Can I see "bad" bokeh...

f16sunshine said:
Same lens. Same day.
3848072929_80afde2f35_o.jpg
Click to expand...

The bokeh here gave my brain a mini spasm. But on second and third glances, it isn't all that bad. Helps me to focus on the woman in the end.
 
Good example Andy. That swirl is something that I find very distracting and difficult to look at. As a result I don't want that look in my shots and lenses which constantly produce it - to me - would define bad bokeh for my needs.

Obviously others love it. The a chunk of the large format community in particular is all about this look.
 
Laviolette said:
I can see how the previous Mamiya example has less than beautiful bokeh, but I fail to see how this one is bad.

Can you help me? Just trying to learn. :)
Click to expand...

Just a joke - bad bokeh if you are arachnophobic :)

Seriously, to the OP, when people show bad bokeh, they show some highlights in the background, leaves in sun-light, lamps at night, etc (*); often these photos look like lens tests and nothing more .... In the last couple of years, I have convinced myself that (a) these backgrounds make look almost any lens look bad and (b) for RFs, ugly background highlights are irrelevant, bad situations can mostly be avoided. The exception of course are examples like Andy's excellent second portrait, where the busy background is used for photographic purposes.

The only time these backgrounds are difficult to avoid is in wild-life photography. For example

198-L.jpg


But not many RF users shoot this kind of stuff anyways,

Roland.
 
Andy proves to me my own conviction: there are good pictures and bad pictures - or in the case of Roland's robin (?) or other russet chested bird, a picture that is kept from working because the dynamics are simply too demanding. Andy's two pircutes, you see them, you can't possibly be thinking about the bokeh unless directed to do so. That woman -- if she's a relation, I hope you take it as a compliment to her -- is powerfully sexy in both pictures and both pictures work because they are skillful pictures taken of a significant / interesting / telling subject. Bokeh qua bokeh doesn't matter. The Nikon 50mm f1.2 a perfect example. Once you tell me to look at the background I can detect a kind of vibration there but really it's a very fine lens wide open at f1.2, better than you can expect it to be, it renders beautifully, and the composition of the subject, a woman waiting on the platform as the train arrives, is superb. There are indeed a lot of elements and there is a lot of background brightness but unlike in the bird picture the highlights don't go so far as to overpower the subject. If you take competent pictures of interesting things you have nothing to worry about. Not every picture will work. But bokeh is really a refined taste. Like the preparation and presentation of sushi or tea in Japan, much significance is attached to small things. The sushi and tea however have an inherent quality that these rituals stand separate from.
 
Of course, arguing from the other side, there is a reason that great portraits are generally done with minimal or black/gray/white backgrounds -- everything else can possibly distract especially anything else that has any kind of dynamic play of light and dark. The other picture I was going to point to as not having "bad" bokeh but not being successful for reasons of background is the hen. It's not that the background is bad but it's the same color as the subject, it's as dynamic as the subject, and there's plenty of it -- it's more interesting to look at initially than the subject. But as background for a black panther it would work quite nicely. The subject is all.
 
I think it is a fine picture that is not ideally suited to give us the subject, through no fault of the photographer. I was trying to point out that it's not bad bokeh it's a bad situation. The photographer and the camera and the lens did the best that could be expected.

I didn't think the head looked like any robin I knew.
 
As Roland said, wildlife is classic bad-bokeh territory. I use a Canon 400 DO which is renowned and even pilloried for its unusual bokeh. Point highlights can look like a halved onion! Like in this shot (an extreme example under harsh midday light with pale OOF pebbles) where for some people the bokeh ruins the photo but for me it adds to the image by complementing the stones and plumage.


ring-billed gull by jj birder, on Flickr

The bokeh that winds me up the wrong way is double edges and rows of circles that often arise with complex telephoto zoom designs, like at the bottom of this page: http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/454-oly502002835?start=1
 
ferider said:
Just a joke - bad bokeh if you are arachnophobic :)

Seriously, to the OP, when people show bad bokeh, they show some highlights in the background, leaves in sun-light, lamps at night, etc (*); often these photos look like lens tests and nothing more .... In the last couple of years, I have convinced myself that (a) these backgrounds make look almost any lens look bad and (b) for RFs, ugly background highlights are irrelevant, bad situations can mostly be avoided. The exception of course are examples like Andy's excellent second portrait, where the busy background is used for photographic purposes.

