"Bokeh"-Amature Bling?

K

Kouyoubushi

Newbie
Local time
8:20 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
5
Anyone else think that "bokeh"(really shallow DOF) is often the refuge of the unskilled/lazy shooter? I have seen many shots that, less shallow DOF, were completely unremarkable. Shallow DOF is a "tool" that like any other in your bag of tricks, is great when used judiciously, but becomes cliche when overused. A good photographer can coax a 5-star shot out of a mobile phone camera with a sensor smaller than the nail on your pinky toe. The cheap f/1.8 lens is awesome of course, but learning about lighting, timing, color, and composition are just as awesome, no?
 
I mostly agree! - overdone, overemphasised, and much discussed here, like the insistence that regular servicing ( CLA ) is an absolute necessity - it is a 'fad' of the last ten/fifteen years! :)
Dave.
 
Sometimes a shallow depth of field is hard to avoid, especially in low light conditions.
 
Shallow depth of field is sometimes unavoidable and sometimes advisable: it is not always or even often a gimmick. I do not agree that an otherwise unremarkable photo can somehow be made "better" with less depth of field.
 
I don't know about others. I had been largely out of photography for years, studying at Indiana University in the late 90's, and am getting back into photography... have been on and off but more on lately. Back then we DID talk about how out of focus areas, highlights especially, were rendered with different lenses... we never used the term Bokeh for this. We also talked about depth-of-field, plane of focus, etc. We talked about this a lot more than out of focus looks of each other's lenses.

I hadn't considered the word "bokeh" to mean only shallow dof, but rather how out of focus areas are rendered, For example a mirror telephoto lens has strange donut-like bokeh, and such-and-such favored (and expensive) lens has "creamy" bokeh. Someone's portrait has shallow dof throwing the room behind her out of focus because it is destracting to the main subject- that is not "bokeh".

I think that a lot of newer photographers, born of the digital age, become enamoured with shallow dof because their previous camera systems lacked the ability. But its a useful tool, depends upon what is appropriate for the subject- often less is more.

I agree the term is over-used, and appearantly now in a way not even the Japanese ever considered.
 
Nope, you're 100% wrong. First of all, in professional portrait photography shallow depth of field has been used forever to isolate people from busy backgrounds. Certainly not a fad of the last 15 yrs.

appleseed1.jpg

Soft background makes the balloon more easily visible and gives it a sense of floating. This was used in a local magazine that used to use my work.

Second, as has been mentioned earlier, low light photos basically always have shallow depth of field unless the camera is used on a tripod with a very long exposure. I've done that at times when I did not want the background out of focus (doing architectural photography indoors, the whole scene has to be in focus to make the client happy).

schneck4.jpg

Everything had to be in focus here. The architect who hired me needed this for his portfolio. Bokeh couldn't work here!

mack-smiling.jpg

This looks nicer with the distracting tree branches out of focus.

I don't get people who don't understand that control of depth of field is an aesthetic choice that a photographer has, another tool. Its not an amateur 'bling', whatever the hell that is (where I live bling is fancy jewelry worn by drug dealers to show off their wealth). I am one of many RFF members who earns his living as a professional photographer. I've been doing this for 15 years now, I've been exhibited and published numerous times around the country and I have a degree in art and photography for what its worth. I can assure you that the only people who feel the need to bash others use of shallow depth of field are not pros, as we understand its a tool we can use or not use as needed. Go take some pictures and get some experience.
 
Thebes said:
I don't know about others. I had been largely out of photography for years, studying at Indiana University in the late 90's, and am getting back into photography... have been on and off but more on lately. Back then we DID talk about how out of focus areas, highlights especially, were rendered with different lenses... we never used the term Bokeh for this. We also talked about depth-of-field, plane of focus, etc. We talked about this a lot more than out of focus looks of each other's lenses.

I hadn't considered the word "bokeh" to mean only shallow dof, but rather how out of focus areas are rendered, For example a mirror telephoto lens has strange donut-like bokeh, and such-and-such favored (and expensive) lens has "creamy" bokeh. Someone's portrait has shallow dof throwing the room behind her out of focus because it is distracting to the main subject- that is not "bokeh".

