"Bokeh"-Amature Bling?

[mfogiel]

Originally posted by lorriman:

a semi-formal or contextual portraitist is going to be bummed by zeiss bokeh (generally speaking) because it's often calls attention to itself

Could you kindly back this statement with some images? From my experience with lenses (Zeiss, Leica, CV, Nikon) the Zeiss glass tends to have very pleasant and "normal" bokeh, as opposed to "articulated" or "harsh" or outright "disturbing" bokeh from other manufacturers. It would be interesting to find out what are you basing your statement on.

Thanks

Marek

Zeiss Makro Planar 100/2 ZF

Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 ZF

Zeiss Planar 80/2.8 (Rolleiflex)

Zeiss Planar 50/2 ZM

Zeiss C Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM

Zeiss Makro Planar 120/4 (Hasselblad)

 

[lorriman]

Originally posted by lorriman:

Could you kindly back this statement with some images? From my experience with lenses (Zeiss, Leica, CV, Nikon) the Zeiss glass tends to have very pleasant and "normal" bokeh, as opposed to "articulated" or "harsh" or outright "disturbing" bokeh from other manufacturers. It would be interesting to find out what are you basing your statement on.

Thanks

Marek

No thank you. Your reply is missing the point of my post; and which even specifically addresses differences in opinion on this subject. But I will comment on your examples. Zeiss make a lot more lenses than this sample and you have chosen two famous for the (uncharacteristically) good bokeh, a flower shot (guaranteed to produce good bokeh), the kind of grain that masks certain kinds of poor bokeh, a degree of oof that can help poor bokeh lenses avoid the worst, and front-bokeh which is usually good on a bad bokeh lens (technical reasons). I also was careful not to generalise to all Zeiss lenses: "generally speaking".

 

[lorriman]

What absolute, unadulterated, rubbish......despite the blather.

I respectfully and with laboured consideration replied to you and you respond not only coarsely but also to a reasoned post with unreasoned dogma of a form reminiscent of a rather too simple interpretation of one of Ken Rockwell's strongly held opinions.

I nearly spilled my tea.

You could at least have been magnanimous in reply to what obviously took more than a minute to write even if you've decided that I am a mindless moron.

Your further reply does help to make me realise, however, that no fruitful communication is likely between us, so I withdraw from addressing yourself with that reply: rather as a general comment contributing to the thread. Adieu.

 

[Mcary]

Agreed.

I've never considered if I'm using shallow DOF too much. If it works for the photo I do it.

Same here!
For me it comes down to this simple question; Do the surrounding add to or take away from the main subject(s) that I'm photographing? Once I've answered that question I simple pick an F-stop that will give me the results I'm looking for.

 

[mfogiel]

@ lorriman

Well, i know this is kind of pointles, because people will think that I am a sort of lens integralist junkie, but frankly speaking, from my experience the Zeiss glass has wonderful bokeh, and it is mainly of a very neutral and mellow type, so it is in fact ideal for formal portaiture. I have... let's see... 11 Zeiss Hasselblad lenses 2 Zeiss Rolleiflex TLR lenses, 5 Zeiss ZF lenses and 7 Zeiss ZM lenses and that makes a total of 25, and I have yet to see an unpleasant bokeh from any of these... On the other hand, I enjoy a lot the articulated bokeh of some older Leica lenses, as shown at the beginning of this thread, but in fact I regard it much more predominant, so it might be of some problem for classic portraiture. The worst bokeh (disturbing) I have found so far was exhibited by some latest Leica ASPH lenses ( obviously speaking only about good quality optics). Therefore, in the spirit of free dispute, I acknowledge your point, but remain unconvinced.

Zeiss Biogon 25/2.8 ZM

Zeiss Biogon 35/2 ZM

Zeiss Distagon 25/2.8 ZF

Zeiss Makro Planar 50/2 ZF

Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 ZF - this time no foreground...