The only time these backgrounds are difficult to avoid is in wild-life photography. For example

198-L.jpg


But not many RF users shoot this kind of stuff anyways,

Roland.
Click to expand...

I find this situation to be quite pictorial and an excellent photograph.
Some might say the oof area is distracting but I disagree.
He/she (the bird) has a "storybook" habitat in this photo that is quite charming.
It animates the bird into a character rather than just another bird. It becomes much more than a wildlife photograph.
Rolands timing and composition work perfectly with the "bad bokeh" in this case.
So you see there is no Bad Bokeh or Good Bokeh rather, good use or bad use.

Recently I gave up a Nikor LTM 35mm f1.8. This is a lens that when focused close and wide open has quite a wild side.
After years of struggling with it indoors in low light with close subjects I decided it belonged to someone who could better use the lens.
Wide open (and of course stopped down) at further distances it was great.
The point being. Some things are bad for some people and good for others or, there are not many bad tools rather bad choices of when to use them.
The new owner of my nikkor is much more of a classic street shooter than I and... is getting fantastic images.
 
To me, a bad bokeh pulls your eyes from the subject.
A good bokeh enhances the subject, providing the eyes with crisp transition between the foreground and background.

My sample of bad bokeh:

2739463260_0406134a9d_z.jpg


Lens, a Vivitar 28mm f/1.9 at f/1.9.
 
I wonder how many non photographers (or viewers of but not makers of) think about bokeh? Is it only something we notice and care about?
 
In a earlier post someone mentioned the term "subjective" It's really is up to the user whether it's good or bad.
Bokeh ih relatively new to the American vocabulary, it's Japanese and they point to examples showing particular effects. One that I recall is the "double line Bokeh" of the 50mm 1.4 Nikkor. The lens give a duplication fo highlighted areas ie:a highlight may have a second, parallel shadow shown in the background. If you have a bright image like this: ) it would have a second highlight adjacent like this: )) it can be disturbing with a busy background. A swirly background shown above is something many LF folks use for portraiture, It's found using a "Petzval" formula lens. If you take a look at the Large format photography forum there are quite a few examples of it.
 
f16sunshine said:
I find this situation to be quite pictorial and an excellent photograph.
Some might say the oof area is distracting but I disagree.
He/she (the bird) has a "storybook" habitat in this photo that is quite charming.
It animates the bird into a character rather than just another bird. It becomes much more than a wildlife photograph.
Rolands timing and composition work perfectly with the "bad bokeh" in this case.
So you see there is no Bad Bokeh or Good Bokeh rather, good use or bad use.

Recently I gave up a Nikor LTM 35mm f1.8. This is a lens that when focused close and wide open has quite a wild side.
After years of struggling with it indoors in low light with close subjects I decided it belonged to someone who could better use the lens.
Wide open (and of course stopped down) at further distances it was great.
The point being. Some things are bad for some people and good for others or, there are not many bad tools rather bad choices of when to use them.
The new owner of my nikkor is much more of a classic street shooter than I and... is getting fantastic images.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot, Andy. I shot the following 2 weeks ago with my Nikkor 35/1.8, wide open:

Scan-130302-0014-L.jpg


Undecided about the bokeh - the right side of the pic is nice, the left side has some double lines. Then again, this is my younger daughter who I see twice a year, we were out on a bike ride; frankly, I'm happy about the picture and don't care much about the busy OOF :)

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