Can I see "bad" bokeh...

tumblr_m608b72f6T1r8fp8xo4_1280.jpg

Mamiya NC1000, 50/1.7
Incredibly sharp lens, with really ugly bokeh.
 
I'll take naughty Bokeh over good, bad, or any other kind.
In the spirit of keeping this thread SFW I won't be posting any here :angel:
 
I don't like bokeh that swirls. I find it extremely distracting. Harsh lines can be distracting but no where near as much as swirl to me.

For example, this shot doesn't have 'pretty' bokeh but I like the character of it:

6586918557_5aa4f4419b_z.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6586918557

I tried looking for some of my shots where I found the bokeh really distracting/unappealing but didn't find anything I've posted. In most cases I either cropped the corners to the point where it was less noticeable or scrapped the shot entirely. I've avoided lenses which generate bokeh I dislike. I particularly dislike the swirl when it the corners are soft to begin with. That combo - soft corners and a bit of swirl - are the primary reasons I moved on from the Canon 35mm 2.8. Both only bothered me around 2.8 but I found myself shooting wide open frequently during the winter here.
 
To me, bad/ugly bokeh looks like a blurry double image in the background.

It's different for everyone, but if you look at an image and the background is heavily bokeh'd and distracts from the primary focus image, then it's bad.

Good bokeh is creamy and non-distracting. It feels like you've gently blurred the background a little (or a lot) to make the focus image stand out.
 
Is it good? Is it bad? is it bokeh or simply out of focus?
Maybe all of the above. What people like is subjective.
It's all been covered before.
3839433639_95d13835fa_o.jpg
 
One the one hand, there are lenses with good bokeh, and they generally produce nice out-of-focus imagery. On the other hand, there are lenses with bad bokeh, and they produce unpleasant/harsh out-of-focus imagery.

On the third hand -- and this, to me, is most important -- there are backgrounds that simply will not look pleasant when out-of-focus, no matter what lens is used. Such backgrounds can suffer from harsh lighting, speckled light sources, widely varying tones, or other aspects that just make them look bad when too out-of-focus.

And, on the fourth hand (there has to be a fourth hand) -- just as important as the third -- there are backgrounds that always will look good when out-of-focus, no matter the lens. These backgrounds typically have less going on (think: studio portrait backdrops).

Given all of that, the only way to really see if a lens has intrinsically bad bokeh is to shoot a variety of out-of-focus backgrounds at different apertures and to shoot with a variety of lenses to compare. I think you will find that some lenses tend to have nice bokeh, some tend to have bad bokeh, and most tend to be good or bad, depending on the scene, aperture, or both.

A few examples based on my experiences: I think the Summar 50mm f2 can make some nauseating backgrounds, particularly wide open with speckled lighting (such as sunlight through trees), while other times the Summar bokeh can be quite nice. Same goes for the rangefinder Nikkor 35mm f1.8 and most fast rangefinder 50s.

The Summaron 35mm f2.8 is always a peach bokeh-wise, as are the Super Rokkor 50mm f1.8, Distagon 35mm f4 (Contarex), Tessar 50mm f2.8 (Contessa), and ED Nikkor 180mm f2.8 (SLR).

As for bokeh dogs, I'm sure I have some, but by now I wouldn't shoot them wide open anyway.

Cheers,

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom