Tonkatsu-Dog
Established
So I had a thought on Bokeh and want to hear what ppl think.
Many today think Bokeh is overused and overrated. Basically some people with too much money for fast lenses and too little talent to do something really interesting use it. As the argument goes 'most of last centurys great shots where all in focus'.
Others love it and wouldn't dream of stopping down a 1.4 lens even a little bit. Much like a certain prolific red dot dane out there.
I am thinking there might be more to the story simply due to camera evolution.
First - practicality:
1950 there was no autofocus and most cameras lacked light meter. It was convenient to use sunny 16 or zone focus with as wide DOF as you could get away with. With film mistakes cost money so you want to get it right.
Today with auto all you can set to f1.4 + A mode and be sure you get correct exposure and focus with little effort. And if you burn a few shots who cares with digital.
Second - film vs digital medium:
This is the bigger reason I think. Film is smooth with the 'right' amount of sharpness and detail when in focus. Digital is many times overly sharp and too detailed. Some shots are just tiring for the eyes even when well composed. Theres so much details there you get physically tired looking at it. In other words a digital shot can benefit from bokeh in a way a film shot won't. Modern gear is just "too good".
What are ppl thinking on this very serious topic? And I use it and use it not depending on what mood I am in.
I started to think when stumbling across this thread.... some very emotional arguments there for the ascetics of both sides!
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150061&highlight=bokeh&page=2
Many today think Bokeh is overused and overrated. Basically some people with too much money for fast lenses and too little talent to do something really interesting use it. As the argument goes 'most of last centurys great shots where all in focus'.
Others love it and wouldn't dream of stopping down a 1.4 lens even a little bit. Much like a certain prolific red dot dane out there.
I am thinking there might be more to the story simply due to camera evolution.
First - practicality:
1950 there was no autofocus and most cameras lacked light meter. It was convenient to use sunny 16 or zone focus with as wide DOF as you could get away with. With film mistakes cost money so you want to get it right.
Today with auto all you can set to f1.4 + A mode and be sure you get correct exposure and focus with little effort. And if you burn a few shots who cares with digital.
Second - film vs digital medium:
This is the bigger reason I think. Film is smooth with the 'right' amount of sharpness and detail when in focus. Digital is many times overly sharp and too detailed. Some shots are just tiring for the eyes even when well composed. Theres so much details there you get physically tired looking at it. In other words a digital shot can benefit from bokeh in a way a film shot won't. Modern gear is just "too good".
What are ppl thinking on this very serious topic? And I use it and use it not depending on what mood I am in.
I started to think when stumbling across this thread.... some very emotional arguments there for the ascetics of both sides!
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150061&highlight=bokeh&page=2
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
There was a thread over on the Filmwasters forums about aesthetics and photography, which included links to several videos. In one of them they implied that techniques such as narrow DOF brings attention to the self-conscious nature of photography, rather than to the subject matter.
Since our human vision system rarely by nature perceives bokeh effects on its own, it's not an organic offshoot of the human experience of seeing, but rather the effect of photography becoming self-conscious.
Excessive use of bokeh reminds me of those cheesy Photoshop brush effects that try (but poorly) to emulate pencil sketches. Instead of looking like a pencil sketch, the image serves as reminder of someone's poor taste when equipped with post-processing software.
In regards to your comment about the classic film era, many photographers of that time actually used light meters and were very exact with their technique (remember this guy named Adams and his Zone System?); it wasn't all zone focus and sunny sixteen.
And the reason why many of the iconic images from that era were rendered in sharp relief was in part because they were made by professionals, not dabbling amateurs, who were being paid to represent a subject matter photographically, not clinically demonstrate optical lens aberrations.
~Joe
Since our human vision system rarely by nature perceives bokeh effects on its own, it's not an organic offshoot of the human experience of seeing, but rather the effect of photography becoming self-conscious.
Excessive use of bokeh reminds me of those cheesy Photoshop brush effects that try (but poorly) to emulate pencil sketches. Instead of looking like a pencil sketch, the image serves as reminder of someone's poor taste when equipped with post-processing software.
In regards to your comment about the classic film era, many photographers of that time actually used light meters and were very exact with their technique (remember this guy named Adams and his Zone System?); it wasn't all zone focus and sunny sixteen.
And the reason why many of the iconic images from that era were rendered in sharp relief was in part because they were made by professionals, not dabbling amateurs, who were being paid to represent a subject matter photographically, not clinically demonstrate optical lens aberrations.
~Joe
Tonkatsu-Dog
Established
This wasn't supposed to be another thread on what's good or bad. It's to discuss if technological evolution of the medium has had an impact.
ferider
Veteran
"Medals, New York", by Robert Frank, 1951 (I assume shot with a 50/1.5 Sonnar)
While I disagree with you on the bokeh side (fast lenses have existed for a long time), I'm sure your argument is true, the medium has changed due to technology: wrt lenses, the best example is ultra wide angle photography.
bmattock
Veteran
I will state up front that I am aware of the various schools of thought about what the term 'bokeh' actually means, what its history is, and how we're all stupid because we're mostly not Japanese and don't understand that culture. WHATEVER. I think we all know what people are talking about when they use the term 'bokeh', even if that is not the original meaning of the term if one happens to be Japanese or insufferably pedantic.
The original purpose of intentionally creating out-of-focus areas in a scene, as I understand it, was to create what was known as 'selective focus'.
This was simply a technique to direct the viewer's eye to what the photographer felt was the most important or interesting part of the scene. The characteristics of the out-of-focus areas seemed to me to have been of little or no interest. What mattered was that the important bits of the scene were sharp and in focus. It is, in a sense, the opposite of bokeh. It is using the out-of-focus area to direct attention to the in-focus areas, not to be a subject of interest in and of itself.
Growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, I devoured every photography magazine I could get my hands on, there being no internet at the time. I took photography courses in high school and college and I had many friends who were likewise shutterbugs. I do not recall anyone at that time discussing the characteristics of the out-of-focus areas. I never heard the term 'bokeh'.
About the only time I really heard about the quality of those fuzzy areas were when people discussed the (as many thought) objectionable 'donuts' that catadioptric (mirror) lenses render when used against things like foliage.
However, times change.
I still practice selective focus techniques when I feel it is appropriate. Fuzzy backgrounds are useful to hide things one doesn't really want to be seen, like telephone poles and wires, etc (unless I *want* those in the shot, hehehe).
The quality of the out-of-focus areas is something I now find interesting. I do experiment with it, and some lenses certainly seem to render out-of-focus areas in a different manner from another.
I see nothing wrong with it. It can be overdone, anything can. I find it a bit less overdone than the currently-popular over-processed, HDR or near-HDR look. I don't even know how to describe some of those 'effects' but I find them most objectionable. A basic photograph with some overemphasized 'bokeh' I can tolerate most times.
However, no matter what, I don't feel the purpose of a photograph should be the bokeh itself. If it takes away from or distracts from the subject, then I don't care for it, no matter how 'creamy' or otherwise lovely it might be.
The original purpose of intentionally creating out-of-focus areas in a scene, as I understand it, was to create what was known as 'selective focus'.
This was simply a technique to direct the viewer's eye to what the photographer felt was the most important or interesting part of the scene. The characteristics of the out-of-focus areas seemed to me to have been of little or no interest. What mattered was that the important bits of the scene were sharp and in focus. It is, in a sense, the opposite of bokeh. It is using the out-of-focus area to direct attention to the in-focus areas, not to be a subject of interest in and of itself.
Growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, I devoured every photography magazine I could get my hands on, there being no internet at the time. I took photography courses in high school and college and I had many friends who were likewise shutterbugs. I do not recall anyone at that time discussing the characteristics of the out-of-focus areas. I never heard the term 'bokeh'.
About the only time I really heard about the quality of those fuzzy areas were when people discussed the (as many thought) objectionable 'donuts' that catadioptric (mirror) lenses render when used against things like foliage.
However, times change.
I still practice selective focus techniques when I feel it is appropriate. Fuzzy backgrounds are useful to hide things one doesn't really want to be seen, like telephone poles and wires, etc (unless I *want* those in the shot, hehehe).
The quality of the out-of-focus areas is something I now find interesting. I do experiment with it, and some lenses certainly seem to render out-of-focus areas in a different manner from another.
I see nothing wrong with it. It can be overdone, anything can. I find it a bit less overdone than the currently-popular over-processed, HDR or near-HDR look. I don't even know how to describe some of those 'effects' but I find them most objectionable. A basic photograph with some overemphasized 'bokeh' I can tolerate most times.
However, no matter what, I don't feel the purpose of a photograph should be the bokeh itself. If it takes away from or distracts from the subject, then I don't care for it, no matter how 'creamy' or otherwise lovely it might be.
MIkhail
-
Magnum's Dennis Stock has a series of photographs called "Brother sun". He uses a "bokeh" as one of the artistic means to convey a series of different images with most out of focus. http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult_VPage&STID=2S5RYDZF3OBE
This usage of bokeh is absolutely acceptable and interesting, in my opinion.
It's the idea to keep "testing lenses for bokeh" that is not so interesting to me.
But as I grew older I get somewhat wiser, so I just ignore those millions of "bokehlicious" images...
This usage of bokeh is absolutely acceptable and interesting, in my opinion.
It's the idea to keep "testing lenses for bokeh" that is not so interesting to me.
But as I grew older I get somewhat wiser, so I just ignore those millions of "bokehlicious" images...
bmattock
Veteran
I emphasized this part of your statement above because I agree with it, but I feel that the lack of those two words are what cause a lot of hate and discontent on RFF as well as other online forums.
"I do not like asparagus. It tastes terrible."
"I do not like asparagus. It tastes terrible...to me."
The difference between the two statements above is that the former is a declaration of absolute truth, and the latter is an opinion.
When I read the former statement these days, I try to mentally apply the 'to me' if it is not present, so I read it as an opinion.
This prevents me from reacting angrily to someone if I happen to think asparagus tastes wonderful.
Of course, asparagus *does* taste terrible... Hehehehe.
MIkhail
-
While I vehemently disagree on asparagus part... I have to say that, by the nature of internet as a soapbox available to anybody, you can add these two words to pretty much anything that is stated on World Wide Web. There is no objectivity in real life, why should it be in the space where people are free (by anonymity) to express their opinion at will?
bmattock
Veteran
This is true.
The problem is that some folks on the Interwebs have strong opinions, which they state as if they were facts. Some believe their opinions are actual facts. And some are merely expressing opinions, but they are lazy and state them as if they were facts, leading to confusion.
I agree with you that we should all respond to most statements as if they were merely opinions; although that will fash those who feel their opinions should have the force of law and end all discussion on a given subject.
As to asparagus, never!
kuuan
loves old lenses
commercially nowadays I see the dreamy effects of shallow dof with lots of 'bokeh', often paired with reduced contrast due to being taken against light, flares and pastel colors heavily used for ads / commercials. Typically e.g. for cosmetics but also for many products, if soaps, breakfast cereals, insurances asf., whereever creating light, romantic feelings or way of life is deemed to help sales.
........
going through the earlier thread on the subject here at RFF linked in the original post I read "I like to shoot a subject and the bokeh is a by-product", "it can enhance but when bokeh becomes the content of the image then it's overdone"..asf.
imo these don't give out of focus areas the importance they often have and the care with one should compose the out of focus areas, specially if one uses shallow dof. when most usually out of focus areas fill a much larger area of the frame than those in focus.
imo out of focus areas can be defining for the story a photo tells, be fundamental for the aesthetics of a photo and much more. The term bokeh for me often describes not only the quality of the out of focus area but also points to a relationship and interaction between in focus and out of focus areas that are fundamental to and defining the photo. ( As I had written in the thread "Bokeh is dead. long live Sofa": "Boke is the ‘silly’ guy of a pair in 'Manzai', a traditional form of Japanese stand up comedy. His counterpart Tsukkomi is the 'sharp' guy, they perform a fast double talk." )
a few samples that hopefully help me back up my points
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
and forgive again the sensitive subject matter
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
........
going through the earlier thread on the subject here at RFF linked in the original post I read "I like to shoot a subject and the bokeh is a by-product", "it can enhance but when bokeh becomes the content of the image then it's overdone"..asf.
imo these don't give out of focus areas the importance they often have and the care with one should compose the out of focus areas, specially if one uses shallow dof. when most usually out of focus areas fill a much larger area of the frame than those in focus.
imo out of focus areas can be defining for the story a photo tells, be fundamental for the aesthetics of a photo and much more. The term bokeh for me often describes not only the quality of the out of focus area but also points to a relationship and interaction between in focus and out of focus areas that are fundamental to and defining the photo. ( As I had written in the thread "Bokeh is dead. long live Sofa": "Boke is the ‘silly’ guy of a pair in 'Manzai', a traditional form of Japanese stand up comedy. His counterpart Tsukkomi is the 'sharp' guy, they perform a fast double talk." )
a few samples that hopefully help me back up my points
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
and forgive again the sensitive subject matter
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
xixi_gelly
Member
I think it just depends on what you're shooting.
If you're a photojournalist covering news you might be be working typically at, say, f/5.6-11 for a bit of separation but to capture the whole scene.
If you're doing a super thin DoF big head portrait a la Martin Schoeller maybe you'll want to use f/1.2.
And different apertures for product, commercial, studio, etc. so on and so forth (on 35mm cameras)
We associate the famous classic pictures with large DoF because it's the journalistic/documentary pictures that are most frequently remembered and the masters of that period gallivanted around the world zone- and manual-focusing with large f-numbers to capture humanistic scenes.
Even with today's incredible AF technology I think most working PJ's would rarely fully open their lenses when shooting a scene at 5-15 feet because the blur effect even at around f2.8 would distract from the picture's formal composition and storytelling ability. (Shooting a portrait of course would be totally different matter...grab the 1.4 and let it rip!)
The Dane you speak of isn't a working photojournalist, and if he likes shooting still objects at 0.95 power to him (and his wallet...)
If you're a photojournalist covering news you might be be working typically at, say, f/5.6-11 for a bit of separation but to capture the whole scene.
If you're doing a super thin DoF big head portrait a la Martin Schoeller maybe you'll want to use f/1.2.
And different apertures for product, commercial, studio, etc. so on and so forth (on 35mm cameras)
We associate the famous classic pictures with large DoF because it's the journalistic/documentary pictures that are most frequently remembered and the masters of that period gallivanted around the world zone- and manual-focusing with large f-numbers to capture humanistic scenes.
Even with today's incredible AF technology I think most working PJ's would rarely fully open their lenses when shooting a scene at 5-15 feet because the blur effect even at around f2.8 would distract from the picture's formal composition and storytelling ability. (Shooting a portrait of course would be totally different matter...grab the 1.4 and let it rip!)
The Dane you speak of isn't a working photojournalist, and if he likes shooting still objects at 0.95 power to him (and his wallet...)
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Bokeh? It is different in bw and color. It is very different on bw film scan and same negative wet print. And lith print is nothing but bokeh!
Also, auto, 1.4 has nothing to do with beginning of bokeh.
4x5 with simple 127mm f6.3 will give you very dreamy bokeh. Or 70 3.5 uncoated lens on scale focusing 4x6.5 folder from 1938.
Also, auto, 1.4 has nothing to do with beginning of bokeh.
4x5 with simple 127mm f6.3 will give you very dreamy bokeh. Or 70 3.5 uncoated lens on scale focusing 4x6.5 folder from 1938.
rscheffler
Well-known
I think there is a greater fascination with bokeh now than 10 or 20 years ago because there are a lot more 'enthusiast photographers' now than in they past, who have invested in higher end lenses that usually dive deep in to the wide aperture pool. I.e. 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 from Canon, particularly the 85, are high on the list of desirability for a number of Canon shooters. Interestingly that's a lens that has existed for decades all the way back to FD. It's a lens that interested me in the 90s, but I never bought one. I finally did around 2004 and within a few years it seemed like it suddenly became very popular on the forums.
'Enthusiast photographers' are able to pursue image qualities that purely interest themselves. They're not shooting for clients. Add in the internet echo chamber, and trends catch on rather quickly. It's not that shooting wide open just because you can is anything new. It's just easier to see many people doing so, which seems to compound. That said, as someone who owns both of those Canon lenses and a number of other high speed lenses for Leica M, etc., the use of shallow depth of field can be a desirable quality in the eyes of paying clients. I've had wedding clients state they like the shallow DoF look because they never see it in their own (smartphone) photos. To them it's an aspect of 'professional' photography.
Does everything need to be shot wide open? Certainly not. In fact I find I shoot a lot at f/8 (less so portraits, but against a no-seam, yeah, it's usually f/8). When I'm shooting wide open it's often because it's dark, though of course there are times when it's done for effect.
An aspect I really enjoy about Leica M is the range of lenses available for the system that span decades. The look from a 50/1.5 vintage Sonnar actually reminds me of images from that era, be it the level of contrast, the color palette, or simply the overall rendering of the lens, including bokeh. Same with Mandler era Leica glass. Just as modern ASPH lenses have their own aesthetic (or as some will say, lack of any character, which I guess is a kind of character, too). Maybe it's a digital era equivalent of picking a film stock for its look. For sure I will pick to shoot a Sonnar for certain things for its rendering. Same with the 50 Lux ASPH. Or a 50 Cron Rigid...
'Enthusiast photographers' are able to pursue image qualities that purely interest themselves. They're not shooting for clients. Add in the internet echo chamber, and trends catch on rather quickly. It's not that shooting wide open just because you can is anything new. It's just easier to see many people doing so, which seems to compound. That said, as someone who owns both of those Canon lenses and a number of other high speed lenses for Leica M, etc., the use of shallow depth of field can be a desirable quality in the eyes of paying clients. I've had wedding clients state they like the shallow DoF look because they never see it in their own (smartphone) photos. To them it's an aspect of 'professional' photography.
Does everything need to be shot wide open? Certainly not. In fact I find I shoot a lot at f/8 (less so portraits, but against a no-seam, yeah, it's usually f/8). When I'm shooting wide open it's often because it's dark, though of course there are times when it's done for effect.
An aspect I really enjoy about Leica M is the range of lenses available for the system that span decades. The look from a 50/1.5 vintage Sonnar actually reminds me of images from that era, be it the level of contrast, the color palette, or simply the overall rendering of the lens, including bokeh. Same with Mandler era Leica glass. Just as modern ASPH lenses have their own aesthetic (or as some will say, lack of any character, which I guess is a kind of character, too). Maybe it's a digital era equivalent of picking a film stock for its look. For sure I will pick to shoot a Sonnar for certain things for its rendering. Same with the 50 Lux ASPH. Or a 50 Cron Rigid...