"Bokeh"-Amature Bling?

First, can we please decide if we are talking about Bokeh or depth of field. Depth of field whether narrow or deep is not Bokeh. Bokeh is the rendering of the out of focus area of an image regardless of the depth of field. Oddly enough the Nikon 50 f:1.2 above is showing horrible Bokeh if you really care about it.
 
That is bad bokeh? Really? Because I like it. It might be too busy for your eye. But I find it interesting and pleasing to the eye. As far as the right words, I like the phrase "depth of focus," whereas bokeh is the other part of the image not in focus.



Nikkor 300 2/0 IF ED AIS on D3 @ 2.0

Gregory
 
Last edited:
Gregory, it does not matter whether you like it of not to be considered "good" Bokeh. Bokeh is how a circle of confusion is rendered to have things like soft edges. There are actual optical characteristics--it is not personal preference. Still, it is rather a insignificant quality that only a few get really excited about. The only lenses I know of that optical engineers actually design to have good Bokeh are (expensive) fast medium telephoto lenses used for portraits--I had to sit down with an engineer for several minutes with comparison photos of two different 135mm lenses to actually see what the heck he was talking about (it was far easier to understand with optical diagrams).

Personally, I would be more interested in the in-focus area of the picture.
 
Lots of good perspectives on this thread. I agree with those who have pointed out that Bokeh is being discussed mostly by those are just discovering it and depth of field to accentuate a part(s) of their photographs. Bokeh is not depth of field. Bokeh specifically is the look/appearance of the out of focus areas. Using unsharpness creatively is something that most of us have been doing for years to add interest to our shots....there is a generation of young photogs out there that are using sharpness/unsharpness as their first creative control over their photos. With the advent of whiz-bang do-it-all cameras these photographers haven't learned the basics in many cases. As a conversational topic I think Bokeh is being overdone - most people who are obsessed with it generally don't really know what it is.....photo sharing sites are overrun with "Bokeh this" and "Bokeh that".....and when someone posts a shot with shallow depth of field everyone on their contact list goes crazy. As a conversation point it is a fad and it will pass.....but in practice we have been using it for years and will continue to do so.....maybe "creative use of reticulation" will be the next hot topic.
 
Finder said:
First, can we please decide if we are talking about Bokeh or depth of field. Depth of field whether narrow or deep is not Bokeh. Bokeh is the rendering of the out of focus area of an image regardless of the depth of field. Oddly enough the Nikon 50 f:1.2 above is showing horrible Bokeh if you really care about it.
Click to expand...

"Horrible" to you, but "full of character" to me. The good thing with this lens is that the bokeh is smooth at f/2 and "horrible" at f/1.2, as you can see. So if you want it less horrible, just stop down a tad. The shot of the branches would have been very boring if not for the horrible bokeh. That's why I chose that particular picture as an example.

And of course I'm talking about bokeh, not DOF.
 
Last edited:
Bokeh, when used with the words "good" and "bad", is completely subjective.

Bokeh when expressed in terms of over/under correction of spherical aberration, astigmatism, and circles of confusion, is objective.
 
Finder: Like I heard on the radio today, we can argue about our opinions but not the facts. And the fact is, what you consider good bokeh and what I consider good bokeh are our opinions. Or put another way, we can agree to disagree. Perhaps you could show an example to illustrate your point :p.

Here is one from the Nikkor 58 1.2 AIS Noct


 
Last edited:
Nikkor AIS said:
Finder: Like I heard on the radio today, we can argue about our opinions but not the facts. And the fact is, what you consider good bokeh and what I consider good bokeh are our opinions. Or put another way, we can agree to disagree. Perhaps you could show an example to illustrate your point :p.
Click to expand...

Since we are sticking with facts, here is a link to a lens that was designed to optimize Bokeh:

http://www.dyxum.com/columns/articles/lenses/SAL-135F28/Sony-AF-135-STF-SAL-135F28_review.asp

This will also discuss the technical qualities associated with Bokeh.

Personally, I don't care about the out of focus area in my pictures nor what others think are pretty blurs. However, Bokeh is a technical term in optics. This tread would make more sense if it could actually refer to this property in optics rather than talking about other things like shallow depth of field or what preferences people may have with their images.
 
You may not be interested in the out of focus parts of your photo's however isn't this what the whole thread is about. Just the facts, hmm. The technical aspect of bokeh according to Sony with gimick in the middle of there lens at 2.8 okay.



Taken with 1932 Olympic 180 2.8 on D3. @ 2.8
 
Last edited:
I think the thread is about Bokeh.

Some terms in optics are fairly objective like focus. Other terms are subjective as they alway refer back to our visual system like sharpness, contrast, and Bokeh. Optical designers have parameters to define those as being "good" (acceptable) and "bad" (not acceptable). If you take all the photographer's opinions on what is good sharpness, contrast, and bokeh and place them end to end you will never reach a conclusion. I am more interested in how optical designers frames things. Bokeh for them is simply not opinion.

This thread is giving Bokeh a bad wrap by simply failing to understand what it is.
 
Okay I see where you are going. I didn't mean to be cheeky. ...OO. Okay, so maybe I meant to be a little cheeky:p, hoping to inspire you to post some images to illustrate your point.
The original thread starter seems to me to be saying that "the out of focus portion" or Bokeh" of a photograph, is but one element in the photographic chain which includes color , composition, framing ...00 And that simply using bokkeh on it's own not enough to make a good photograph.
Or Im missing something? I have been known to suffer from a odd concussion syndrome from time to time.



Gregory
 
This thread is obviously the result of the language barrier.
I think we must first translate Bokeh to English so we can better understand what it is.

Any suggestions on a flash new word anyone?
 
Bokeh has nothing to do with a pleasing image. It is simple how the optics renders the out of focus area and there are actual properties designers try to achieve. What is considered "good" is the circles of confusion feather off to give a soft, creamy (for want of a better word) out of focus area.

What the thread seems to think Bokeh is is the use of a shallow depth of field. If people like the look of the out of focus area, they state that it has good Bokeh, when really they mean they like the out of focus area. I have no problem with anyone using shallow depth of field. As other have stated, it can be an effective tool.

Now maybe I have come down a different path into the world of Bokeh; I had to sit down with the optical designer of that Minolta/Sony 135mm STF lens and figure out what the hell was so special about a lens that can have an out of focus area. While I can appreciate how to design for Bokeh and how it is supposed to be rendered, I do find it a rather insignificant quality--there are other properties I would like the lens to have.
 
Finder said:
I think the thread is about Bokeh.

(snip)

This thread is giving Bokeh a bad wrap by simply failing to understand what it is.
Click to expand...

This thread might not be giving bokeh a bad name... it might be giving some of the people who insist that bokeh is something-other-than-what-it-is a bad name!

Unfortunately (as you probably well know), BOKEH is like UMAMI... and is very misunderstood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom