JohnnyT
Established
The bokeh is bad only when it become more important than taking the picture itself 🙂
Bokeh becomes a concern when...
- Thread starter noimmunity
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 28
- Views 3K
Brian Legge
Veteran
Agreed; bokeh is good when it isn't noticeable. That why adjetives like smooth and buttery come in. Hard lines are distracting.
This isn't perfect, but I'm happy with how it worked here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4928269715/in/set-72157624508303823/
I am less pleased with it here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4860402278/in/set-72157624508315665/
Edit: To be more specific, its a concern the further you are away from hyperfocal distance. It is a problem when it detracts from what you are trying to capture.
This isn't perfect, but I'm happy with how it worked here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4928269715/in/set-72157624508303823/
I am less pleased with it here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4860402278/in/set-72157624508315665/
Edit: To be more specific, its a concern the further you are away from hyperfocal distance. It is a problem when it detracts from what you are trying to capture.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
As others have said, it becomes important when you use the wrong lens for the job -- or alternatively, when you shoot the wrong subject. I love my Thambar but it's downright nasty for shooting flowers with grass behind them, with horrible 'wiry' bokeh.
Herewith a couple of quotes from http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/bokeh.html:
For some photographers, the problem soon arose that the bokeh tail soon started to wag the photographic dog. They became so obsessed with bokeh that they started composing pictures where the out-of-focus areas were more important than (or at least, as important as) the sharp areas. This sort of composition is possible, but it is also extremely difficult: not one in a hundred photographers can do it well. The bokeh addicts started buying extreme-speed lenses, and using them wide open, because that was the easiest way to get the most bokeh. This meant ultra-high shutter speeds, or neutral density filters, or both. It also meant a lot of very unsuccessful pictures.
Bokeh is one of those things like grey cards and the Zone System in that while it is very useful in its place, it attracts fanatics and people who think they know a great deal more about photography than they do. Many are inclined to attribute everything good in photography to their pet hobby horse, much like those who believe in gurus. Don't be intimidated by bokeh, and don't overrate it if it's not important to you. If it is important to you, then the very best of luck to you, but remember that others may not share your opinion of its importance.
Cheers,
R.
Herewith a couple of quotes from http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/bokeh.html:
For some photographers, the problem soon arose that the bokeh tail soon started to wag the photographic dog. They became so obsessed with bokeh that they started composing pictures where the out-of-focus areas were more important than (or at least, as important as) the sharp areas. This sort of composition is possible, but it is also extremely difficult: not one in a hundred photographers can do it well. The bokeh addicts started buying extreme-speed lenses, and using them wide open, because that was the easiest way to get the most bokeh. This meant ultra-high shutter speeds, or neutral density filters, or both. It also meant a lot of very unsuccessful pictures.
Bokeh is one of those things like grey cards and the Zone System in that while it is very useful in its place, it attracts fanatics and people who think they know a great deal more about photography than they do. Many are inclined to attribute everything good in photography to their pet hobby horse, much like those who believe in gurus. Don't be intimidated by bokeh, and don't overrate it if it's not important to you. If it is important to you, then the very best of luck to you, but remember that others may not share your opinion of its importance.
Cheers,
R.
Naumoski
Well-known
I believe that we must make clear that the bokeh is one optical and visual fancy thing, and stop shooting things just to get nice bokeh, and start concern about the photograph, scene, subject, mood, story, light and other important factors.
I started when I bought a Rolleiflex.
I started when I bought a Rolleiflex.
M4cr0s
Back In Black
Very valid questions. Not really sure about the whole bokeh thing myself. The rendering of out-of-focus-areas fascinate me, but can you use it as a tool in the photographic toolbox, other than the obvious portrait situation where separating the person from whatever is not desirable in the background?
Now, I must admit I have actually deliberately gone out to shoot a lens to experiment or simply see how it draws OOF areas. I'm not sure if thats's a sign of sickness or my lackluster abilities as a photographer (or both) 😉
This is just a quick test shot on the way home from the photo store with a new lens. A 105mm F/2.0 lens wide open at ISO3200 on a evil DSLR shot on a cold November afternoon after sunset. I really like how the background is drawn and given the framing chosen it's an important, almost dominant part of the photo. Does it however make it a better photo? I think not, it's more of a technical demonstration.
Another shot, with the same lens, wide open. A relatively clean background not very challenging for any lens. Simple subject isolation due to focal length, aperture and distance to subject. Does it work? Well, the statue washing itself is placed in front of a public bath (note the word "bad" which is the Norwegian derivation of the English word, between the arm and body). It could very well be used for illustrative purposes for instance, and most viewers would likely grasp the rather simple meaning/point. It could however, have been shot with any cheap kit zoom 😉
Now, I do think it's possible to incorporate beautiful OOF rendring with good photos, but it is challenging and requires considerable thought on balancing the framing/composition. It's very easy to create a bokeh-gasm of an image whose qualities only other photographers will be able to recognize.
