Carterofmars
Well-known
Please post examples of what you consider "bad" bokeh.
How/can you define "good" or "bad" bokeh?
How/can you define "good" or "bad" bokeh?
Can I see "bad" bokeh...
- Thread starter Carterofmars
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 61
- Views 10K
grapejohnson
Well-known
Mamiya NC1000, 50/1.7
Incredibly sharp lens, with really ugly bokeh.
Carterofmars
Well-known
That dudes no bargain either. 🙂
hausen
Well-known
Classic response🙂
ferider
Veteran
🙂
f16sunshine
Moderator
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:
In the spirit of keeping this thread SFW I won't be posting any here :angel:
grapejohnson
Well-known
*opening riff to bad to the bone*
Lflex
Lflex
Do an google imagesearch on "mirror lens bokeh"
Laviolette
Established
🙂
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. 🙂
jmcd
Well-known
Brian Legge
Veteran
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:
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.
For example, this shot doesn't have 'pretty' bokeh but I like the character of it:
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.
alienmeatsack
Well-known
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.
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.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Commuting by ruby.monkey, on Flickr
50mm f/1.2 AIS Nikkor wide open. It really doesn't handle busy backgrounds gracefully.
f16sunshine
Moderator
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.
Maybe all of the above. What people like is subjective.
It's all been covered before.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Same lens. Same day.
Carterofmars
Well-known
I like that last one Andy. It creates a dizzying effect, and the model accentuates this. It works for me.
grapejohnson
Well-known
Same lens. Same day.
I'd consider this good bokeh, very good -- in fact, I've been considering a helios or summitar in order to get this look
dberger
Established
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
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
benlees
Well-known
Someone post a pic of some flowers in a vase. Then we can have bokeh of a...
Carterofmars
Well-known
dberger- Very insightful and much to consider.
All- Great examples so far. Keep those sloppy Bokeh's coming. 😉
All- Great examples so far. Keep those sloppy Bokeh's coming. 😉
