back alley
IMAGES
where do you stand on bokeh?
necessary evil?
fool's quest?
i hate the f'ing word itself!!
bokeh smokeh...
necessary evil?
fool's quest?
i hate the f'ing word itself!!
bokeh smokeh...
FPjohn
Well-known
In the American Midwest it is known as OOF(t)A.
yours
FPJ
yours
FPJ
ljosha
Alexey Stepanov
Hmm, don't see "I'm in Group f/64" option.
mfogiel
Veteran
Till I have tried a Noctilux, I sort of liked good bokeh, but was not particularly hot on the topic. The Noctilux (1.0) is the first lens that to me appears totally insignificant in the in focus department and absolutely outstanding in the out of focus rendering, and this does not necesarily mean that you have to shoot it wide open. There is some pictorial quality in the old school Leica lenses' bokeh which is very pleasing. The C Sonnar or Canon 50/1.2 bokeh is like melted butter, the old Leica bokeh, is like a pointilistic painting, here is an example by Georges Seurat:
And here are some pointilistic bokeh examples from these lenses:
For comparison, a "melted butter" C Sonnar bokeh
]
or the Canon 50/1.2 cotton fluff bokeh
Or a round, but modern character bokeh of the 50/2 Planar
And here are some pointilistic bokeh examples from these lenses:
For comparison, a "melted butter" C Sonnar bokeh
or the Canon 50/1.2 cotton fluff bokeh
Or a round, but modern character bokeh of the 50/2 Planar
Last edited:
ishpop
tall person
Like anything else, it can be overdone, tastefull, interesting, crappy, etc...
If it can help enhance the subject matter, frame it, etc... than I am all for it.
But when it is bokeh for bokeh's sake, it can get pretty boring quickly, no matter how intense the effect is.
If it can help enhance the subject matter, frame it, etc... than I am all for it.
But when it is bokeh for bokeh's sake, it can get pretty boring quickly, no matter how intense the effect is.
NiccaFile
Focus-Stacker
Feather-like bokeh..
Feather-like bokeh..
http://rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/DSC_1872-2.jpg
Feather-like bokeh..
http://rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/500/DSC_1872-2.jpg
Attachments
Last edited:
Austerby
Well-known
I am getting to dislike the lenses that seem to place a pane of perspex behind the subject so that everything is wonky. I love the gradual transition between in and out of focuslessness.
StaaleS
Established
Bad LSD trip bokeh:
http://www.pbase.com/ssanneru/image/93312912
http://www.pbase.com/ssanneru/image/93312912
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
My father was a TLR guy and shot landscapes slowly on a tripod stopped down. All of his shots had depth-of-field coming out the wazoo. He doesn't carry that much stuff around but old habits die hard.
I get the same response every time he looks at a shot of mine that was done wide open. He gets a disappointed tone in his voice and says "not much depth of field there."
It makes me think about it a little more... how much of the scene should be in focus. Last thing I want to do is disappoint poor old Dad!
I get the same response every time he looks at a shot of mine that was done wide open. He gets a disappointed tone in his voice and says "not much depth of field there."
It makes me think about it a little more... how much of the scene should be in focus. Last thing I want to do is disappoint poor old Dad!
AgentX
Well-known
I think some people are concentrating far too much on the wrong thing, but if you like the way a lens renders either in- or out-of-focus areas, great!
It's just that "Bokeh" as a specific measure of a lens or essential part of a picture is new to me as someone returning to photography after a long time away. I mean, it was always just "out of focus" before...now some people seem to care more about the way a lens de-focuses light than any other aspect of what's going on in an image.
It's just that "Bokeh" as a specific measure of a lens or essential part of a picture is new to me as someone returning to photography after a long time away. I mean, it was always just "out of focus" before...now some people seem to care more about the way a lens de-focuses light than any other aspect of what's going on in an image.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Seconded. In most good pictures it is at best very secondary, and it is often unnoticeable, which is as it should be. It's like the fashion designer who said that if a woman wore one of the dresses he had designed, and people said, "What a beautiful dress," he had failed, but if they said, "What a beautiful woman," he had succeeded.
If bokeh is one of the first things you notice, the chances are that either it's not a good picture, or you are pointlessly obsessed with it.
EDIT: Brilliant idea for a thread, by the way -- I wish I'd thought of it! -- and one of the few polls in which I take any interest whatsoever.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
pagpow
Well-known
I thought that was only in the upper Great Plains states with significant Scandinavian populations.
pagpow
Well-known
Not a necessary evil at all. A good bouquet contributes mightily to our enjoyment of wine; a bad bouquet detracts. I do think it is misspelled, though. Finally couldn't we just cut out the jargon and say "smells good.'
Oops not that bouqueh? never mind!
Rosanna
bmattock
Veteran
I have been informed, and am willing to believe, that Westerners use the term 'bokeh' incorrectly. I have also been informed, and am somewhat less willing to believe, that there is no way to translate what the actual meaning of the word is in such a way that Westerners can grasp the concept.
However, I understand the term as it is commonly used in the West, and I understand that it encompasses more than just what we mean when we refer to selective focus or or depth-of-field. I have seen and grasp the concept of 'bad' bokeh (think of a typical 500mm mirror lens), and I have seen what I believe to be 'good' bokeh.
I have been a fan of selective focus for years, but I have found that like zoom lenses, it is often used without thought. People tend to use zoom lenses all the way in or all the way out - same with selective focus. Either they open up their lens all the way all the time, or they shoot buttoned down like a three-piece-suit.
I feel that selective focus is best used when one understands the reason one is using it, which is usually to draw attention to the subject and away from otherwise distracting elements in the frame. Likewise, effective use of selective focus requires a basic understanding of depth-of-field for your particular circumstances. Anyone who does not know what DoF is or how to use it needs to get themselves back to class pronto.
Given that, once selective focus is intelligently chosen and employed, lenses which render a pleasing 'bokeh' (whatever we Westerners mean by that), will tend to do so more effectively.
Just my two cents.
However, I understand the term as it is commonly used in the West, and I understand that it encompasses more than just what we mean when we refer to selective focus or or depth-of-field. I have seen and grasp the concept of 'bad' bokeh (think of a typical 500mm mirror lens), and I have seen what I believe to be 'good' bokeh.
I have been a fan of selective focus for years, but I have found that like zoom lenses, it is often used without thought. People tend to use zoom lenses all the way in or all the way out - same with selective focus. Either they open up their lens all the way all the time, or they shoot buttoned down like a three-piece-suit.
I feel that selective focus is best used when one understands the reason one is using it, which is usually to draw attention to the subject and away from otherwise distracting elements in the frame. Likewise, effective use of selective focus requires a basic understanding of depth-of-field for your particular circumstances. Anyone who does not know what DoF is or how to use it needs to get themselves back to class pronto.
Given that, once selective focus is intelligently chosen and employed, lenses which render a pleasing 'bokeh' (whatever we Westerners mean by that), will tend to do so more effectively.
Just my two cents.
Attachments
thomasw_
Well-known
What bmattock said...
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I rarely shoot with a lens wide open, but I often do portraits where I want an out of focus background to isolate the person from the surroundings. I usually so this with fairly close-up portraits. The depth of field is so shallow up close with 50m and 85mm lenses (my normal lenses for portraits) that even stopped down to f5.6 or (with the 85mm) f8, the background is still very soft. I shot at f5.6 or f8 to ensure that the whole face, including nose and ears and hair are in focus or at least decently sharp. I focus on the eyes.
Bokeh quality if a lens is important. For me bokeh only becomes noticable if its bad, then its distracting. I want smooth rendering of out of focus backgrounds so that the boken is NOT noticable!
Here's an example:
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/antiwar/images/pics/anniversary3.jpg
This picture's background is horrid. It distracts quite a bit from the woman in the photo. Shot with an Olympus 50mm f1.8 lens t f5.6. This lens has some of the worst bokeh I've ever seen, though it is a super sharp lens! Before someone jumps in to say that their OM 50/1.8 has perfect bokeh, please keep in mind that there are at least 5 different versions of this lens, each with a different optical formula.
Bokeh quality if a lens is important. For me bokeh only becomes noticable if its bad, then its distracting. I want smooth rendering of out of focus backgrounds so that the boken is NOT noticable!
Here's an example:
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/antiwar/images/pics/anniversary3.jpg
This picture's background is horrid. It distracts quite a bit from the woman in the photo. Shot with an Olympus 50mm f1.8 lens t f5.6. This lens has some of the worst bokeh I've ever seen, though it is a super sharp lens! Before someone jumps in to say that their OM 50/1.8 has perfect bokeh, please keep in mind that there are at least 5 different versions of this lens, each with a different optical formula.
ferider
Veteran
It's really pretty simple. For a given scene, medium and FOV, a photographer has only the three degrees of freedom: (1) exposure, (2) composition, (3) 3->2D mapping (focus and DOF). Now some believe in using sunny 16 only, composing casually from the hip, and in always using infinite DOF. I don't.
Photographing the lens instead of the scene is a different matter of course. :angel:
Cheers,
Roland.
Photographing the lens instead of the scene is a different matter of course. :angel:
Cheers,
Roland.
benmacphoto
Well-known
I use it when appropriate, and choose my lenses for the look I want. If I want that kind of look I'll use an older Summarit lens, but then there are times when the shot is better without all the dreamy backgrounds. I do see how easy it is to become distracted with it though.
peterm1
Veteran
What matters is overall image quality- and part of this is bokeh especially if you are in the habit of shooting close (narrow depth of field) or wide open (ditto). Some lenses I have bought have great bokeh and it jumps up and bobs you in the nose. Check out this wide open shot with a Nikkor 180mm f2.8 which is renowned for shooting nice bokeh when shot open.
But I have seen cameras with better bokeh. Some older lenses in particular seem to produce a gradual soft gradation from in focus to out of focus that creates a kind of three dimensional appearance (think of a classic Sonnar lens which often display nice characteristics exactly like this.) In these cases the Bokeh is not so "in your face" as with the 180 but its there and it makes its contribution quietly but assertively.
But I have seen cameras with better bokeh. Some older lenses in particular seem to produce a gradual soft gradation from in focus to out of focus that creates a kind of three dimensional appearance (think of a classic Sonnar lens which often display nice characteristics exactly like this.) In these cases the Bokeh is not so "in your face" as with the 180 but its there and it makes its contribution quietly but assertively.
Attachments
Last edited:
ChrisN
Striving
I'm very aware of the way a lens renders the out-of-focus parts of the image, and I prefer bokeh that doesn't call attention to itself.
I still recall the descriptive terms used by member Xcapekey back in 2005, here - "creamy...soft...nice bleeding highlights', "liquid melt from point of focus to bokeh" - that language opened a window for me to an awareness of bokeh as another aspect of the character of images and lenses.
I still recall the descriptive terms used by member Xcapekey back in 2005, here - "creamy...soft...nice bleeding highlights', "liquid melt from point of focus to bokeh" - that language opened a window for me to an awareness of bokeh as another aspect of the character of images and lenses.