I think one to a certain extent, need to separate technical and nerdy fascination with optical phenomenons from actual image-making with a clear and decisive purpose. It's fine obsessing over tiny details and aspects if that what floats your boat, yet one probably benefit form the ability to understand when to separate the infatuation with technical aspects from practical photography, simply to get the job done. If course, if you're purely a hobbyist this isn't a problem at all.
Am I getting any wiser as to "what to do with the whole bokeh thing in my own photography"? Nah, I'm still learning but that's fun too 😉
Mac
Now, I must admit I have actually deliberately gone out to shoot a lens to experiment or simply see how it draws OOF areas. I'm not sure if thats's a sign of sickness or my lackluster abilities as a photographer (or both) 😉
This is just a quick test shot on the way home from the photo store with a new lens. A 105mm F/2.0 lens wide open at ISO3200 on a evil DSLR shot on a cold November afternoon after sunset. I really like how the background is drawn and given the framing chosen it's an important, almost dominant part of the photo. Does it however make it a better photo? I think not, it's more of a technical demonstration.
Another shot, with the same lens, wide open. A relatively clean background not very challenging for any lens. Simple subject isolation due to focal length, aperture and distance to subject. Does it work? Well, the statue washing itself is placed in front of a public bath (note the word "bad" which is the Norwegian derivation of the English word, between the arm and body). It could very well be used for illustrative purposes for instance, and most viewers would likely grasp the rather simple meaning/point. It could however, have been shot with any cheap kit zoom 😉
Now, I do think it's possible to incorporate beautiful OOF rendring with good photos, but it is challenging and requires considerable thought on balancing the framing/composition. It's very easy to create a bokeh-gasm of an image whose qualities only other photographers will be able to recognize.
I think one to a certain extent, need to separate technical and nerdy fascination with optical phenomenons from actual image-making with a clear and decisive purpose. It's fine obsessing over tiny details and aspects if that what floats your boat, yet one probably benefit form the ability to understand when to separate the infatuation with technical aspects from practical photography, simply to get the job done. If course, if you're purely a hobbyist this isn't a problem at all.
Am I getting any wiser as to "what to do with the whole bokeh thing in my own photography"? Nah, I'm still learning but that's fun too 😉
Mac
ederek
Well-known
It becomes a concern when it distracts from the subject.
One situation where I find this occurs is with backlit trees behind the subject. Here are a couple examples:
Lux 1.4 (mostly open)
Biogon 35/2, f2-f2.8
Two with the 90 Tele-Elmarit
This one with the 90, the distracting bokeh could be easily cropped out:
The crop removes the distracting bokeh, and is an improved composition:
Here's a snap where I think it adds to the image, blurring the mix of brown leaves and green grass in the background (75 lux, f2.0 or so). The isn't much separation between my niece and the background, so anything helps:
One situation where I find this occurs is with backlit trees behind the subject. Here are a couple examples:
Lux 1.4 (mostly open)
Biogon 35/2, f2-f2.8
Two with the 90 Tele-Elmarit
This one with the 90, the distracting bokeh could be easily cropped out:
The crop removes the distracting bokeh, and is an improved composition:
Here's a snap where I think it adds to the image, blurring the mix of brown leaves and green grass in the background (75 lux, f2.0 or so). The isn't much separation between my niece and the background, so anything helps:
leicashot
Well-known
Bokeh is a concern when the photographer:
a. Makes it a concern, either at the time of shooting or when looking at/appreciating the photograph. Once can be 'too' technical when it comes to bokeh, where the average person wouldn't even notice.
b. Exploits the lens they're using to emphasize the bokeh by shooting boring subjects just to see how the Bokeh looks. i.e. Noctilux shooters especially.
a. Makes it a concern, either at the time of shooting or when looking at/appreciating the photograph. Once can be 'too' technical when it comes to bokeh, where the average person wouldn't even notice.
b. Exploits the lens they're using to emphasize the bokeh by shooting boring subjects just to see how the Bokeh looks. i.e. Noctilux shooters especially.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Very Winograndian.
Rafael
Mandlerian
Especially in portraiture, but also in other genres such as street photography, I always think of myself as placing a subject in reference to a background. My choice of lens is often based on how I wish to render these two elements of the photograph and the relationship between the two that I wish to show. For me, bad bokeh is any rendering of the out of focus areas of the photograph that detracts from my intentions in these regards.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
