noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
In some quarters, there seems to be a backlash against bokeh these days. At one time, bokeh was in style; now it seems that bashing bokeh is trendy. I am at a loss to understand this phenomenon, but it seems to be growing.
So my questions about bokeh are:
1 - Do you like it or loathe it?
2 - Why?
3 - Is bokeh a waste of space in the image?
4 - Is the current anti-bokeh trend a load of crap??
So my questions about bokeh are:
1 - Do you like it or loathe it?
2 - Why?
3 - Is bokeh a waste of space in the image?
4 - Is the current anti-bokeh trend a load of crap??
kxl
Social Documentary
Using bokeh as a technique is like cooking with any spice--a little bit enhances the flavor; too much ruins it.
back alley
IMAGES
i cannot get excited about bokeh...i also can't tell the difference between 'good' and 'bad' bokeh...maybe that's why i can't get excited over it.
aizan
Veteran
if i see somebody photograph backlit foliage, bushes, tall grass, or the ground covered with gravel and leaves with the lens wide open, resulting in tons of harsh bokeh, i just might lose it. 
thegman
Veteran
It's got it's purpose, same as any other technique, but I guess there was a period when it seemed that nobody shot anything above f/0.95 and it was used as a crutch to prop up bad photos, same as over-sharpening did, HDR, lo-fi, and many other trends.
Bokeh is/was a trend, but it also has it's uses, same as street food, it's big fad, and that gets annoying, but that's not to say it's not tasty sometimes.
Bokeh is/was a trend, but it also has it's uses, same as street food, it's big fad, and that gets annoying, but that's not to say it's not tasty sometimes.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Honestly, I don't understand the question. If "bokeh" is, to pick one definition,
If you're trying to ask about sensor sizes, wide or narrow apertures etc. and whether one likes images with larger or smaller areas that appear out-of-focus then that seems like a different question to me Perhaps something about the virtues, or otherwise, of using selective focus when constructing an image
...Mike
...then I don't understand how you can be either for or against "bokeh" per se. It seems to me that any lens is capable of producing in-focus and out-of-focus parts of an image. The aesthetic qualities of the out-of-focus parts of an image can be, I guess, assessed or ignored, but I don't see how you can be "for" or "against" them.
If you're trying to ask about sensor sizes, wide or narrow apertures etc. and whether one likes images with larger or smaller areas that appear out-of-focus then that seems like a different question to me
Perhaps something about the virtues, or otherwise, of using selective focus when constructing an image ...Mike
rscheffler
Well-known
It's definitely been a recent trend. I guess these things go in cycles. I remember tilt-shift being very popular in the early 90s, as in reverse tilt to minimize the plane of focus, along with cross processing E-6, Polaroid transfers and doing studio/commercial type work with light painting....
Bokeh is one result of the popularity of photography through DSLRs and now mirrorless cameras at relatively affordable prices. Digital got a lot of people hooked on photography. A significant number of enthusiasts love gear as much as the images they produce. in the realm of gear chasing, fast lenses are significantly desirable. I'm definitely guilty to some extent, having collected a number of rangefinder 50s spanning the 50s to present, solely for their 'rendering character'. Interestingly, the one I use most is probably the most neutral - the 50 Lux ASPH. But it can do the well blurred background look very nicely.
The shallow depth of field look serves a purpose. Obviously it's great for subject isolation. But that's just one aspect, since a boring but beautifully isolated subject is still boring. I use it a lot during weddings as one element combined with composition and timing. At least that's the intent...
Bokeh is one result of the popularity of photography through DSLRs and now mirrorless cameras at relatively affordable prices. Digital got a lot of people hooked on photography. A significant number of enthusiasts love gear as much as the images they produce. in the realm of gear chasing, fast lenses are significantly desirable. I'm definitely guilty to some extent, having collected a number of rangefinder 50s spanning the 50s to present, solely for their 'rendering character'. Interestingly, the one I use most is probably the most neutral - the 50 Lux ASPH. But it can do the well blurred background look very nicely.
The shallow depth of field look serves a purpose. Obviously it's great for subject isolation. But that's just one aspect, since a boring but beautifully isolated subject is still boring. I use it a lot during weddings as one element combined with composition and timing. At least that's the intent...
Kate-the-Great
Well-known
I agree with mfunnell in that the question could mean a couple different things.
In the sense of, do I like (or like to create) images with prominent use of out-of-focus areas, it depends on the image. Catchy? Yes. Easy to use? Yes. Easy to use in a appropriately and with strong vision, is more difficult and less-seldom seen. Shallow DOF does seem to have been a bit of a fad for awhile with the resurgence in 135-format cameras and lenses and the sudden mass availability of inexpensive medium format to hobbyists, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy the technique when it's well-used.
In my own photography I certainly use it when appropriate to help subject isolation; either with large lens aperture or tilt/swing movements (and of course the selective focus thing is a whole discussion ). At least 2/3rds of my images use deep DOF, but I like using shallow focus with close-up and some medium-distance photos. When I shot with Fuji 6x9, I used a shallow depth of field in most of my images as the larger format allowed a more subtle look. Certain images are absolutely improved with shallow DOF, some not. Depends on the subject and elements in the scene, and geometric/color composition used by the photographer.
As for, do I think the discussion of and experimentation with the character of the out-of-focus areas (what I usually think of when I hear "bokeh"), I think that too is something that can maybe be faddish but I personally find it interesting. As something that can strongly affect the look of an image I believe the look of OOF areas is certainly worth discussing! I also think it's perfectly fine that some/many photographers couldn't care less about the discussion, or don't have a preference in the "look" that different lenses provide in that sense.
To each their own! Art, by it's definition is largely subjective
In the sense of, do I like (or like to create) images with prominent use of out-of-focus areas, it depends on the image. Catchy? Yes. Easy to use? Yes. Easy to use in a appropriately and with strong vision, is more difficult and less-seldom seen. Shallow DOF does seem to have been a bit of a fad for awhile with the resurgence in 135-format cameras and lenses and the sudden mass availability of inexpensive medium format to hobbyists, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy the technique when it's well-used.
In my own photography I certainly use it when appropriate to help subject isolation; either with large lens aperture or tilt/swing movements (and of course the selective focus thing is a whole discussion
). At least 2/3rds of my images use deep DOF, but I like using shallow focus with close-up and some medium-distance photos. When I shot with Fuji 6x9, I used a shallow depth of field in most of my images as the larger format allowed a more subtle look. Certain images are absolutely improved with shallow DOF, some not. Depends on the subject and elements in the scene, and geometric/color composition used by the photographer.As for, do I think the discussion of and experimentation with the character of the out-of-focus areas (what I usually think of when I hear "bokeh"), I think that too is something that can maybe be faddish but I personally find it interesting. As something that can strongly affect the look of an image I believe the look of OOF areas is certainly worth discussing! I also think it's perfectly fine that some/many photographers couldn't care less about the discussion, or don't have a preference in the "look" that different lenses provide in that sense.
To each their own! Art, by it's definition is largely subjective
rondo
Established
I love the creamy transition from post to post. Nice thread.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I love it. Very useful. I don't understand the backlash. Overused by some who photograph nothing. Used purposefully and to great effect by most when the moment calls. It's a great tool DOF control.
John E Earley
Tuol Sleng S21-0174
I love the OOF areas of photos.It's the in focus areas which I dislike.
JP Owens
Well-known
I guess being an old guy influences the way I see the whole "bokeh" thing. Back in the day, we didn't talk about bokeh. We used fast lenses and put up with out of focus backgrounds because ASA 400 film was super high speed for us. Shooting with available light (which was a "look" back then) in anything but good daylight resulted in "bokeh."
I sometimes use it for effect; but, I tend to shoot most things at middle apertures to keep everything in focus these days. Looking back at my old photos, I've decided that the environment surrounding the subjects I was shooting is far more interesting, now, then the subjects (often forgotten) that I was shooting.
Different strokes, I guess.
I sometimes use it for effect; but, I tend to shoot most things at middle apertures to keep everything in focus these days. Looking back at my old photos, I've decided that the environment surrounding the subjects I was shooting is far more interesting, now, then the subjects (often forgotten) that I was shooting.
Different strokes, I guess.
nongfuspring
Well-known
Up until fairly recently large sensor cameras were not affordable to casual consumers, so bokeh signified commercial photography or the cinematic. Now that it's new norm to treat social media as a personal PR outlet and how the internet more than anything is now a personal marketing tool, it makes sense that consumer photographers will try and adopt some of the visual language of advertorial photography and cinema, even if it is just to take pictures of their lunch. The backlash (if there is any) is probably more against the hubris turn kitsch that constant shallow DOF represents than a reaction against actual technique. In other words maybe the backlash against the faux pas of bokeh is even more trendy than the bokeh obsession in the first place.
richard_l
Well-known
When you don't want the background to distract from the subject, then bokeh is important, but it is not intrinsically important. It is a tool, not something to be admired, except perhaps by fellow photographers who are interested in technique.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
two items:
Graflex Pacemaker Speed Graphic, and Kodak Aero Ektar 2.5/178mm.
You do the math
I think it's hilarious when people start to chime of 'Aye' or 'Nay' when it comes to this. After all, why limit oneself in photography by adapting either camp as a religion?
In short, when I like bokeh, I'll use it, and when I don't, I won't. And I don't bloody need to justify any of that to anyone either. Folk who size me up as a photographer by looking at a few shots are welcome to do so, I don't give a hoot anyway, I'm out shooting
Luckily, Ned only occasionally finds me 'untalented and in need of a crutch', that's a relief
Test shot from the meta-sequioa tree in my front yard, contrast corrected but no scan clean-up done
Graflex Pacemaker Speed Graphic, and Kodak Aero Ektar 2.5/178mm.
You do the math
I think it's hilarious when people start to chime of 'Aye' or 'Nay' when it comes to this. After all, why limit oneself in photography by adapting either camp as a religion?
In short, when I like bokeh, I'll use it, and when I don't, I won't. And I don't bloody need to justify any of that to anyone either. Folk who size me up as a photographer by looking at a few shots are welcome to do so, I don't give a hoot anyway, I'm out shooting
Luckily, Ned only occasionally finds me 'untalented and in need of a crutch', that's a relief
Test shot from the meta-sequioa tree in my front yard, contrast corrected but no scan clean-up done
Kate-the-Great
Well-known
This is a really interesting thread! I love the discussions that go on here
thirtyfivefifty
Noctilust survivor
Bokeh is not an aim, it's a result.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Bokeh is not defined as "out of focus" but as "out of focus rendering". While there is nothing wrong with out of focus space in a picture (it often can't be avoided, or is desirable for better subject isolation) I have issues with qualifying the latter, as I frequently disagree about supposedly good or bad bokeh, where I can see it at all (more often, I don't notice or don't care - most pictures of a partially in focus cat or coffee cup are tedious regardless of bokeh). Indeed, even pronounced bokeh nuts usually are very inconsistent regarding their likes and dislikes.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Define properly! .... And who decides whether a particular use of bokeh is proper .... the bokeh police?
Suggesting that there is a correct and incorrect way of using bokeh is ridiculous .... it's a choice to be made by the individual just like shutter speed, aperture or ISO.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
For you and others maybe, but bokeh can just as easy be an aim and frankly, what's the fuss when it is...
Half the time these threads feel like a kindergarten conversation where one says 'I like green' and others start telling what their favorite color is.
It's all very sweet etc when kids do that, but that's about all it is, really!