Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
If you use movements you're using a large format camera on a tripod. Large format lenses are NEVER used wide open, most are not very sharp wide open, achieving their best at f22 and often used around that aperture IF movements are possible. In my example, no movements could be used because any swing or tilt would severely defocus something in the photo. my architecture pic was shot with a medium format camera and 45m lens at f16, focus at hyperfocal distance. Worked great, client happy, I got paid. I was happy too
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris,If you use movements you're using a large format camera on a tripod. Large format lenses are NEVER used wide open, most are not very sharp wide open, achieving their best at f22 and often used around that aperture IF movements are possible. In my example, no movements could be used because any swing or tilt would severely defocus something in the photo. my architecture pic was shot with a medium format camera and 45m lens at f16, focus at hyperfocal distance. Worked great, client happy, I got paid. I was happy too
Just to dot some i's and cross some t's
In miniature formats and MF there are TS lenses and Lensbabies, but I'd agree that you're normally using a tripod. And small apertures. And long exposures.
Actually, some LF lenses were designed so that they could be used wide open, and sometimes made a feature of this in their advertising: Super Angulons, for example (as compared with Angulons, where f/6.8 was definitely for focusing only). Then there are portrait lenses. And of course there's not much point in a 150/2.8 Xenotar if you're not going to use it wide open.
Even with studio shots with movements, there's sometimes an advantage in using lenses wide open: I do it sometimes with my 150/4.5 Apo Lanthar, reversing the Scheimpflug rule and shooting at wide apertures for a single line of focus.
Cheers,
R.
downstairs
downstairs
I would add that a long lens is the refuge of the enthusiastic but inexperienced photographer. A long lens plus bokeh.
Bokeh adds aerial perspective to a in image that otherwise has no structural perspective at all.
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
sure it could work Chris, Bokeh is (as far as i care) the OOF area which translates to what i used to call it when i was a kid (still do sometimes) "Blurred Background" or "Blurred foreground"
in that context the background area in the office picture cant start until outside the window because the subject is obviously the entire inside of the room from front to back ..so set the DOF distance to end outside the window and there is your ©"Blurred Background" OOF area or Bokeh
nice pic of the girl with the balloon btw
Thanks for the compliment on the pic of the little girl, I love it too. You guys don't normally get to see my commercial work here, but this thread was a good place for a couple of shots I got paid to shoot (as opposed to my artistic stuff that I shoot cause I want to then get paid of someone later decides to buy it).
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Yeah I know about those lenses, but have never owned one. They're simply way outside my price range for something I would rarely need. I still have my 4x5 camera, I can drag it out of someone ever needs something that really requires movements.
Phantomas
Well-known
I love me some bokeh. And yes, I often use it as a cheap trick. Shamelessly.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Certainly in the late eighties, but back then it was already inspired by fifties and sixties fashion photography - it obviously is a trend recurring every decade, just like very wide hyperfocal shots.
But back then we used the rather mediocre bokeh fast sports lenses of the time - strong OOF was good OOF, regardless of whether circle or donut shaped. OOF was a widespread tool, but certainly not a subject of its own.
The recent bokeh mania may be more due to a desire for social/peer group distinction, fuelled by technical changes. Any OOF is hard to attain with compacts or kit zoom DX crop digitals, as they are hyperfocal from macro to infinity in most operation modes, so that visible bokeh on digital implies either determination to adapt alien lenses (and risk camera damage) or a lush budget. Some bokeh shooters certainly display a "you can't do that with your inferior gear" spirit.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Bling is always not mature (i.e. "amature")
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Some also think of B&W as "a cheap trick". It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that Swing.
Ade-oh
Well-known
Personally, I think 'bokeh' - meaning the quality of the way a lens renders out-of-focus areas - has become a kind of meaningless fetish amongst gear-heads. Different lenses do it differently: so what?
As for isolating the main subject by defocusing the rest of the image... well sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's a weapon in the photographer's armoury. Pretty much anything in photography can seem clichéed now, which is why good photographers really stand out.
As for isolating the main subject by defocusing the rest of the image... well sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's a weapon in the photographer's armoury. Pretty much anything in photography can seem clichéed now, which is why good photographers really stand out.
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
I've read through this thread a couple of times and decided that I didn't really think that everybody was writing about the same subject. A lot of good points made and I always appreciate what Chris and Roger have to say. But I guess at least Ade-oh and I agree on a definition of 'bokeh' - the rendition of out of focus areas, the emphasis being on the rendition.
I think I might know what 'movements' are but an explanation might make some threads a bit more meaningful for me at least.
jesse
I think I might know what 'movements' are but an explanation might make some threads a bit more meaningful for me at least.
jesse
antiquark
Derek Ross
I bet it's related to the rise of small sensor P&S and cell cameras. Those things have basically infinite depth of field (zero bokeh).
There are young people out there who have never used a large sensor camera of any type, digital or film. Then when they eventually buy some APS-C or full frame dSLR, the bokeh effects would look totally amazing. So I'm not really surprised people take pics to show off the bokeh.
There are young people out there who have never used a large sensor camera of any type, digital or film. Then when they eventually buy some APS-C or full frame dSLR, the bokeh effects would look totally amazing. So I'm not really surprised people take pics to show off the bokeh.
Neare
Well-known
Would you consider using a Leica... bling? =)
lorriman
Established
A very shallow depth of field is the only concrete feature that distinguishes the banality of vision from photographic vision. All else is merely manipulations of contrast and colour.
However I'm not talking of art. Bokeh, in the hands of the amateur, can result in an awful lot of glorified snapshots.
However I'm not talking of art. Bokeh, in the hands of the amateur, can result in an awful lot of glorified snapshots.
Mcary
Well-known
A recent example of a professional photographer doing just this would be Douglas Kirkland's portraits of the cast of the movie Australia. for which he used an 8x10 DearDorff with a Kodak 12 inch Ektar F4.5 and a 8.5 inch Ektar.
NOTE: He also mentioned going further then wide open by removing part of the front elements of the lens. A trick shown to him by Authur Rothstein.
Mike
It could be argued that a *camera* in the hands of an amateur (or pro) can get the same result.
For me, an otherwise bland snapshot with everything in focus can acquire much improved interest if selective focus were used. The reverse is also true...as Bob Michael's signature says, 'it depends.'
Last edited by a moderator:
ferider
Veteran
It's just a tool. Usable as a toy. Overused as a toy, sometimes. But this is the nature of photography, no ? As long as more photos are taken, IMO, it's all good.
See this for instance:
The family really liked this photo of their son. Taken at a party for his acceptance at Berkeley.
And then, even hard core bokeh haters might like these:
No ?
It's not a very recent tool either, just the name is rather new. Check Robert Frank for instance. Bokeh shots everywhere.
Roland.
See this for instance:
The family really liked this photo of their son. Taken at a party for his acceptance at Berkeley.
And then, even hard core bokeh haters might like these:
No ?
It's not a very recent tool either, just the name is rather new. Check Robert Frank for instance. Bokeh shots everywhere.
Roland.
Last edited:
Andy Kibber
Well-known
If the best thing you can say about a photo is "nice bokeh" it's probably not a very interesting photo. Someone here said that a while ago and I tend to agree.
Not sure why folks get worked up about use of bokeh. Out-of-focus pictures of coffee cups and the like don't float my boat, but if the photographer enjoys making them and looking at them, have at it. They're easy enough to ignore.
Not sure why folks get worked up about use of bokeh. Out-of-focus pictures of coffee cups and the like don't float my boat, but if the photographer enjoys making them and looking at them, have at it. They're easy enough to ignore.
NickTrop
Veteran
Nope. Completely, and respectfully, disagree. Thoughts on bokeh:
1. It is a chromatic aberration, imo. It is the lens's inability to maintain focus over a sufficiently wide plane at wide apertures.
2. However, it emulates - at almost a symbolic level, how we perceive the world and is therefore indispensable. When my concentration is focused on a specific object, I have less attention focused on its surroundings. I'm conscious of them, but... Bokeh emulates this...
3. Of course, when I am perceiving or have my perception "fixed" on something it background doesn't go all "out of focus" - but it's exactly traits like this that makes photography so enigmatic. The world isn't black and white, but we accept black and white photos as real. The background (and/or foreground) isn't all blurry, but we accept this to. A different but compatable way of perception intrinsic to the camera - the camera isn't eye/brain...
4. As for its overuse? Perhaps, but when you're learning and becoming enamored with photography and beginning to understand it, it's natural to "play" - and one of the first things you "play" with as you begin to master the camera - and have "pride of authorship" around is controlling DOF. We all did it.
dotur
od karnevala
If you use movements you're using a large format camera on a tripod. Large format lenses are NEVER used wide open, most are not very sharp wide open, achieving their best at f22 and often used around that aperture IF movements are possible. In my example, no movements could be used because any swing or tilt would severely defocus something in the photo. my architecture pic was shot with a medium format camera and 45m lens at f16, focus at hyperfocal distance. Worked great, client happy, I got paid. I was happy too
OK, you are right.
Just wanted to mention that old chap Scheimpflug, I like the name. My intention was to stir some movement(s) among RF people...
And your architectural photo is excellent, I like it, really I do.
However, LF lenses can be used wide open to obtain the BOKEH!
Canon 5D mounted on wooden Globica (13x18cm), Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 4.5/300:
http://www.ivanlozica.com/yahoo_site....358103931.jpg
Happy New Year!