"Bokeh"-Amature Bling?

[-doomed-]

Shallow depth of field is often the refuge of the unskilled amateur , I speak from my early jump from the digital point and shoot to a canon 20d with a plastic fantastic 50mm 1.8, I shot that thing wide open nearly all the time. Why? because I could, I thought that made every photo better, I had no idea what bokeh or oof even meant. I eventually realized that those shots weren't made any better by the shallow dof , they were just bad shots in general.

I bought a fixed lense RF and decided I wanted to learn photography instead of my typical guess and hope the AF took care of the focus and the auto exposure figured out the light.

This forum has plenty of talent on it, and I've learned a great deal from people on here even though I never asked them for the help , I just read and tried what I learned , if it worked for me it became a tool for me to use.

Needless to say after the rather wordy lead up to this end, i use shallow dof sparingly now , as long as I can get a sharper image by using a smaller aperture that I can handhold, I do.

Overuse of shallow dof seems to me as much of a part of the learning process as anything else , use it like crazy at first , realize theres a time and a place , then use it as needed.

Gimmick , bling , cheap tricks , call it what you will. If it works use it and if its not right for the situation don't.

Im no pro , I'd consider myself a glorified snapshot maker.

 

[Andy Kibber]

i think this thread was begun because the OP is really on a private vendetta to stamp out cats and coffee mugs... probably a cat knocked over a hot cup of coffee into the OP lap or got fur on his lens 😛 or maybe licked it 😱 ooh yuck 😀

Cat saliva is notorious for destroying lens coatings. 🙂

 

[wgerrard]

Judging by a lot of photos I see around the net posted by someone trumpeting their bokeh, I suspect those photographers are more interested in getting what they think is an interesting background -- lots of shiny but blurry little spots -- than in exploiting shallow depth of field.

 

[Phew!finder]

Slightly off-topic, but reading this thread made me think about the low-budget indie filmmaking community where for so many, OOF = production value/35mm look = professionalism.

In the last ten/fifteen years the trend has been for sticking so-called DOF adaptors onto relatively cheap prosumer camcorders. So your tiny 1/3" sensor films the image projected by 35mm lenses (often Nikkor AIS) onto a piece of randomly-moving ground glass. What with the 5d, 7d, d90, GH1 entering the 'HDSLR' market recently, the OOF fetish has got even worse. And it's not what you'd call 'bokeh', it's simply shallow DOF of whatever rendition.

In that world anyway, it definitely is a case of association (subconscious or otherwise) between shallow DOF and quality.

 

[wgerrard]

OT -- About cat pictures:

I peruse a few sites every morning over breakfast. Before I get into the news, I take a look at the day's "Astronomy Picture of the Day" and then I look at the new cat pictures at ICanHasCheezburger. Sets me up for diving into whatever overnight miseries have taken place.

 

[porktaco]

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

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

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

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

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:

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

*applause*

 

[Mcary]

I bought a fixed lense RF and decided I wanted to learn photography instead of my typical guess and hope the AF took care of the focus and the auto exposure figured out the light.

Sorry to be blunt but I'm simply amazed at the number of people in these forums who blame digital for being lazy. Fact of the matter its the user's choice of how much or how little control he or she hands over to their equipment. Case in point you made the choice to use your 20D on auto exposure rather then manual and you made the choice to let the AF decide what to focus on instead of telling it what to focus on.


Rangefinders and film camera are wonderful tools that stand on their own merit without the need to make excuses about how digital make people lazy. People are lazy because they choose to be and can decided not lazy to be at anytime no matter what equipment they're using.

 

[tbarker13]

No different than any other tool in a photographer's arsenal. It can be used well and it can be used badly.
But at times, I'd argue that it can a make an average shot better. Just like changing lenses can make a difference. Or changing perspective.

 

[Luddite Frank]

I have always understood "bokeh" to be a term used in describing HOW a lens renders out of focus areas ( primarily stuff behind the subject/sharp bits).

"Bokeh for Bokeh's sake" seems to be either "playing around", or trying to demonstrate / market a given lens's performance. Bokeh-speak gets as flowerly / ridiculous as "winespeak".

I doubt there are many "serious" photographs where Bokeh is the main subject ?


(Personally, I like the geometric / polygonal bokeh offered by some of the older lenses.)

LF

 

[-doomed-]

Sorry to be blunt but I'm simply amazed at the number of people in these forums who blame digital for being lazy. Fact of the matter its the user's choice of how much or how little control he or she hands over to their equipment. Case in point you made the choice to use your 20D on auto exposure rather then manual and you made the choice to let the AF decide what to focus on instead of telling it what to focus on.


Rangefinders and film camera are wonderful tools that stand on their own merit without the need to make excuses about how digital make people lazy. People are lazy because they choose to be and can decided not lazy to be at anytime no matter what equipment they're using.

No offense taken.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I am not simply blaming the camera for my laziness when it came to just using the 20D as an overpriced point and shoot. I did use it manually once I became more confident, hence why I learned the plastic fantastic was capable of fantastic out of focus areas once I tried using it manual . I used it manual nearly full time once I understood some basics of photography.

I started using rangefinders with my canonet because I was fascinated by what a rangefinder was. The canonet can allow for one to be lazy as well with its shutter priority and ease of use. I made a decision that I enjoyed rangefinders and they fit me best over the SLR which I have sold off due to lack of use.

I'd never go out of my way to blame digital for my laziness at the time I was using it exclusively , nor would I blame shotgun shoot 1000 pictures and use what I like best and delete the rest. I was lazy at first because of my unwillingness to learn what it was that I was doing. When I realized I could shoot better if I took the time to learn what exactly it was that I was doing , I stepped up and made the effort to learn so i could become more consistent with my results.

Rangefinders fit my style better than an SLR , i rarely use zooms , or macro close ups. I still use digital but with a good point and shoot which I feel compliments my RF kit and is nice to throw in a pocket . Digital is fantastic , and if I could afford an Rd-1 , M8 , or M9 I'd buy and use them.

Maybe my initial statement was too broad .

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Nope. Completely, and respectfully, disagree. Thoughts on bokeh:

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.

my thoughts exactly, hold your hand in front of you and focus your gaze on it... is the background razor sharp or somewhat fuzzy?

Relax folks and let the 'bokeh' take over 😉
I guess I'll never advance my amateur status..

and here's my obligatory 'fuzzy backgrounded' coffee shot...haters 😉

 

[Nikkor AIS]

I consider my self a serious shooter and bokeh is often a factor in my photography. Just as is lighting point of view/perspective shutter speed point of focus , subject matter ...00. Why else have a Noctilux 50 1.0 for my M system and Nikkor 300 2.0 IF ED AIS for my Nikon system. 😛. Because at f 8/11 almost all lens are the same.
I disagree that bokeh is passing fad, Iv seen taken with large format from 100 years ago that had great bokeh.
Now in saying that I do feel that a mediocre image is often made better with pleasing bokeh. But come on , is that really a bad thing? And I have taken/sold images that where nothing but bokeh. So it goes both ways.
Iv noticed that there are many shooters that for the lack of a better word are bokeh haters. Just reading the word makes them cringe. Bokeh, bokeh, bokeh...00

I think the fact that not all images exhibit what is for that lack of a better word pleasing bokeh stick in some people crawl. I personally believe that a photo need not have pleasing or any bokkeh at all to be successful, however having a pleasing bokeh certainly never hurts.
I think there is a place in the realm of art photography for images that are taken for no other reason than pleasing bokeh.
I think the people that Iv dubbed bokeh haters have tried it and were not successful so they turn there backs on bokeh as a coping mechanism.

And there is the factor that the best bokeh dosnt always come cheap. While I agree that many affordable lens can exhibit pleasing bokeh. What's funny is that the opinion of what good bokeh varies from one person to the other.
I know that in my photography Iv had several people comment that my most recent work taken with the Lecia M3/M6 at f 8/11 look more like snap shots than the ones taken with the Nikkor 28 1.4 D AF used wide open or my Nikkor 300 2.0 IF ED AIS at f 2.0.
And for me thats okay because it's about the being true to the subject and my own vision than in bowing down to what others expect or desire.
By the same token one cant help but be influenced by the images around us as well as the monetary consideration of selling there work if there in the business of selling /exhibiting there work.

Gregory

http://rogaltacdesign@smugmug.com

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I think that the knee-jerk reaction of hating something because you don't like it is very fashionable "anti-bourgeois", specially a bit retrograde when they don't even know when "bourgeois" means to be "anti" -it.

Like those people that would say they hate Mathematics because it's so not full of rhyming poetry in German. Bery bery stoopid.

 

[NickTrop]

There are bokeh haters. I can't help but think that some may not like it because their relatively expensive high-end digital point-n-shoot cameras with their blazing f3.5 zooms and tiny sensors are incapable of producing it (though they do have an abundance of megapixels - now that's important, especially when posting pics on the web). So it's "overused", "overrated", "ugly", "distracting"... etc. In other words, sour grapes.

 

[Pico]

Anyone else think that "bokeh"(really shallow DOF)

Bokeh has been widely discussed, but to appreciate the different kinds of bokeh, you should try several lenses. Bokeh remains one of the variable qualities among lens designs. By that I mean that at one time portrait photographers in particular used to search out the lenses that had just the right look, usually various degrees of spherical aberration, and there were many kinds of looks (bokeh, too). Most lenses today are designed toward MTF, color accuracy, and so-forth so that the old look has been just about designed away. (Exceptions remain, but they aren't many.)

Regarding Chris' statement that LF is never shot wide open, I would qualify that as "most professional assignments for LF require small apertures", but it is fun to shoot LF wide open, and there are adequately sharp lenses for such. The 135mm F/3.5 Planar is one. It's not a great general use lens due to limited coverage to allow movements.

Oh, and to stay on-topic, The Linhof Super Technika is a rangefinder, of course, and the 135mm works very well on their 4x5. 🙂

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Large Format wide open

100mm wide-field ektar/ 6.3

Todd

 

[ampguy]

yes it is

yes it is

Check my latest blog post of photo in the dark @ 1.4 and ISO 800. I would have loved to go to 1.2 or f1 and ISO 400 or 200 and just capture the face if I had a faster lens.

Sometimes a shallow depth of field is hard to avoid, especially in low light conditions.

 

[NickTrop]

Large Format wide open
Todd

Todd - that image looks spooky real. Like there's a live kid on the other side of my monitor who lives in an alternate black and white reality. Excellent. I'm sure the print must be something to behold.

 

[Gumby]

More LF wide-open

More LF wide-open

One of them is a 250 Fujinon SF... wide open (yellow disk, I think).

The other is 12 inch Kodak Commercial Ektar... wide open.

Neither would have worked at F/22.

(Please forgiven the dust spots.)

 

[Thebes]

Slightly off-topic, but reading this thread made me think about the low-budget indie filmmaking community where for so many, OOF = production value/35mm look = professionalism.

In the last ten/fifteen years the trend has been for sticking so-called DOF adaptors onto relatively cheap prosumer camcorders. So your tiny 1/3" sensor films the image projected by 35mm lenses (often Nikkor AIS) onto a piece of randomly-moving ground glass. What with the 5d, 7d, d90, GH1 entering the 'HDSLR' market recently, the OOF fetish has got even worse. And it's not what you'd call 'bokeh', it's simply shallow DOF of whatever rendition.

In that world anyway, it definitely is a case of association (subconscious or otherwise) between shallow DOF and quality.

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.