David Goldfarb
Well-known
I agree that some people become much too obsessed with bokeh, and that it is only one interesting characteristic of lenses among many. People who use tele-wide zooms, for instance, probably don't care very much about barrel/pincushion distortion, but I do, so I only own one such lens and am very careful about the situations in which I use it.
On the other hand, I think that concern about the rendering of the out of focus image was a very important thing during the Pictorialist era. Lens catalogs and advertisements of the era of soft-focus lenses talk about disturbing double lines and other artifacts in the out of focus area long before anyone used the word "bokeh" in photography. An ad for the Wollensak Verito cited in the back of Weston's _Daybooks_ (v. 1, if I remember correctly) reads--
"a specially designed double lens... which, while it gives the desired diffused or soft optical effect, shows no distortion, double lines, or other optical imperfections, and being rectilinear gives an even diffusion over the whole plate... Will not make sharp negatives with wiry definition unless stopped down to f:8."
"double lines, or other optical imperfections" in this context means "bad bokeh." A Verito achieves its diffuse focus effect with uncorrected spherical aberration from wide open to about f:8, after which you can still see some chromatic aberration, which would not have been so much of a problem in the age of ortho plates.
Somewhere in the 1960s, I think, this was forgotten, and resolution and cost became the only factors driving the market for lenses, so you could overcorrect for spherical aberration to improve sharpness at the expense of smooth bokeh and sell more lenses, because no one worried about the out-of-focus image, or you could offer the convenience of a reasonably sharp tele-wide zoom at the expense of barrel/pincushion distortion at the extremes and sell more lenses that way, because most people aren't worried about distortion. Of course there are zooms for motion picture cameras that are both sharp and have relatively low distortion, but at astronomical cost.
On the other hand, I think that concern about the rendering of the out of focus image was a very important thing during the Pictorialist era. Lens catalogs and advertisements of the era of soft-focus lenses talk about disturbing double lines and other artifacts in the out of focus area long before anyone used the word "bokeh" in photography. An ad for the Wollensak Verito cited in the back of Weston's _Daybooks_ (v. 1, if I remember correctly) reads--
"a specially designed double lens... which, while it gives the desired diffused or soft optical effect, shows no distortion, double lines, or other optical imperfections, and being rectilinear gives an even diffusion over the whole plate... Will not make sharp negatives with wiry definition unless stopped down to f:8."
"double lines, or other optical imperfections" in this context means "bad bokeh." A Verito achieves its diffuse focus effect with uncorrected spherical aberration from wide open to about f:8, after which you can still see some chromatic aberration, which would not have been so much of a problem in the age of ortho plates.
Somewhere in the 1960s, I think, this was forgotten, and resolution and cost became the only factors driving the market for lenses, so you could overcorrect for spherical aberration to improve sharpness at the expense of smooth bokeh and sell more lenses, because no one worried about the out-of-focus image, or you could offer the convenience of a reasonably sharp tele-wide zoom at the expense of barrel/pincushion distortion at the extremes and sell more lenses that way, because most people aren't worried about distortion. Of course there are zooms for motion picture cameras that are both sharp and have relatively low distortion, but at astronomical cost.
Speaking of which.....the last batch of photos Tom has posted in his flickr wide open look pretty good...
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I've been dabbling with making photographs since the mid-1970s, during which time I was taught almost exclusively that lenses were intended to sharply focus images, and that DOF markings on 35mm lenses were a godsend in determining setting the lens to the hyperfocal distance so as to maximize the image sharpness.
Virtually never did I personally hear of anyone evaluating the quality of a lens for its "Quality Of Out Of Focus Image", or QOOOFI, other than making statements such as "that's not such a good lens, because it's not as sharp."
So this discussion, and the recent fascination with QOOOFI, seems to parallel my more recent personal discovery of QOOOFI as a bonafide photographic attribute that deserves consideration as an additional tool in my creative toolbox. I wouldn't have thought that possible in my formative photographic years in the late '70s and early '80s. So I think it's a positive thing.
As for specifics, I have an MD Rokkor 50mm f/1.2 that has a QOOOFI that's not nearly as nice as the Schneider Zenon lens in my Retina, so from that perspective I usually load FP4 in the Retina and HP5 in the Minolta, in anticipation of the kinds of apertures I'm more likely to use in either camera.
~Joe
Virtually never did I personally hear of anyone evaluating the quality of a lens for its "Quality Of Out Of Focus Image", or QOOOFI, other than making statements such as "that's not such a good lens, because it's not as sharp."
So this discussion, and the recent fascination with QOOOFI, seems to parallel my more recent personal discovery of QOOOFI as a bonafide photographic attribute that deserves consideration as an additional tool in my creative toolbox. I wouldn't have thought that possible in my formative photographic years in the late '70s and early '80s. So I think it's a positive thing.
As for specifics, I have an MD Rokkor 50mm f/1.2 that has a QOOOFI that's not nearly as nice as the Schneider Zenon lens in my Retina, so from that perspective I usually load FP4 in the Retina and HP5 in the Minolta, in anticipation of the kinds of apertures I'm more likely to use in either camera.
~Joe
Nando
Well-known
For me bokeh is an important factor but also one of many important factors. It is often the case when I'm deciding between two or more lenses that I cannot see that much of a difference between them at say, f/8 or f/16. However, the differences often reveal themselves when opening up the aperture. Is bokeh a deciding factor? Yes, it often is for me in the way it contributes to the rendering of an image at wide apertures and especially wide-open. I also don't stop-down very much. I usually never stop-down beyond f/5.6.
Have I bought a lens just for the bokeh? Yes, two in particular - my CJZ 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar and the 50mm f/1.5 J3 Sonnar-copy. However, bokeh has always been a consideration with any lens I have purchased.
Good bokeh, for me, is almost akin to good crema in an espresso.
Have I bought a lens just for the bokeh? Yes, two in particular - my CJZ 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar and the 50mm f/1.5 J3 Sonnar-copy. However, bokeh has always been a consideration with any lens I have purchased.
Good bokeh, for me, is almost akin to good crema in an espresso.
back alley
IMAGES
facinating discussion so far, many thanks.
my 'problem', i think, is that i cannot 'see' bad bokeh. i see backgrounds where the objects in the background are a bit more in focus and some that are less in focus. the more in focus area looks harder than the less in focus area. i am guessing that is what is being referred to as bad bokeh. if that IS the case then i am among those that could care less about bokeh.
a fast lens like the a 35/1.4 would for me be used wide open in a setting where the background would not be important, like a portrait in a dimly lit bar.
a sonnar lens is more about the gradual softening from the centre to the edges than the oof background, to me. this is why i have the 50/1.5.
joe
my 'problem', i think, is that i cannot 'see' bad bokeh. i see backgrounds where the objects in the background are a bit more in focus and some that are less in focus. the more in focus area looks harder than the less in focus area. i am guessing that is what is being referred to as bad bokeh. if that IS the case then i am among those that could care less about bokeh.
a fast lens like the a 35/1.4 would for me be used wide open in a setting where the background would not be important, like a portrait in a dimly lit bar.
a sonnar lens is more about the gradual softening from the centre to the edges than the oof background, to me. this is why i have the 50/1.5.
joe
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
Pablito said:
I couldn't disagree more strongly with your last comment.
Imagine, if you will, a portrait of a lovely woman. It's beautifully lit, her expression is perfect and focus is nicely on her eyes. Now imagine that just beyond her right ear you see in the OOF area, a vague image of someone with a gun pointed - apparently though not in reality - at her head. Are you telling me such a portrait wouldn't be ruined completely by the OOF image? Your eye would constantly be divided in its attention between the subject and the "unimportant" background.
Backgrounds do matter. Everything in an image matters.
FrankS
Registered User
A while ago, someone posted a picture of a little girl in a park with the grass behind her out of focus. I think it was a Summarit lens used. The OOF areas exhibited a really obvious amount of swirlys. I'm not saying that bokeh was good or bad, but it certainly illustrated a strong character of bokeh that is very diferent from other more "neutral" lenses. It was very easy to see that bokeh! If someone could repost it, or find a link to it, it may be helpful here in this discussion. Personally, bokeh is a small but significant consideration.
About content: if the content is compelling enough, it can outweigh technical issues including bad bokeh, mis-focus, camera movement, and poor exposure. I'm talking compelling like Capa's storming the beach photos.
About content: if the content is compelling enough, it can outweigh technical issues including bad bokeh, mis-focus, camera movement, and poor exposure. I'm talking compelling like Capa's storming the beach photos.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
i have never ever in all my many years (old guy) had anyone comment on the background of any of my photos.
it seems more a facination of neurotic photographers...
it seems more a facination of neurotic photographers...
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I would absolutely dismiss a lens that rendered large parts of a scene in an unappealing manner. Seems like a ridiculous question to me. I can't, for the life of me, understand how anyone could not care about EVERYTHING that's in the frame.
I'm not sure why anyone would buy a fast lens, if not to use it at wide apertures, where bokeh is a component of the image. I'm not sure why anyone would object to the mere use of a word like bokeh. It seems to me that many of those people merely object to having to learn something new. There's a sort of arrogance with rangefinder shooters, that says "hey, i'm using a traditional instrument, with traditional tools, and i work in a traditional manner with traditional models. And, since it's all based on tradition, there's nothing new that can be applied to me." Whatever. The concept has always existed. The word has only relatively recently been applied and used. What's the big deal? Would it make sense to complain about the word "URL" simply because one had successfully communicating with people for 50 years prior to the internet?
[No offense is meant to the original poster — this is more a rant against the general bokeh-hating public]
I'm not sure why anyone would buy a fast lens, if not to use it at wide apertures, where bokeh is a component of the image. I'm not sure why anyone would object to the mere use of a word like bokeh. It seems to me that many of those people merely object to having to learn something new. There's a sort of arrogance with rangefinder shooters, that says "hey, i'm using a traditional instrument, with traditional tools, and i work in a traditional manner with traditional models. And, since it's all based on tradition, there's nothing new that can be applied to me." Whatever. The concept has always existed. The word has only relatively recently been applied and used. What's the big deal? Would it make sense to complain about the word "URL" simply because one had successfully communicating with people for 50 years prior to the internet?
[No offense is meant to the original poster — this is more a rant against the general bokeh-hating public]
back alley
IMAGES
ck, it's has nothing to do with learning something new for me.
i would buy a fast lens to use in a dark environment, plain & simple, otherwise i would use a smaller aperture as that would yield a more appealing photo to me.
i'm not really sure where tradition fits into it at all?
i don't honestly think that the average viewer of a photo looks AT everting in the photo, most folks look at the subject. as i have said before, noone has EVER commented on the background of any of my photos.
and clearly i am fine with url and the internet...here i am using it.
joe
i would buy a fast lens to use in a dark environment, plain & simple, otherwise i would use a smaller aperture as that would yield a more appealing photo to me.
i'm not really sure where tradition fits into it at all?
i don't honestly think that the average viewer of a photo looks AT everting in the photo, most folks look at the subject. as i have said before, noone has EVER commented on the background of any of my photos.
and clearly i am fine with url and the internet...here i am using it.
joe
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
back alley said:i have never ever in all my many years (old guy) had anyone comment on the background of any of my photos.
it seems more a facination of neurotic photographers...
philistine!
telenous
Well-known
Frank, could it be you have this photo by Marc-A in mind?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=72350&ppuser=4396&sl=m
and in flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marc-a/1817362857/
The picture was actually taken with a Summitar but it illustrates nicely the point that bokeh can have a very creative use. In this particular photo it completely transmogrifies the background into a child secret fantasy world.
I think bokeh can be important for a photo although, admittedly, a picture with very strong content will not have to rely on it. IMO the reason bokeh has got a bad name is because of far too many lens candy shots, that do not utilize OOF for any creative reason whatsoever, other than to display it and proffer on the basis of it the superiority of a particular lens.
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
back alley said:
Neurological studies and eye movement studies have shown that people do indeed look at everything in an image. Sure, the attention quickly "zones in" on the bits they find interesting (use your imagination here).
But, it is a truism that we scan the entire image more than once.
First the eyes scan the image for the "center" of interest. Second, a subject will quickly look over other areas. Finally, the eyes will do a bit of a dance among different points of interest. Those points of interest may be anywhere in the image; not simply where the creator wants.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Joe,back alley said:
Ctein (whom God preserve) has a theory that some people see bokeh and some don't.
I am absolutely sure he is right. I notice REALLY bad bokeh (Thambar with centre stop in place) but not much else.
I am therefore reconciled to the idea of anyone seeing 'bad bokeh' in my pictures. To quote the late, great Terence Donovan (on another subject entirely), "Not my problem, sunshine."
Cheers,
R.
back alley
IMAGES
Roger Hicks said:
ok, see now, i can live with this!!
i do not take this lightly as i have spent some considerable time looking at photos that have been generally accepted as having good bokeh and others that have been accepted as having bad bokeh and the difference to me is so infinitesimal that this makes sense...maybe i really cannot see it.
joe
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
Roger Hicks said:
Oh, you mean like that gene whereby some can smell certain odors and others simply can't... Cool.
ferider
Veteran
Hey Joe,
some people pick a lens based on bokeh, others by which
brand is (not?) on the front ring. We all have our own neurosises
Even people who care about bokeh, often like different things.
Bokeh is in the eye of the beholder For example, I don't
like how the pre-asph 35/1.4 lux renders. Others love it. Similar
for Summitar. The list goes on.
Even though I care about the background characteristics, in particular
for portrait use, reg the 35/14 bokeh, I'm not worried at all. It's hard
to make a 1.4 lens, and harder to make it sharp wide open. A bit
lee way with respect to background is OK, IMO.
If I would like a great portrait fast 35, I would spend a bit more and
get the 1.2. Choice is great !
Roland.
some people pick a lens based on bokeh, others by which
brand is (not?) on the front ring. We all have our own neurosises
Even people who care about bokeh, often like different things.
Bokeh is in the eye of the beholder
For example, I don'tlike how the pre-asph 35/1.4 lux renders. Others love it. Similar
for Summitar. The list goes on.
Even though I care about the background characteristics, in particular
for portrait use, reg the 35/14 bokeh, I'm not worried at all. It's hard
to make a 1.4 lens, and harder to make it sharp wide open. A bit
lee way with respect to background is OK, IMO.
If I would like a great portrait fast 35, I would spend a bit more and
get the 1.2. Choice is great !
Roland.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
ferider said:Hey Joe,
some people pick a lens based on bokeh, others by which
brand is (not?) on the front ring. We all have our own neurosises
Even people who care about bokeh, often like different things.
Bokeh is in the eye of the beholder
like how the pre-asph 35/1.4 lux renders. Others love it. Similar
for Summitar. The list goes on.
Even though I care about the background characteristics, in particular
for portrait use, reg the 35/14 bokeh, I'm not worried at all. It's hard
to make a 1.4 lens, and harder to make it sharp wide open. A bit
lee way with respect to background is OK, IMO.
If I would like a great portrait fast 35, I would spend a bit more and
get the 1.2. Choice is great !
Roland.
very wise for a man turning another year older today.
Krosya
Konicaze
back alley said:
Sounds to me, Joe, that you are trying to justify your purchase of a new lens - Nokton 35/1.4, now that so many people commented on it's bokeh. WHy not to just try it yourself, see if YOU like it and go from there?
As I pointed out before - see the whole Bokeh Thread - many pages prove that Bokeh is something that people consider an important factor. But if you are not one of them - you should be happy with your new lens.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Perhaps another aspect of bad QOOOFI that is obvious to me are specular highlights in the OOF area with a lens that has a six-sided aperture stop; this bugs me in cinema when I know they are using top-dollar cameras and lenses, but even so the lenses usually have hexagonal irises. Round f-stops (or at least 8-bladed) just make smoother OOF specular highlights, IMO.
Perhaps this explains, in part, the difference I see between my Zenon-equipped Retina and my Rokkor.
~Joe
Perhaps this explains, in part, the difference I see between my Zenon-equipped Retina and my Rokkor.
~Joe