goamules
Well-known
If you are not using depth of field in your photography, you are eliminating one of the most important tools used since the Daguerreotype era. It reminds of the Pictorialist VS Group F64 battles. Far be it for me to declare Van Gogh or Monet "wrong" in their interpretation of the world.
isoterica
Established
Photography is story telling. Sometimes a shallow depth of field, causing background bokeh, is a useful tool for that.
I don't fret over trendiness and avoid a photography technique because of it, nor do I gravitate towards it just because everyone else is.
I do love a good, creamy bokeh when I see one. Those crazy swirly, distracting ones, just no.
I don't fret over trendiness and avoid a photography technique because of it, nor do I gravitate towards it just because everyone else is.
I do love a good, creamy bokeh when I see one. Those crazy swirly, distracting ones, just no.
Dwig
Well-known
If there is a significant quantity of blur then I find that the quality of the blur is critical to the success of an image. If I notice any optical flaw in the blur I find it detracts from the image. I hate "swirlies" as much or more then the donuts produced by a mirror lens.
goamules
Well-known
My ground glass marks were off, this was an 11x14 Inch camera, shooting 8x10 negative. But thanks. I'm not going to go through your photos and post the flaws I see. I was making a point about backgrounds.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
4 me it is fantastic on portraits...f5.6 & f4
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Here's an example of bad bokeh. Nervous, wiry and full of aberrations. 
goamules
Well-known
Evidently, you are. But it's not your thread, you didn't start it, and are taking it off topic. I for one will stay on task and talk about bokeh and depth of field, while you sarcastically critique the examples.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Yes ,.. f4/50mm for 135 for head and shoulders.
F5.6) 80mm on rolleiflex
I prefer just the plane of the face fully in focus for portraits. Not much less or more either.
goamules
Well-known
You are imagining things. No one shoots a portrait worrying about the bokeh of the background. At least I don't. Backgrounds are not not a "fight" to be "won". I didn't think "oh lets see, if I don't compose this to Ned's liking, maybe if I get the Bokeh right, he'll still accept it!" Your pompous self-importance doesn't impress me, it just makes you look arrogant.
People shoot their lens at the aperture they need for the film speed and light. In my case, it was wide open, to avoid motion blur. Most of us are not on a sanctimonious art critic trip. We talk about photography without trying to criticize other's work, and don't worry about trying to "win" the "I'm better" contest.
Setting you to....Ignore. Which is a shame, because I'm sure you've posted some important things, beyond going off tangent to criticize someone's example shot in an area not being discussed. And I won't lower myself to your level and criticize your insipid work.
lukitas
second hand noob
Are, bure, boke.
It's an aesthetic. Incompetent, brutal and out of focus.
Myself, I'm a child of symmetry and f64, but I am terribly attracted to Are Bure Boke. Raw and dirty is tasty!
cheers
It's an aesthetic. Incompetent, brutal and out of focus.
Myself, I'm a child of symmetry and f64, but I am terribly attracted to Are Bure Boke. Raw and dirty is tasty!
cheers
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
It is the way the out of focus areas are rendered by a lens and, if I am not wrong, it is a concept that was made popular as a justification for the incredible high price of certain German lenses with a red dot. When nobody saw many differences on how they resolved it was pointed to us that we actually had to look at the out of focus areas. Eventually, another company from Portland, Oregon, showed that even a two elements lens in a ball and socket mechanism would produce smooth bokeh and we stopped believing was was told to us.
(The first need no explanation, the second is, of course, Lensbaby.)Seriously, if the question was about "how important is for me the bokeh of a lens when I buy one" I would say that it is not very important except for very long telephoto lenses. Mirror lenses are famous for being terrible on that respect and I avoid them. Moreover, I find that, since most of the picture at very long lenses for me happens on grass, which is particularly prone to be badly represented when it is out of focus, and since DOF is usually very shallow, I am quite picky on any long lens about bokeh. Not that I have only super expensive lenses, only if I am on a tight budged I rather give up a stop or fast autofocus. At any other length I don't care much with modern lenses.
If the question is about DOF, well, it really depends on the subject but I would say that my rule is to have enough DOF to have some context and little enough to make clear what is the focus of the picture. Sometimes there is no context, only a background in a studio and we can set as shallow as we want, other times everything is important in the picture and we can have infinite DOF, most of the time we have little to do and we must content ourselves with what is possible.
GLF
Alberti
Well-known
How boring this picture would be for a wide angle lens without the effect of unsharpness due to wide lens openings. I tend to call this bookeh too by the way, even though the lens is not in extremis. And as you can see it is quite charming.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You are.It is the way the out of focus areas are rendered by a lens and, if I am not wrong, it is a concept that was made popular as a justification for the incredible high price of certain German lenses with a red dot. When nobody saw many differences on how they resolved it was pointed to us that we actually had to look at the out of focus areas. Eventually, another company from Portland, Oregon, showed that even a two elements lens in a ball and socket mechanism would produce smooth bokeh and we stopped believing was was told to us.
Seriously, if the question was about "how important is for me the bokeh of a lens when I buy one" I would say that it is not very important except for very long telephoto lenses. Mirror lenses are famous for being terrible on that respect and I avoid them. Moreover, I find that, since most of the picture at very long lenses for me happens on grass, which is particularly prone to be badly represented when it is out of focus, and since DOF is usually very shallow, I am quite picky on any long lens about bokeh. Not that I have only super expensive lenses, only if I am on a tight budged I rather give up a stop or fast autofocus. At any other length I don't care much with modern lenses.
If the question is about DOF, well, it really depends on the subject but I would say that my rule is to have enough DOF to have some context and little enough to make clear what is the focus of the picture. Sometimes there is no context, only a background in a studio and we can set as shallow as we want, other times everything is important in the picture and we can have infinite DOF, most of the time we have little to do and we must content ourselves with what is possible.
GLF
Cheers,
R.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I am amused by the phrase "shallow DOF."
~Joe
~Joe
mfogiel
Veteran
So we have managed to make a row even over the bokeh?
Good bokeh is useful when needed, take a look at this series:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertkalman/
Sometimes it is prettier than the subject(s):
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/s...rince-Edward-Duke-of-Windsor-King-Edward-VIII
And sometimes it just works on its own:
20113002 by marek fogiel, on Flickr
Good bokeh is useful when needed, take a look at this series:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertkalman/
Sometimes it is prettier than the subject(s):
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/s...rince-Edward-Duke-of-Windsor-King-Edward-VIII
And sometimes it just works on its own:
20113002 by marek fogiel, on FlickrRoger Hicks
Veteran
erik
Established
I have little problem with it, but anything over done is over done. I'm waiting for the backlash on stand development.
goamules
Well-known
I think 'goamules' Garrett has some Valid points !
Hats off to a Gentlemen not to be bullied
Thanks Helen! I hate to have to make a ruckus. But when someone attacks, cut them off at the knees my fighter pilot friends always say. Now, I leave you all to your regularly scheduled topic!
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I love articulated explanations, they allow to learn from one's mistake...
Ok, if we have top believe Wikipedia: "The English spelling bokeh was popularized in 1997 in Photo Techniques magazine, when Mike Johnston, the editor at the time, commissioned three papers on the topic for the March/April 1997 issue." (so, yeah, maybe I am indeed wrong), in the same article it is mentioned that "Leica lenses, especially vintage ones, are often claimed to excel in bokeh quality because they used to have 11, 12, or 15 blades" (so maybe I am not totally wrong as I see most of the time this term associated with Leitz). Anyway, who cares, the original question was wrong too as it asked about bokashi but used the term bokeh and the evaluation of "beautiful rendering of a certain image" is subjective anyway.
By the way, looking up the term I found the related "Bokode". I actually ended up learning something, it interesting reading for all nerd types guys who are not in the field (like me) and have never eard of it.
GLF
Sparrow
Veteran
Ah .. those were the days eh? ... back when poor photos had an impact, when Are and Bure were still part of the agenda and that stuff was new, fresh and original
I would have been eighteen or nineteen when I first saw the Japanese stuff in Provoke, there was another similar mag out at the time I recall ... at college we passed them around between ourselves like old copy of Playboy and all had a go at emulating the style at some point (you could get drunk and still be able to take photos accounts for some of the attraction I expect) ... It made it into Zoom a couple of years later as it became more mainstream, it may even have made it to AP by now ...
... but that was what? forty odd years ago? yet folk persist in thinking it's cool and contemporary ... its as modern as my dad, in flares, dancing to Abba ... and about as relevant artistically these days
So no; a slavish attachment to the blurry bits of a photo is simplistic, and formulaic ... the world has enough photos of railings or a bit of cherry blossom with a blurry background now, its gone beyond boring now to become meaningless in most cases