro "romance." The lenses from cine manufacturers yield this, and the Sonnars charm me more than Leica lenses. I have one Leica lens and while the color and accuracy are great it has no charm to it, IMNSHO. It is industrial, it could be an engraver's lens. It is the 43 on the Q3 43.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Like Justice Potter Stewart's famous comment in his decision on pornography, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it." I am in the same place with lenses. I cannot for the life of me tell you why some lenses just look good to me. And some are unsung heroes, like the old CV 35mm 1.7 Ultron, the LTM one, that just fell into my lap. The Cooke Amotal is a "gimme". It is coveted by some, one or two on this board - sorry, it is spoken for - the SBS is just a darling and I suspect that the FLB will be better. I have a '57 KMZ J8 that is great, a couple of Canons and the 41-42-43 CZJ 1.5 with solid color, great definition and that thing I consider Sonnar magic. It is a 41-42-43 lens because it is listed with these three dates in different guides. Regardless, this 272nnnnn is a honey.
But I cannot predict what will or would be a good lens. And I am pleased and amazed when I find one. And that is where this board is so valuable. It is a reference library of valued camera info and strangely, oriented toward Leica M-bodies but focused on Sonnars for those Leica M-bodies. This Leica body/Sonnar lens combo seems to work so well. I learned that here, on this board. The little I know about cameras I have learned here in this continuing seminar on photography.
Some folks on this board are really heavy hitters with great depths of knowledge whether they parade it or not. Almost all are humble here. And even the "Blind Hogs" such as myself can make an occasional contribution of value. And this is one of the great strengths of RFF, we are all in this together. And there is some consensus, like the M-body + Sonnar.
And, back to the thread, we are able to chew on the bokeh bone without growling.
But I cannot predict what will or would be a good lens. And I am pleased and amazed when I find one. And that is where this board is so valuable. It is a reference library of valued camera info and strangely, oriented toward Leica M-bodies but focused on Sonnars for those Leica M-bodies. This Leica body/Sonnar lens combo seems to work so well. I learned that here, on this board. The little I know about cameras I have learned here in this continuing seminar on photography.
Some folks on this board are really heavy hitters with great depths of knowledge whether they parade it or not. Almost all are humble here. And even the "Blind Hogs" such as myself can make an occasional contribution of value. And this is one of the great strengths of RFF, we are all in this together. And there is some consensus, like the M-body + Sonnar.
And, back to the thread, we are able to chew on the bokeh bone without growling.
peterm1
Veteran
Upon stumbling onto this thread again for the first time in quite a while, it reminded me of one shot I made in 2021 taken with a Zeiss ZE Makro-Planar 50mm f2 which I was testing out at the time. I had seen some images taken with the lens - albeit close up shots (if not wholly macro ones) where the bokeh was pleasingly soft.
However, in this shot taken at normal distances, with the background a considerable distance off, this was not necessarily so, alas - it is decidedly "caffeinated" in the OOF areas of the image especially but not limited to, the areas with foliage. Perhaps this is related to the len's excellent in-focus sharpness - a characteristic of many such Zeiss Planars. I do not find it necessarily an unpleasant result in the context of this image- just different.
I do not know what, if anything, this proves other than what we know already about lenses - the same lens can sometimes produce decidedly different bokeh outcomes depending upon the image contents, shooting conditions, distances to subject and to background, as well as aperture. And that we need to get to know and understand our lenses when shot in different situations.
City Bus Stop by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
However, in this shot taken at normal distances, with the background a considerable distance off, this was not necessarily so, alas - it is decidedly "caffeinated" in the OOF areas of the image especially but not limited to, the areas with foliage. Perhaps this is related to the len's excellent in-focus sharpness - a characteristic of many such Zeiss Planars. I do not find it necessarily an unpleasant result in the context of this image- just different.
I do not know what, if anything, this proves other than what we know already about lenses - the same lens can sometimes produce decidedly different bokeh outcomes depending upon the image contents, shooting conditions, distances to subject and to background, as well as aperture. And that we need to get to know and understand our lenses when shot in different situations.
City Bus Stop by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Last edited:
oldhaven
Well-known
Very 3 dimensional. ^^^ almost stereoscopic
peterm1
Veteran
Yes. I think it's influenced by the sharpness of the in-focus areas. I do not dislike the effect that the bokeh has induced - that stereoscopic effect as you put it but I can see that it's clearly not what many would think of as "great" bokeh. But it is in this photo at least, still very effective bokeh because it gives that strong 3D stereoscopic effect. Interesting in any event.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I am a particular fan of the CZJ Pancolar (first version). Looks old-fashioned, slightly swirly under the right situation, with highlights bleeding into the shadows and a slight drop of contrast in the out of focus areas. Central sharpness is good from wide open.
oldhaven
Well-known
This Meyer Optik website illustrates Jason Schneider’s point in his post from a few years ago. It seems people will pay rather a lot of cash for bokeh. I am not certain that I like what the trioplan like OOF areas of the Rodenstock lens I adapted are twisted into, but it is certainly fun to experiment with an expensive well made lens from a broken machine rather than throwing it away. The Braun D47 projector cost me under $50, so not bad even if the lens is the only salvageable part. I think I can tame the wildness to good effect by using a bit of stopping down with the external aperture device, and I have a Series VII push on adapter that will allow me to use drop in color correction filters and a hood to play with the slightly unnatural cast. If bokeh is to be part of an image it should be thought about as an element of the composition and add to the image’s total impression on the viewer as an asset rather than a distraction (or nausea risk). I think my orphaned 100/2.8 lens may be best used as a macro lens or possibly a portrait lens, but we will see.
All in good fun, for me at least
Trioplan 100 f2.8 II
The new version of the classic With our Trioplan 100 f2.8 II we present you the classic of the Meyer Optik Görlitz family in a new, revised version.…
www.meyer-optik-goerlitz.com
Prest_400
Multiformat
Nice to come by this thread, I've had some thoughts about bokeh in meantime between the thread resurfacing due to activity yesterday and today.
Realised that I am not actively seeking or thinking Bokeh as much as in my younger days.
However, one irony for me as a Medium format shooter is that it does come with shallow depth of field. It also has that "medium format look" in wider/standard fields of view which require longer focal lengths. Thus, environmental scenes such as whole body in front of a landscape shots come with an out of focus background. I came to appreciated that look in my 6x9 photography and do embrace it!
I also realised, during my trip where I was mainly shooting this format, that I did and wanted to stop down more than expected. Despite community approval, some shots with that shallow DoF would IMO have been more beneficial stopped down. Carrying multiple formats, it was easy also to have some digital duplicate of the scene with either a phone or small sensor camera.
I tend to refer to the discussion like Mike Johnston's TOP "In defense of Depth" article.
Paraphrasing a source that I cannot cite as I don't remember, Medium Format fashion photography in the heyday was not wide open. Rather, studio lights and stopped down for DoF.
And as a fixed lens non-system camera user, I like to think that I have become indifferent to specific lens particularities. Being used to modern rendering (Fujinon 90/3.5, Phone, plus the heap of token digital system lenses) and status quo of this is what it is that the camera bears in its optical path and design.
I do struggle a bit with what is deemed as "Character" for simpler designs such as Tessar types or triplets (in medium format). Perhaps because I have also got used to the sharpness and technical quality of modern optics.
Do have a rather amusing anecdote about the Helios 44 58mm, a newcomer in the camera club asked me: "I got this very famous lens but notice that it has this seeing double effect; seems like something is wrong?". He did show me an image that seemed normal to that lens. As I have not used that optic, I could only mention its well known Swirly bokeh, and perhaps correlate the effect with field curvature as well as "Nisen bokeh".
Realised that I am not actively seeking or thinking Bokeh as much as in my younger days.
However, one irony for me as a Medium format shooter is that it does come with shallow depth of field. It also has that "medium format look" in wider/standard fields of view which require longer focal lengths. Thus, environmental scenes such as whole body in front of a landscape shots come with an out of focus background. I came to appreciated that look in my 6x9 photography and do embrace it!
I also realised, during my trip where I was mainly shooting this format, that I did and wanted to stop down more than expected. Despite community approval, some shots with that shallow DoF would IMO have been more beneficial stopped down. Carrying multiple formats, it was easy also to have some digital duplicate of the scene with either a phone or small sensor camera.
I tend to refer to the discussion like Mike Johnston's TOP "In defense of Depth" article.
Paraphrasing a source that I cannot cite as I don't remember, Medium Format fashion photography in the heyday was not wide open. Rather, studio lights and stopped down for DoF.
This is actually quite relevant out of a RF user perspective because the viewfinders do not preview depth of field. As a bonus, framing, parallax and a VF blind spot due to lens blocking does bring some surprises. In my case in the form of some person that appears there and I do not recall framing, both to good and bad outcomes.
And as a fixed lens non-system camera user, I like to think that I have become indifferent to specific lens particularities. Being used to modern rendering (Fujinon 90/3.5, Phone, plus the heap of token digital system lenses) and status quo of this is what it is that the camera bears in its optical path and design.
I do struggle a bit with what is deemed as "Character" for simpler designs such as Tessar types or triplets (in medium format). Perhaps because I have also got used to the sharpness and technical quality of modern optics.
I once said to another photographer that In imperfection lies some expression. In Cinematography I have noted that there is quite a focus (pun intended) in the optics, and some have had specific stills optics rehoused. Nolan's Mamiya 645, Dune's Helios 58mm, etc.
Do have a rather amusing anecdote about the Helios 44 58mm, a newcomer in the camera club asked me: "I got this very famous lens but notice that it has this seeing double effect; seems like something is wrong?". He did show me an image that seemed normal to that lens. As I have not used that optic, I could only mention its well known Swirly bokeh, and perhaps correlate the effect with field curvature as well as "Nisen bokeh".
pgk
Well-known
For those who are interested this is worth a search for online and reading: Depth of Field and Bokeh by H. H. Nasse (Zeiss). Page 25 onwards deal with out of focus blurriness .....
peterm1
Veteran
I especially agree with this comment from your above post. " If bokeh is to be part of an image it should be thought about as an element of the composition and add to the image’s total impression on the viewer as an asset rather than a distraction (or nausea risk)." For me the point of bokeh is what artistry one can achieve with it in the context of a given image rather than its quality or otherwise in its own right.This Meyer Optik website illustrates Jason Schneider’s point in his post from a few years ago. It seems people will pay rather a lot of cash for bokeh. I am not certain that I like what the trioplan like OOF areas of the Rodenstock lens I adapted are twisted into, but it is certainly fun to experiment with an expensive well made lens from a broken machine rather than throwing it away. The Braun D47 projector cost me under $50, so not bad even if the lens is the only salvageable part. I think I can tame the wildness to good effect by using a bit of stopping down with the external aperture device, and I have a Series VII push on adapter that will allow me to use drop in color correction filters and a hood to play with the slightly unnatural cast. If bokeh is to be part of an image it should be thought about as an element of the composition and add to the image’s total impression on the viewer as an asset rather than a distraction (or nausea risk). I think my orphaned 100/2.8 lens may be best used as a macro lens or possibly a portrait lens, but we will see.
All in good fun, for me at least
Trioplan 100 f2.8 II
The new version of the classic With our Trioplan 100 f2.8 II we present you the classic of the Meyer Optik Görlitz family in a new, revised version.…
BTW you mention in passing the Trioplan. I am pretty sure the following was made with the 135mm f4 version of this lens. (I cannot be more certain than this as my note taking recording images is pretty execrable). 🙂 It exhibits characteristic bubble bokeh - especially noticeable of course when sunlight shines thru leaves creating these specular highlights. Not always a benefit but when it works it can be nice. Note also the OOF areas on the far left which is very soft and contributes to the overall effect. I have a number of old German lenses and especially like the character of those that combine a bokeh which works well with a kind of "rounded" smooth if not soft rendering of in focus elements of its images - something that is especially nice for portraits.
oldhaven
Well-known
Peter, Re my statement above, I really admire talented people who can control all the elements that make a great picture enough to get a high percentage of images they envision or see coming. I can’t, but it’s great fun to play at it for the occasional time I get something I like.
Now I need to try to get something like the one you just posted.
Now I need to try to get something like the one you just posted.
Last edited: