bokeh backlash?

bokeh backlash?

  • i hate everything about bokeh

    Votes: 8 4.7%

  • bokeh is real and i choose my lenses accordingly

    Votes: 96 55.8%

  • it's there but so what?!

    Votes: 60 34.9%

  • we need to hurt mike johnson for starting this whole thing!!

    Votes: 8 4.7%
  • Total voters
    172
  • Poll closed .
peterc said:
I appreciate good OOF performance, but I refuse to call it bokeh.
Click to expand...

"oof performance" isn't necessarily bokeh.


I don't think I've ever heard anybody say they appreciate filtered water, but refuse to call it Kool-Aid. Kool-Aid can be made from filtered water, but filtered water isn't made from Kool-Aid.

Although some people who drink a lot of it would say otherwise ;)
 
The Bokeh from a Diana is much better than the Bokeh from a Holga.

which must account for the one I sold going for a $100 on Ebay... insane. i remember them at 25cents each.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
The Bokeh from a Diana is much better than the Bokeh from a Holga.

which must account for the one I sold going for a $100 on Ebay... insane. i remember them at 25cents each.
Click to expand...

I have to say that I don't think Dianas or Holgas produce what I would call 'bokeh' at all. They produce distortion. This distortion can be pleasing to the eye, but it is not controllable; it is what it is.
 
bmattock said:
I have to say that I don't think Dianas or Holgas produce what I would call 'bokeh' at all. They produce distortion. This distortion can be pleasing to the eye, but it is not controllable; it is what it is.
Click to expand...

Does the fact that it is not controllable stop it being bokeh? Especially by Geoffrey Crawley's definition (retaining the shape of out-of-focus subjects)?

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Bokeh is created from optical distortion. Otherwise, all out-of-focus areas would be perfectly smooth circles: no footballs (astigmatism), no rings (overcorrection for spherical aberration), no center-weighted circles (under-corrected spherical aberration). Those seem to be the most-pronounced factors, others include curvature of field, contrast, etc. Just about any "imperfect correction" or optical trade-off used to form an image on a flat plane. In any given fixed-focal length lens (except Nikkor Defocus Control lenses, and others like it), Bokeh "is what it is". Zooms are different. The focal length setting can change the Bokeh, depending on the design.
 
Last edited:
Brian Sweeney said:
Bokeh is created from optical distortion. Otherwise, all out-of-focus areas would be perfectly smooth circles: no footballs (astigmatism), no rings (overcorrection for spherical aberration), no center-weighted circles (under-corrected spherical aberration). Those seem to be the most-pronounced factors, others include curvature of field, contrast, etc. Just about any "imperfect correction" or optical trade-off used to form an image on a flat plane. In any given fixed-focal length lens (except Nikkor Defocus Control lenses, and others like it), Bokeh "is what it is". Zooms are different. The focal length setting can change the Bokeh, depending on the design.
Click to expand...

If one just looks at the circles, Bokeh can be modified very easily in some ways, for any lens:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/shaped_bokeh/pool/

:)
 
Good Bokeh.
picture.php


Bad Bokeh.

picture.php


And no, it is not easy taking pictures in a moving spaceship ride while firing a LASER gun at the enemy. And getting 300,000 points on the first time...
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
If one just looks at the circles, Bokeh can be modified very easily in some ways, for any lens:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/shaped_bokeh/pool/

:)
Click to expand...

I've done that- made aperture disks.

Repositioning the optics in the lenses can also soften the Bokeh, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. Remember the Voice of Control from the Outer Limits?


Hybrid 1958/1974 J-3, wide-open.
picture.php


picture.php


1953 J-3, wide-open. Sharper, higher contrast, harsher Bokeh.

picture.php


Overcorrecting for spherical aberration is the "norm" for high-speed optics. It produces sharper images with more "pop".
 
Last edited:
It is only human to be afraid of that which you do not understand.

It's more human to want to be able to understand it.
 
”Tsukkomi"　「突っ込み」　seems to be the opposite to 「ぼける」 if you refer to Manzai. That I would interpret as "bokeh backlash" ... :D
 
bmattock said:
Experience and DoF charts, says I... If you don't [know what you're doing], might as well throw your camera away and buy a point-and-shoot, since you clearly don't care to master your craft.
Click to expand...

oof backgrounds throw another factor in to the calculation: distance to background. I reckon that is just too many factors to get any reliable idea of what the background will look like for someone who uses more than one focal length.

Altogether the factors are focal-length, focus distance, distance to background, aperture and lastly lens exit-pupil (which is possibly the reason why the new nokton f1.1 may have less bokeh than expected).

If you stick to just one lens then you still have 3 factors to multiply which is already too much for me particularly as I'm no great judge of distance. Quite impossible is subtle adjustment of bokeh: for example to blur a face but not loose the impression of expression.

For a bokeh nut like me an SLR is the only solution. :eek:

Even with an SLR the focus screen is an issue, [sigh].
 
I have an inexpensive lens which does not produce "creamy, smooth" bokeh, but has noticeable highlights with edges, when stopped down (say, f8). And sometimes I really like that look. There are those who only can appreciate super-smooth bokeh, but I don't think you should be restricted to that.

I dislike "bad bokeh" which is really busy. The background influences the look, but each lens will either be prone to better or worse bokeh.

My P&S digital camera can have shallow DOF and has decent bokeh... provided that the subject is only a few feet away!
 
Busy bokey is usually a product of having sticks, slats or some other busy background, where the bright edges of the blur interfere with each other. In my humble opinion, bokey can be used to mask the background while repositioning will select an inherently better background, which is a better option. Too often folks will shoot with too large an aperture, where not enough of the subject is in sharp focus, for the sake of improving the bokey. This is backwards thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom