Does excessive bokeh make your eyes (actually) hurt?

Harsh, swirly bokeh is very distracting and does my head! I want to concentrate on the picture, not "special effects"!

I usually prefer all my images to be sharp from front to back, but not always. On the occasions when I want narrow DOF, I expect my out-of-focus areas to be gently blurred, so the viewer focuses on the stuff in focus.

Here's a couple of rare instances (from my Insecta project) where I used narrow DOF. These were both taken with a large aperture using a shift-tilt lens, so the in-focus area is not only narrow but twisted, placed very exactly so that only the things I want sharp are in focus...

33_DSC_4005.jpg


36_DSC_4043.jpg
 
joe bosak said:
To my mind focusing on bokeh is like someone gives you a present and you love the wrapping paper and keep it instead.
Click to expand...

not really, i don't think so. background in a picture (be it photograph or painting) is part of the picture. Whether it is blurred to a dizzying bokeh or as sharp as the foreground, still part of the image.
 
Jamie123 said:
In my opinion, the problem with the ring picture is not necessarily the bokeh per se but the fact that the background is clearly more interesting then the foreground. If I was interested in the ring, I'd prefer to see a close-up of it. In this image I'm more interested in the figures in the background that fill most of the image but the shallow dof forces me to look at this tiny detail (which is too small to be examined properly anyways). The girl's looking at the boy's face, the boy is looking directly into the camera, nobody's looking at the ring, so why am I forced to just see the ring? So for me it's less about my eyes hurting and more about a frustrating viewing experience. In the picture with the ring I don't feel like the subject is isolated, I feel like the subject is out of focus.
Click to expand...

I think the picture brought up works but only with the first pic next to it, as a pair.
It's not abut the ring itself, and not about the boy or girl in the background, it's a little story of a boy proud of his ring. It's kinda neat how on the 2nd shot they are out of focus just enough to be still recognizable and visibly proud of the ring, like he tells us, look what i got LOOK HERE what i got so you are forced to look there. So you say Jamie you are forced to look at the ring but that is exactly the point, to look at what he (the boy) wants you to look at. Complemented by the 1st pic where they both first examine it, a sharp boy and a sharp girl looking at something but you don't yet know, at what.

Not all pics work as a single pic, and they don't all have to.

Is it a cartier-bresson? perhaps not, but to say it hurts your eye or it is useless blurring or that a frustrating viewing experience, that's way too far.
But we're all different of course.
 
Pherdinand said:
So you say Jamie you are forced to look at the ring but that is exactly the point, to look at what he (the boy) wants you to look at. Complemented by the 1st pic where they both first examine it, a sharp boy and a sharp girl looking at something but you don't yet know, at what.

Not all pics work as a single pic, and they don't all have to.

Is it a cartier-bresson? perhaps not, but to say it hurts your eye or it is useless blurring or that a frustrating viewing experience, that's way too far.
But we're all different of course.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't actually a critique of the picture or it's merits. I was a direct answer to the OP's theory (for a lack of a better term) that excessive bokeh makes your eyes hurt because your eyes try to focus on the out of focus area. My proposition was that maybe it's not the bokeh in and of itself that is 'painful' but that it can become visually frustrating when the subject of a picture is forced upon the viewer by technical means and the viewer still finds her/himself focused on the blurry parts of the image because what they conceal seems to be more interesting than what's in focus.

But whatevs.
 
It's definitely not just you, Dante! Years ago I did some work in a lab that studied stereoscopic imaging, specifically for 3D feature films. Their research showed that in order to avoid eye strain for the audience, films needed to be shot and edited using a different set of rules than most directors and cinematographers were used to.

Specifically, they found that it was best to avoid shallow depth of field, since it forces your eyes to work harder to try and get the out-of-focus parts of the image in focus - which is impossible, of course. They also recommended using looser compositions and wider lenses, in order to help enhance the illusion of depth.

Most of this has gone out the window now that most 3D films are shot in 2D and converted in post, rather than on complex 2-camera stereo rigs. However, I would not be surprised if these findings had an impact on traditional stills imaging as well, if only to a lesser degree!
 
I like bokeh when the model is in focus and the background is not. I don't like bokeh with the model's eyes are in focus but the chin is not.
 
Jamie123 said:
My point wasn't actually a critique of the picture or it's merits. I was a direct answer to the OP's theory (for a lack of a better term) that excessive bokeh makes your eyes hurt because your eyes try to focus on the out of focus area. My proposition was that maybe it's not the bokeh in and of itself that is 'painful' but that it can become visually frustrating when the subject of a picture is forced upon the viewer by technical means and the viewer still finds her/himself focused on the blurry parts of the image because what they conceal seems to be more interesting than what's in focus.

But whatevs.
Click to expand...

I have to admit that I found the "subject isolation" photo annoying as hell. I was indeed switching back and forth between the ring and the out of focus children. Physically painful? No. The OP's theory that there's causation between bokeh and headache or that some photographers are consciously emulating degenerative eye diseases as an effect to affect an emotion is just plain silly, IMO (sorry, Dante) However, I think we can all agree that bokeh is currently way overused and has become quite cheeky. There are other ways to create a better separation between the subject and the background. Creative use of lighting, leading lines, framing, and contrast produce more powerful separation than bokeh, IMO. But good bokeh can be wonderful.
 
Bokeh can be a good tool, but can be over used for sure. @RichC 's images are not painful to me at all, in fact I see the subject, and the softly out of focus parts of the image offer me further context without being distracting. I actually do not mind the linked image in the OP either, especially as @Pherdinand says, with both images presented together.
 
I don't get the fad comments... shallow DOF has been a fact of photography since the 1830s. Indeed, we see it a lot less in contemporary photography than we would have 100 years ago. Feel free to look up the work of Lewis Hine, just for example.

Aside from the brief popularity of pinhole photography in the 1800s, it wasn't until miniature formats and high speed films were on the market that we got used to seeing images with an extreme depth of field.

Of course for the most part, this was a result of what could be done with what was available. It wasn't the result of people buying a noctilux so they could photograph wine glasses in low light and get the shallowest DOF possible...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom