RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I don't care for "off focus," and prefer "out of focus," or OOF. So I would say SOOFA. SOFA is something you set your ass on, but then again SOOFA sounds like loofa which you use to scrub your ass. So, I'm voting for Bokeh. BTW, I pronounce bokeh like O.K., rather than "bouquet". Am I wrong?
taffer
void
The dangerous thing about SOOFA is that it can easily be mistaken by a Leitz accessory, think of it.
'Oh I'm tired, I'd like to sit down somewhere but can't decide between a CHAIR and a SOOFA, but then I could also look for an open SBLOO and have a bit of SOOKY-SOOKY before ending my night at the 12585 or even maybe at the NOOKY-HESUM if I'm feeling dangerous...'.
Naa, I prefer the out of focus or OOF
Remember also that some lenses don't render SOFA but HOFA (for harsh out of ...) but then that's near HOFFA and all starts again
'Oh I'm tired, I'd like to sit down somewhere but can't decide between a CHAIR and a SOOFA, but then I could also look for an open SBLOO and have a bit of SOOKY-SOOKY before ending my night at the 12585 or even maybe at the NOOKY-HESUM if I'm feeling dangerous...'.
Naa, I prefer the out of focus or OOF
Remember also that some lenses don't render SOFA but HOFA (for harsh out of ...) but then that's near HOFFA and all starts again
Last edited:
aizan
Veteran
i say we throw a hyphen in there and get rid of the h: bo-ke.
hoot
green behind the ears
cp_ste-croix said:
Isn't BOKEH an acronym, too? I always thought it stood for Blurry Outlines Kaleidoscoping Exquisite Haze.
Jarvis
in quest of "the light"
Bokeh ? .... Bokeh ? .. ..... define Bokeh, define SOFA, my interpretatation is probably different than yours, it's like discussing aggitation techniques, all leads to nowhere really ... just a matter of what you like and what not ... .. .....
R
Roman
Guest
taffer said:The dangerous thing about SOOFA is that it can easily be mistaken by a Leitz accessory, think of it.
'Oh I'm tired, I'd like to sit down somewhere but can't decide between a CHAIR and a SOOFA, but then I could also look for an open SBLOO and have a bit of SOOKY-SOOKY before ending my night at the 12585 or even maybe at the NOOKY-HESUM if I'm feeling dangerous...'.
Naa, I prefer the out of focus or OOF
Oscar,
the word for HOFA already exists - it's called NIKKOR <ducking for cover>!
Roman
Jarvis
in quest of "the light"
hehehehehe
R
RubenBlaedel
Guest
Stu :) said:.....
I like the term Bokeh, sounds like a proper camera term.
SOFA Just sounds, well... for lack of decent words; girly.
Stu
PS. I voted for the third option.
Remember Arnold called the democrats girly Men - and now the democrats are selling Arnold dolls in pink skirts at their conventions labeled girly man !
S
Stu :)
Guest
Roman said:
Stands up claps
"Well done to that man, good call!"
My LF Nikkor glass is razor sharp when in focus, but start shifting and tilting at large apatures... hideous. OOF Areas require dodging and burning with a special fine fishnet grey stocking wand.
Also I have a theory that OOF can be affected not only by the lens desgin, but also film or sensor used. The OFF effect that Leica 50mm/2 Summicron will be very different if you use say Fuji Acros compared to Kodak T-Max 3200.
I'm looking forward to seeing what the Voigltander's 21mm/4 bokeh/SOFA/HOFA/OOF areas look like. I took at couple of pictures today with pently of OOF (a hard thing to do too!).
Stu
R
RubenBlaedel
Guest
Hoffas body never showed up - Nikkors are harder to kill
Hugh T
Hugh
I voted for Bokeh, although the word originally came from the Japanese Boke and someone put the ‘h’ on the end to get people to pronounce it right. It sounds more artistic than SOFA.
For those who don't think there is any value in the out of focus areas of a photograph, I suggest that you are missing out of a valuable creative tool. Have a look at my photograph of pumpkins here http://www.rangefinderforum.com/cpg/displayimage.php?pos=-9143 in my gallery. It was taken with my 1956 Rolleiflex (although not a rangefinder). The Zeiss Planar lens has very nice Bokeh which leaves the background softly out of focus while still being recognisable. The effect is to add depth as the pumpkins recede away and are more and more out of focus.
Some of you may still not appreciate a blurred photograph but that is personal taste.
Hugh
For those who don't think there is any value in the out of focus areas of a photograph, I suggest that you are missing out of a valuable creative tool. Have a look at my photograph of pumpkins here http://www.rangefinderforum.com/cpg/displayimage.php?pos=-9143 in my gallery. It was taken with my 1956 Rolleiflex (although not a rangefinder). The Zeiss Planar lens has very nice Bokeh which leaves the background softly out of focus while still being recognisable. The effect is to add depth as the pumpkins recede away and are more and more out of focus.
Some of you may still not appreciate a blurred photograph but that is personal taste.
Hugh
RUBENatHOME
Member
love your pumpkin shot - simple but beautiful ! Strange though that a Planar on a hasselblad has a much harsher sofa - sorry bokeh
I'm sure the Hasselblad's Planar is not the same Planar as on the Rollei... The Hasselblad's mirror clearance must require a different optical formulation. What is surprising to me is that they're both called Planar!
Honu-Hugger
Well-known
The basic concept is the same; Planar's are a six element symmetrical double-Gauss design. One of the first shots I took with a 50/1.4 Planar on an RTS II astounded me with its incredible "Bokeh," even though I wasn't especially looking for it -- it was really stunning (I wish I could lay my hands on the shot). There might be something about the Planar formula that lends itself to pleasing OOFA. I have this shot from a 120mm Macro-Planar, taken wide open with interesting OOFA but I'll leave it open to comment on whether or not others find it pleasing.
Lovely tonality, D2, nice shot! The bokeh looks pleasant. The 80 Planar for Hasselblad must have been fiddled-with, to attain infinity focus that far from the film plane, right? I'd think the 120mm long enough to manage infinity "naturally"...
How about a 7-element Planar... the 35mm for Contax G.
How about a 7-element Planar... the 35mm for Contax G.
Honu-Hugger
Well-known
Doug said:
That's a good question; I wonder how true Zeiss and others are to these long established trade names? We have a "Vario-Tessar" in a videocam and a "Vario-Sonnar" in a digital P&S -- I wonder if they are true Tessars and Sonnars? In a seven element Planar perhaps they put an element in the center? My knowledge of lens design is "challenged" to say the least
. I would imagine the point of focus can be manipulated by the shape of the lens surfaces while adhering to the design concept -- this is a good question for Dick Knoppow, I'll send an SOS.
Good point about the "vario-" lenses; would they have the signature 'look' of their namesakes? You're right about the 7th element being placed in the center of the 35 Planar, apparently needed to broaden the field of view. Note the 35's rear element is larger than the front! Planar 45mm for comparison...Honu-Hugger said:
Last edited:
Hugh T
Hugh
The Rolleiflex Planar is a 5 element lens and the Hasselblad Planar has 7 elements. Planar refers to a family of symmetric lenses as explained at the Zeiss site here: http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/01B0244EDEE3D1B141256A530037B4C8
I think the main difference in the Bokeh may be in the coatings. The modern lenses have multiple coatings which give sharper, more contrasty images. The older Rolleiflex has one lens coating. I had heard that some people prefer the older Rolleis because of the softer pictures. I had heard in the early eighties that the German philosophy for lens design was for maximum resolution but less contrast (softer) and the Japanese philosophy was for high contrast to give sharper images. The Japanese came out with the multiple coatings which the Germans now seem to be using. Ironically, the Japanese photographers seem to be the ones desiring the best Bokeh. The new Voigtlander 40 mm f 1.4 has multiple coatings for the rest of the world but has a special version with a single coating for sale in Japan because their photographers prefer softer pictures.
This is just my theory.
Hugh
I think the main difference in the Bokeh may be in the coatings. The modern lenses have multiple coatings which give sharper, more contrasty images. The older Rolleiflex has one lens coating. I had heard that some people prefer the older Rolleis because of the softer pictures. I had heard in the early eighties that the German philosophy for lens design was for maximum resolution but less contrast (softer) and the Japanese philosophy was for high contrast to give sharper images. The Japanese came out with the multiple coatings which the Germans now seem to be using. Ironically, the Japanese photographers seem to be the ones desiring the best Bokeh. The new Voigtlander 40 mm f 1.4 has multiple coatings for the rest of the world but has a special version with a single coating for sale in Japan because their photographers prefer softer pictures.
This is just my theory.
Hugh
Honu-Hugger
Well-known
Doug and Hugh,
Thank you for including the link and the diagrams. The early Planar groups were symmetrical but inefficient -- I think that it was Taylor Hobson that modified the design to its present unsymmetrical design. No surprise that Zeiss claims on the site you linked to that "the Planar lens is the most successful camera lens design – and, by the way, the most plagiarized – ever created."
Thank you for including the link and the diagrams. The early Planar groups were symmetrical but inefficient -- I think that it was Taylor Hobson that modified the design to its present unsymmetrical design. No surprise that Zeiss claims on the site you linked to that "the Planar lens is the most successful camera lens design – and, by the way, the most plagiarized – ever created."
R
RubenBlaedel
Guest
I think the reason that the S-Planar 120 later ref. as Macro Planar has nice S... Bokeh is that it is not optimized for infinity where as the 80 CF - that I find harsh - is optimized for both infinity and max contrast'/sharpness* ('might not be the right optical words for it)
I have no idea if coatings affect S... Bokeh - should a pro-shade do the same then to S... Bokeh!
Cheers Ruben
I have no idea if coatings affect S... Bokeh - should a pro-shade do the same then to S... Bokeh!
Cheers Ruben