Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ron,visiondr said:
Absolutely. Except that I don't think that this one is genetic, but a (normally irrelevant) by-product of the way we wire our brains up to the age of (say) a year old. As in the l/r distinction in Engrish/Japanese. It matters only in (a) photographers who (b) see it and (c) care.
Cheers,
R.
David Goldfarb
Well-known
Some people can't see bokeh, but most people can't see 15 points of cyan either, and yet no one dismisses color balance as the irrational obsession of color snobs.
back alley
IMAGES
Krosya said:
not at all krosya. if you did a search on me you would find that i have been 'anti' bokeh for a very long time.
no, this lens is going to be pretty much what i expected (based on recent photos posted in flickr)
and i do think i will be very happy with it especially when viewed in balance with my other 35, the zm.
i'm just killing time with this thread as i impatiently wait for the mail!
back alley
IMAGES
David Goldfarb said:
to be clear...i never said 'snobs'...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Joe,JoeV said:
QOOOFI, or its abbreviation QOOFI, is a MUCH better and more appropriate word than 'bokeh'. I suggest it is immediately adopted throughout the more-or-less English-speaking world, pronounced [glottal stop] OOFI or ?OOO-FEE.
The glottal stop, for those not versed in its mysteries, is the way some people pronounce the 't' in 'lot of' = 'lotta' = 'lo'a'
EDIT: QOOFI even qualifies as a Leica telegraphic code order word like FISON, NOOKY, MOOLY or SOOMP. Next: QOOFI CHROM.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Pablito
coco frío
David Goldfarb said:
Very strongly disagree for many reasons, but one example: what about what's BACK there? CONTENT. -->WHAT<-- is behind the subject and -->HOW<-- it relates to the subject, not just how in or out of focus it is.
David Goldfarb
Well-known
back alley said:
No, I know you didn't, but in general, it's one of those terms that often comes up in these discussions.
back alley
IMAGES
my original question is sincere.
bokeh and the passion some feel about it is, so far, beyond my understanding.
bokeh and the passion some feel about it is, so far, beyond my understanding.
David Goldfarb
Well-known
Pablito said:
Okay, what's the next step? If a painter is painting a background they can decide to render it in detail over many days with a fine brush or as a rough sketch with a wide brush, or do they just pick up the closest brush and paint it however the brush decides? If you don't think about bokeh, then you don't care what brush you use.
Pablito
coco frío
David Goldfarb said:
Well, I can see very clearly the difference between the way certain lenses render the out of focus areas when side by side comparisons are made. But in the scheme of things, I don't put a very high priority on it. Maybe that's because the lenses I use tend to have "very good bokeh" according to the experts in this phenomenon (such as my "King of Bokeh", for which I bought a little plastic throne when I found out it came from royal lineage).
I shoot a lot wide open but it's only because I shoot a lot in the dark, this is why I will probably buy the new CV 35mm 1.4 lens. Maybe I'll be apalled at the bokeh compared to my old friend "the King", but I doubt it. Probably I'll be very happy to be able to shoot at 1/30 instead of 1/15, or ISO 1600 instead of 3200.
Actually, I find the pro-bokeh arguments to be very well articulated for the most part, but the notion that those of us who don't place much weight on this somehow don't care about our images is incorrect.
This reminds me of the art historians who might dwell on the lush brushwork in, say, a late Goya painting while neglecting to mention the horrific, nightmarish scene the painter is depicting.
Pablito
coco frío
David Goldfarb said:
Like all those irresponsible careless photographers from the "pre-bokeh" days....
back alley
IMAGES
what is VR?
jbf
||||||
vibration reduction i suppose.
JTK
Established
Depends entirely on the purpose/nature of the photo. If it's a passive, decorative object, sure, bokeh is relevant. If the environment is controlled, for example with a sweep and soft box, bokeh may be irrelevant. Bokeh is irrelevant to many contemporary portraits, where all you really see is a focused area around eyes,nose, and lps, and everything else is totally oof..
If you're doing photojournalistic work of some sort, bokeh is less relevant than getting the action or establishing the relationship with the subject.
Worry about bokeh when not doing one's own printing may define the situation...if you buy printing services and buy lenses, you may be more inclined to worry about bokeh than if you process and print your own...where your skills are more important than what you buy...
If you're doing photojournalistic work of some sort, bokeh is less relevant than getting the action or establishing the relationship with the subject.
Worry about bokeh when not doing one's own printing may define the situation...if you buy printing services and buy lenses, you may be more inclined to worry about bokeh than if you process and print your own...where your skills are more important than what you buy...
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
back alley said:
What about "sharpness"?
Ooh! I know: I'd ban "aperature" or "flair" when they mean "aperture" and "flare". It's an online equivalent of scratching iron nails on glass.
I have: the 135mm f/2.8 Elmarit-R, the 50mm f/1.5 Summarit, and the "old" Contax-mount 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar.back alley said:
back alley
IMAGES
why you always pickin' on me gabriel?
i was just trying to make a point as a member here not as a mod.
up untill this thread the discussions on bokeh had a bit too much passion and not enough discussion to them.
i am sorta getting the idea now though i still don't think bokeh is nearly as important as some others do.
i do like chats on sharpness even though i would not spend an added 2 grand for a slightly sharper lens.
and spelling is a personal issue...to each his own
joe
i was just trying to make a point as a member here not as a mod.
up untill this thread the discussions on bokeh had a bit too much passion and not enough discussion to them.
i am sorta getting the idea now though i still don't think bokeh is nearly as important as some others do.
i do like chats on sharpness even though i would not spend an added 2 grand for a slightly sharper lens.
and spelling is a personal issue...to each his own
joe
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Honestly, I wasn't picking on you. What I'm saying is, things that ought to be banned are a very personal thing.back alley said:why you always pickin' on me gabriel?
back alley
IMAGES
Gabriel M.A. said:Honestly, I wasn't picking on you. What I'm saying is, things that ought to be banned are a very personal thing.
sorry gabriel, i was just teasing you.
and i agree that these things are personal, we each have different things that drive us bonkers...for me it's bokeh.
joe
ferider
Veteran
Pablito said:Like all those irresponsible careless photographers from the "pre-bokeh" days....
As an interesting side note, most of the classic RF photographers seem to have used lenses that we consider today having "good Bokeh". That is if you include the Nikkor 50/1.4 in that list which I do .... Take HCB, Capa, etc.
It wasn't an issue, but it wasn't an issue with these lenses anyway
When I think of bad bokeh,I think of over-sharp lenses, mirrors and some zooms, lenses that were developed in the 70s.
Cheers,
Roland.
foto_fool
Well-known
I know I'm just weird. The first thing I notice when I meet a person is their ears. Bad-looking ears have been a deal breaker for me on first dates.
I won't buy a bottle of wine if the glass has an orange-peel finish. If the wine producer didn't notice this or didn't care, that tells me what to expect of the contents.
I could go on, but the point is that I do care about how the OOF areas in my photos look.
I won't buy a bottle of wine if the glass has an orange-peel finish. If the wine producer didn't notice this or didn't care, that tells me what to expect of the contents.
I could go on, but the point is that I do care about how the OOF areas in my photos look.