"Bokeh"-Amature Bling?

Getting good bokeh need a lot of thinking and control and you can create very magical effect. Rogvon on flickr is one brilliant example.
I have no choice as I shoot in really really dark places...
 
Maybe if someone could simply decide if 'bokeh' is the use of OOF (as in shallow DOF), or the pleasing rendition of OOF when it is used. One is an artistic decision; the other is the rendition of an optical characteristic.
 
Seems that dSLR's are becoming favored. I use a D90 instead of a gg adapter that I tried out with my HV20 (consumer camcorder with 24p). Not enough light, the lights I would have needed would have cost what the D90 did, even if I ran diy guerilla lighting... I would have needed lights on 3 different residential circuits to light a wide shot of a medium sized room to f2.4 on the 35mm lens without using camcorder gain- ACK!

Cinematographers use a variety of tools to manipulate their audiences emotions. One of these is dof, of course, and shallow DOF is more often used due to a desire for it than the lack of suitable lighting and emulsions. Hollywood DOPs get all the lighting they want, lenses that in many cases can't be owned, and a staff of dozens just for the photography. Sometimes less is more, shallow dof increases their "production value" by better conveying the intended story and better suspending disbelief.

Suspension of disbelief- In a portrait you have only the model there... not the room behind her. With a vase of flowers you might have only them, setting a romantic mood. Images are emotional tools, not intellectual ones- sometimes a dreamy blurry background best conveys the intended emotion, so use it if it works for your style and the shot.

The "shot on video" look is horrible. If you do a good job of incorporating it into the script, like Paranormal Activity did, it's fine but that's not the norm. Shallow Depth of field or "Bokeh" - (what the OOF areas look like) is a problem for low budget shot on video productions. There is a reason why independent filmmakers are jumping to DSLRs of late... plus, many shoot at 24fps. These are (truly) poor man's Red cameras. There is a marked difference between film look and the awful look of digital video. Wanna know the real difference in image quality between film and digital? It really shows up in motion pictures digital video = blown highlights, flat images, low dynamic range, no depth (bokeh) and even the completely untrained eye can see it, it's a distraction, and it prevents the ability to suspend disbelief. It's also true of film vs digital but not as evident in still photographs.
 
Anyone else think that "bokeh"(really shallow DOF) is often the refuge of the unskilled/lazy shooter?

So are "sharpness", "lens signature", "red dot", "L glass", "contrast", "stealth", "RF", ... [insert any photographic buzzwords here].

Some "shooters" got over obsessing on those concepts and start using them effectively, some others stay "amature" for a long time.
 
I applaud the OP for posing a provocative question around one of our favorite hot button issues.

FWIW, I also love me some bokeh.

Apparently mfogiel does also. That's some good bokeh.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you're just tired of the discussion. If so, don't engage in it.
But, the 'effect' has been around since the beginning of photography. Some of the greatest photographers throughout history have employed it. It's no more of a 'gimmick' than 'extensive' DOF.

With your argument, you could say that 'black and white' is a gimmick. Or, wide angle lenses. All of these things are part of an equation. If you don't like the result, then you just don't like that particular image. Move on.
 
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.

That's such BS. This is a romantic notion some people have in their heads that a good photographer will be able to take a great picture no matter what image capturing device is handed to him. This is utter nonsense. A good photographer will know what image capturing device he will need to achieve his desired results.
Tell me something, do you think a good carpenter will make you a 5-star table if you hand him a Swiss army knife and show him a tree??

Sure, some photographers might get a decent shot out of a mobile phone if it fits their style but many others will not and it doesn't say anything about their qualification as a photographer. Somehow I doubt that there's much greatness to find on Andreas Gursky's mobile phone...
 
If you focus on the quality of your images no one will care about the bokeh. Quite frankly unless you come into forums such as this, you probably don't even know what the word means.

Absolutely. I first read the word about two years ago on Ken Rockwell's website and I've since seen it used extensively - and often wrongly - here. 'Bokeh' has nothing whatsoever to do with good or bad photography, it's simply one of the characteristics of a given lens.
 
While I don't generally use the term "bokeh", I don't really have a problem with it. AFAIK (i.e. if Wikipedia is right) it comes from the japanese word for "blurry" or something similar. I don't know why it's such a big deal if a japanese term finds its way into the english language. I'm sure there are lots of english terms used in Japan.
 
People that really matter (ADs, curators, gallerists) do not give a rats @$$ about bokeh and don't know what it is. I have never been asked about it from anyone outside of a place like RFF. I guess that answers the OP's question from my viewpoint. The discussion of bokeh is amateur bling.


Egad!
My heartfelt sympathies to those that are beholden to these fools.
 
By which I probably mean it's just one more thing for gearheads to wrangle about, in preference to actually taking pictures...

Even a non gear-head would prefer to consider his lens adequate to the task and sharp enough for the money paid and the task to be done. Bokeh is the same: a semi-formal or contextual portraitist is going to be bummed by zeiss bokeh (generally speaking) because it's often calls attention to itself. Really bad bokeh has a nasty, eye-ache vibrational quality.

The paradox is that many bokeh hunters are looking for bokeh that gives the subject just enough 'focus' , as Nick Trop explained, but that otherwise gets out of the way of the overall picture. The reason they are 'hunters' and generate so much forum commentry is because smooth bokeh clashes with the design needs of sharpness. The over-use of too much oof is a common fad at the moment as so many amateur d40 users get blown away by a friend's f1.8 (I'm guessing), but the mature shooter may well choose a low degree of oof but will not want it to be 'harsh'; and the gear does make a difference.

But this issue is confounded by at least three factors. Firstly the people who don't require or see the aesthetic or compositional value of oof backgrounds (including the OP) and often seem to assume that everyone should be just like them. Secondly the nutty bokeh admirers who either persue bokeh as a kind of subject or actually like the distracting artifacts that mature shooters are trying to avoid; and give much justification to the first. And third the fact that many who do want bokeh nevertheless don't have a discriminating eye for it and zeiss bokeh is just fine thankyou.

The result is chaos because of the confused debates that follow among people who haven't discerned the distinctions within the clans or aren't generous enough to accept the validity of another person's tastes as if it were a matter of moral right and wrong.
 
Last edited:
What I think is that some pro and long term amateurs must have felt frustrated to see millions suddenly embrace a hobby that has become more accessible with digital. Therefore it becomes more difficult to stand out in the times of flickr and so on, pictures are all over the place. So maybe, instead of raising one's own game and focusing on its own work, the easiest way is to critize those invaders.

Maybe thin DOF is overused, just like B&W, sepia, fake grain, slow speeds, and the thousands I see every day take the same freaking pictures of the Arch of Triumph when I go to work. As long as people enjoy the pictures they took, it seems fine to me. At least, they don't force their photography in experimental crap that only themselves understand, like some pros and serious amateurs nowadays, in the remote hope that their work will ever get noticed.
 
"Boke" has originally nothing to do with photography at all, it is a (blurry) state of the mind .... Lately, the term "Bokeh" is used to describe how a lens renders out-of-focus areas.



Absolutely. 'Bokeh' has nothing whatsoever to do with good or bad photography, it's simply one of the characteristics of a given lens.
 
QUOTE
If you focus on the quality of your images no one will care about the bokeh. Quite frankly unless you come into forums such as this, you probably don't even know what the word means. It seems amoung amateurs that the oos and aahs of comments are directly proportional to the price or unobtainium of the lens. Most professionals only give it a passing thought. If bokeh is your biggest concern when buying a lens or taking a picture, you have bigger problems than paying for the lens. On the other hand, if you are just having fun, then no harm, no foul.

The one good and bad thing about the internet is that everyone has an equal say regardless of their experience or knowledge. Since Robert Frank has been mentioned in this thread, I will use him as an example. What if he posted this image here-

080513-Robert_Frank_04.jpg


How many miserable things would be said about it? Some armchair quarterback would insult him by letting him know all of the things that he should have done. That is why you will see very few serious photographers post their images in forums unless the forum is private. Who needs the aggravation? I stopped doing it years ago because of this. People that really matter (ADs, curators, gallerists) do not give a rats @$$ about bokeh and don't know what it is. I have never been asked about it from anyone outside of a place like RFF. I guess that answers the OP's question from my viewpoint. The discussion of bokeh is amateur bling.


Worth repeating,
Bokeh seems a religion sometimes, needs a good chant - bookeeh-bookeeh-oom-bookeeh-bookeeh-oom
 
That's such BS. This is a romantic notion some people have in their heads that a good photographer will be able to take a great picture no matter what image capturing device is handed to him. This is utter nonsense. A good photographer will know what image capturing device he will need to achieve his desired results.
Tell me something, do you think a good carpenter will make you a 5-star table if you hand him a Swiss army knife and show him a tree??

Sure, some photographers might get a decent shot out of a mobile phone if it fits their style but many others will not and it doesn't say anything about their qualification as a photographer. Somehow I doubt that there's much greatness to find on Andreas Gursky's mobile phone...

Getting a good shot out of a mobile phone or box camera or whatever is a party piece: something you do to show off that you can do it. Most good photographers can do it, because they know how to work within the lmitations of whatever camera they're using. Voluntarily choosing to work within those limits is something else again, and pretending they don't exist is indeed sheer lunacy.

Cheers,

R.
 
Bokeh is the same: a semi-formal or contextual portraitist is going to be bummed by zeiss bokeh (generally speaking) because it's often calls attention to itself. Really bad bokeh has a nasty, eye-ache vibrational quality.

What absolute, unadulterated, rubbish. You are actually saying that you cannot take a good photograph unless you have bought the right brand of lens.
 
What absolute, unadulterated, rubbish. You are actually saying that you cannot take a good photograph unless you have bought the right brand of lens.

What an absolutely hysterically ironic reply. I can't believe that you read the whole of my post and managed to come up with that.

Made my day.
 
Back
Top Bottom