Zeiss Planar 100/3.5 (Hasselblad):

Zeiss Makro Planar 135/5.6 (hasselblad)

Zeiss Planar 75/3.5 (Rolleiflex)

Zeiss Planar 80/2.8 (Hasselblad):

Zeiss Sonnar 150/4 (Hasselblad):

Zeiss Sonnar 180/4 (Hasselblad):

Zeiss Sonnar 250/5.6+ Zeiss 2x Mutar (Hasselblad):

 

[lorriman]

@ lorriman

Well, i know this is kind of pointles, because people will think that I am a sort of lens integralist junkie, but frankly speaking, from my experience the Zeiss glass has wonderful bokeh,

Much better demonstration, I agree. However it's still got absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying (for which zeiss's bokeh, good or otherwise, is incidental). Also some of your pics demonstrate the kind of bokeh I don't like that I mentioned: which simply emphasis some of the things I mentioned in my post in relation to views on whether bokeh is good or bad.

 

[Rogrund]

You have some great pictures in this thread, Marek!

 

[freeranger]

Great photos Chris.


However, just to prove that the OP has a valid point ...

 

[Gumby]

I'm still curious... are y'all defining "bokeh" the same way? Could be why it sounds like jibberish.

 

[Gumby]

Correct, Fred... I was referring to 'y'all y'all', not y'all when I said that. I quoted you out of convenience becuase the jibberish/gibberish comment was something to which I could relate.

This conversation reminds me of every other bokeh thread I have ever read, except I think on other forums they had a better understanding of the difference between bokeh and OOF. This conversation also reminds me of every conversation I ahve enver heard on the topic of "umami" and wine/cigar characteristics.

 

[Gumby]

Well, I understand the terminology, and the optical phenomena involved. Nonetheless I doubt that bokeh has that much real-life relevance. The bokeh believers should show a case where a considerable majority of us can agree that picture would be a general pleasure if it were not for its bad bokeh. As long as I haven't seen anything like that I consider it a parameter less relevant than flare, contrast and distortion - and even these will only very rarely kill a good picture...

Sevo

I'm not that 'bokeh believer' that you are seeking, but you can look in this very thread and find a range of bokeh examples - some OK bokeh and some that is very harsh and disturbing.

Not intending to offend the photographer... but I find the bokeh of the Zeiss Distagon 25/2.8 ZF really dreadful based on some pics posted earlier. I find the bokeh in those images to, largely, be very hard on the eyes. The image itself was a valiant attempt to focus the viewers attention using selective focus and what resulted is much better than anything that may have resulted by increased DOF.

What I consider harsh and disturbing bokeh, though, is my opinion alone and may not be shared by all. Bokeh is largely subjective and situational... as you prbably already know.

 

[yanidel]

I couldn't agree more. Out of focus blobs are out of focus blobs and I don't think they are disturbing or distracting, harsh or mild, no matter what shape they are. Sometimes they appear in good pictures, and sometimes they appear in bad pictures, sometimes they enhance a picture and sometimes they don't. Threads like this suggest to me that a lot of people think that somewhere there is an ideal Platonic form for a photograph and that somehow, through the right combination of camera, lens, film, tripod, bag, half-case and strap, they can edge a little closer to it.

It is true that bokeh is much more dependent on surroundings, distance to subject than the lens itself but some lenses do have characteristics that will bring different kind of bokeh.
To illustrate, follow this link and the test made by Guy Mancuso with a 35 Cron IV vs 35 Summarit (a girl portrait).
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...9767-summarit-35-seans-review.html#post417795
If you look purely at the aesthetics of the pictures, it is evident that the bokeh or OOF, can be significantly different from one to the other for a given aperture. Moreover, in this case I think they influence the balance of the picture. The Cron IV bokeh distracts more from the subject, while the Summarit is smoother and maybe keeps attention on the girl. Is the Cron IV a bad or harsh bokeh ? Maybe, but I just happen to like this picture better. So here obviously comes into play personal preferences, and here nobody is ever going to get it right. Does one take a picture to illustrate a scene or subject or is it just a aesthetical shot with no meaning but a balance of colors and shapes ? Is one better than the other ? Obviously not.
I use a lot the 60mm Hexanon that constantly produce oval blobs with open boundaries, double-lining in linear shapes and a slight turn to green around black areas. I like it and have learnt to know when certain phenomenas are likely to happen. I also have found that the 35mm Cron IV is a good sibling for the Hex as they produce similar kind of bokeh characteristics wide open. Yet, obviously, I don't take pictures with bokeh as the first parameter, but I know it will contribute to "my aesthetic style".

There is no "ideal Platonic form for a photograph" as you said, only personal preferences that should not be influenced by a lens intelligentsia (that comes up with such things as "Bokeh King"). Theses preferences should show (and be part) consistantly in a photographer style, not a one time only evidence of great bokeh illustrated by a Tulip shot in one's garden. Maybe we see a bit too much of that on threads related to lenses and bokeh. Yet we cannot ignore the fact that it plays an important role in a picture and think of it as purely random event, over which we have no influence.

 

[Ade-oh]

It is true that bokeh is much more dependent on surroundings, distance to subject than the lens itself but some lenses do have characteristics that will bring different kind of bokeh.
To illustrate, follow this link and the test made by Guy Mancuso with a 35 Cron IV vs 35 Summarit (a girl portrait).
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...9767-summarit-35-seans-review.html#post417795

Yanidel, I do understand that different lenses render out of focus areas very differently but looking at the pictures in Mr Mancuso's tests, my opinion is that they are simply uninteresting snapshots in which the unfocused areas have zero impact on the aesthetic quality of the image. FWIW, my view is that tests of this sort are completely meaningless. How can you make an aesthetic judgement on the quality of a lens's 'bokeh' in an image which is devoid of aesthetic qualities?

BTW, poor Mr Mancuso's daughter, being used as the model in the 'ugly test'

 

[yanidel]

Yanidel, I do understand that different lenses render out of focus areas very differently but looking at the pictures in Mr Mancuso's tests, my opinion is that they are simply uninteresting snapshots in which the unfocused areas have zero impact on the aesthetic quality of the image. FWIW, my view is that tests of this sort are completely meaningless. How can you make an aesthetic judgement on the quality of a lens's 'bokeh' in an image which is devoid of aesthetic qualities?

BTW, poor Mr Mancuso's daughter, being used as the model in the 'ugly test'

These being test shots, it is obviously difficult to discuss their aesthetics, yet my point was that there is a significant difference in rendering and this can be used as part of the aesthetics within style. Just like the FOV, framing, subjects can also be part of one's style.

As for Miss Mancuso, she surely must not be aware that she is portrayed in her dad's ugly test. I would add that she must not like very much the Cron IV rendering

 

[_mark__]

Good bokeh, seductive!
Bad bokeh, sickening!

Can you go out bokeing?

 

[Ade-oh]

These being test shots, it is obviously difficult to discuss their aesthetics, yet my point was that there is a significant difference in rendering and this can be used as part of the aesthetics within style. Just like the FOV, framing, subjects can also be part of one's style.

Of course. Different lenses do things differently but IMHO there is no 'good' or 'bad' about it - at least as far as 'bokeh' is concerned. Amongst the photographic gear I've acquired over 30 or so years, I have a 1940's Summitar and the 135mm DC Nikkor, both of which I primarily use for portraits. They render out of focus areas completely differently but I'm just as likely to use one as the other, depending on what I'm trying to achieve.

My point is, I suppose, that people like Ken Rockwell (who I think is generally great) have introduced this concept of 'good' and 'bad' bokeh, and I think it's just a crock of shi-ite.

 

[maddoc]

The discussion about "bokeh" is indeed a "boke" discussion ...

 

[Ade-oh]

But I do notice backgrounds, and when too noticeable due to funk (not defined), I'd rather use something else. One reason I like medium format and larger is that while background objects may be less in focus, they are still recognizable as objects. Content and intent are still key, of course.

I suspect we all notice backgrounds when they get in the way of the subject of the photograph, whether because there is too much in-focus or too much out-of-focus, but I honestly doubt that many people get that wound up by the OOF rendition of the lens which took the photograph.

 

[aizan]

shallow depth of field is a novelty because small sensor digicams produce very deep dof. it doesn't hurt that the softness can look emotional, romantic, sentimental, etc. etc. another reason people usually don't like harsh bokeh; it ruins the effect they're looking for.

 

[wgerrard]

I"ll admit I've read little of this thread. I'm not psyched about bokeh one way or the other. For every background someone thinks is wonderful, I think it is ugly. And, vice versa.

That said, it's been my experience that an out-of-focus background is seen by non-photographers as a mark of a professional shot. (Yes, really.) Why? They can't do it on their cameras. None of them, though, has ever commented on the background itself.