I think that a lot of newer photographers, born of the digital age, become enamoured with shallow dof because their previous camera systems lacked the ability. But its a useful tool, depends upon what is appropriate for the subject- often less is more.

I agree the term is over-used, and appearantly now in a way not even the Japanese ever considered.
Click to expand...

Exactly. When I got my 150/4.5 Apo-Lanthar in the 80s, a friend remarked that one of the great attractions of this lens is the way it renders the out-of-focus areas; that was before the term 'bokeh' came into use. And as Chris says, differential focus has been around forever, whether from necessity (low light) or choice. Anyone else remember the fashion photography of maybe 20-30 years ago (I forget exactly when it was) when 300/2.8 lenses were used wide open? Or Hollywood portraits from the 1930s, shot at 1/10 second on 10x8 at full aperture?

But I agree with the OP that the word appears to have been hijacked on occasion by some truly awful photographers who photograph cats or coffee cups and then invite you to admire the (even more boring) out-of-focus areas behind the sharp bit. Where I don't agree is that bad shots at 1/8000 at f/1 in broad daylight are improved by zero depth of field. Most are made worse.

Again, like Chris, I'd not call it bling.

Cheers,

R.
 
Shallow DOF and the accompanying bokeh is perhaps THE most recognised and accepted technique in portrait photography and has been since Methusela played half back for the Jerusalem Jets. Well, perhaps not that long. But you are right in saying its but one of several aspects of good photography.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Exactly. When I got my 150/4.5
But I agree with the OP that the word appears to have been hijacked on occasion by some truly awful photographers who photograph cats or coffee cups and then invite you to admire the (even more boring) out-of-focus areas behind the sharp bit. Where I don't agree is that bad shots at 1/8000 at f/1 in broad daylight are improved by zero depth of field. Most are made worse.

Thanks for getting what I was trying to say rather than having a knee jerk reaction. I never at any point stated that no one should ever use shallow DOF, only that it is overused, often inappropriately. Naturally, portraits would be an instance where such DOF is totally appropriate.
Click to expand...
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Second, as has been mentioned earlier, low light photos basically always have shallow depth of field unless the camera is used on a tripod with a very long exposure.
Click to expand...

Wrong, or at least not entirely true - if you can use combined camera movements:

"Remember the Scheimpflug principle - lines drawn through the subject, lens panel and film planes should all meet at one point to give greatest depth of field" (Langford, M.J. Basic Photography. London/New York: Focal Press 1978, 4th edition, p. 108).

www.ivanlozica.com
 
>Whatever works

>control of depth of field is an aesthetic choice that a photographer has, another tool.

Case resolved.

I think, cause of issue is also spotted:

>a lot of newer photographers, born of the digital age, become enamoured
>with shallow dof because their previous camera systems lacked the ability.
 
On further thought, maybe 'bling' is right.

Jewellery can be in good or bad taste, and adding lots of bad-taste jewellery will not make an ugly pimp or a drug dealer any more attractive.

Shallow d-o-f can be in good or bad taste, and adding lots of bad-taste out-of-focus areas will not make a bad photo any more attractive.

Cheers,

R.
 
Well, to me there is bokeh and bokeh. There is the coffee cup bokeh that melts away (C Sonnar):

1971721096_00f3e29ecf_b.jpg


There is a coffe cup bokeh that starts to be more structured (Planar):

2040605537_c3f95b08eb_b.jpg


and then there is the coffe table bokeh that starts taking over the picture (Summaron):

3739692945_212f1611d4_b.jpg


And finally a coffee table bokeh, that IS the picture (Summitar):

3765001354_7bf6bc3bab_b.jpg


While initially I have been very much attracted to the Sonnar type bokeh, lately I am more intrigued by the bokeh of older Leica lenses. In fact, although I do not care at all for the f1.0 Noctilux's sharpness, I think this is the most interesting bokeh machine around:

3532196089_bb70659f89_b.jpg


Finally, I think that 99% of great pictures of this fellow (HCB) were sharp front to back ( at times I ask myself how he did it, considering that there were no high speed films available at the time). But in case of this shot, I really think that the blurred part is so good, that it could be a photo on its own - judge for yourself:

http://www.ldesign.com/Images/Essays/OnReality/OnReality Part 6/windsor.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom