schrackman
Established
This photo is from a roll of Fuji NPS 160 that I had developed a few weeks ago, but I had yet to scan this until yesterday. As someone from another photography forum mentioned, it has a funky bokeh to it. Funky or not, I kinda like it. I'm pretty sure I shot it at f/1.8.
Anyone else got any photos from the GIII with funky looking bokehs?
Ray
Anyone else got any photos from the GIII with funky looking bokehs?
Ray
Attachments
dmr
Registered Abuser
If you're talking about the moire pattern toward the top, it looks more like some kind of aliasing or digitizing artifact than optical bokeh. To me, anyway. 
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I agree with dmr, it looks really weird and patterned. The "funky" bokeh may work well on that picture, but I think it won't work so well with portraits. Just a thought.
schrackman
Established
Hmm...well, I suppose it could be due to the scan. Only way to find out is to have a print made from the neg. Thanks for the feedback.
jmi
Established
Bit late in the game here, sorry...
I get some pretty funky bokeh from my QL17L (optically identical to the GIII AFAIK). Very recent example attached. I also posted some shots back in another thread that showed it better, which are flickr'd here and here.
Whether my lens is out of whack or not I don't know, given how much else there is wrong with the camera it would not surprise me in the least, but I really like the "doughnut bokeh" so I'm not gonna try to fix it. Summitar here I come
I get some pretty funky bokeh from my QL17L (optically identical to the GIII AFAIK). Very recent example attached. I also posted some shots back in another thread that showed it better, which are flickr'd here and here.
Whether my lens is out of whack or not I don't know, given how much else there is wrong with the camera it would not surprise me in the least, but I really like the "doughnut bokeh" so I'm not gonna try to fix it. Summitar here I come
Attachments
Timmy P
Established
It's the number of blades it has as to why it's funky. It's only got 5, so it looks a bit strange indeed. If you stop down manually you'll see the blades yourself.
But hey, if you want crazier, the Olympus XA has only 4!!! It's a diamond, although I haven't been able to test it's blur. I'd say it'll be pretty bad.
Then again, I think the blur on your posted photo kind of has a painterly feel, instead of the sometimes extremely smooth crazy blur you usually see. I think it gives the photo edge. Of course, sometimes it'll look REALLY bad, like with someone with lots of bright highlight areas behind them. It'd look pretty fug then I guess, but bokeh is one of those things that is really subjective, depending on both the lens and situations it's used in. Shoots pictures and deciede for yourself I say
Cheers,
-Tim
But hey, if you want crazier, the Olympus XA has only 4!!! It's a diamond, although I haven't been able to test it's blur. I'd say it'll be pretty bad.
Then again, I think the blur on your posted photo kind of has a painterly feel, instead of the sometimes extremely smooth crazy blur you usually see. I think it gives the photo edge. Of course, sometimes it'll look REALLY bad, like with someone with lots of bright highlight areas behind them. It'd look pretty fug then I guess, but bokeh is one of those things that is really subjective, depending on both the lens and situations it's used in. Shoots pictures and deciede for yourself I say
Cheers,
-Tim
Bryce
Well-known
Hmmm.
Looks like what people call 'ring bokeh' to me, in combination with something like astigmatism towards the edges of the frame.
For giggles, what do distant point light sources look like near the edges of the frame, focused close and wide open with that lens? I'd guess the edges are hard and brighter than the middle, and that the circles of confusion show as ovals.
The scanning could exaggerate the effect for sure.
I've seen similar OOF areas from my Pentax normalish primes (50/2 and 35/2). Both have 5 bladed irises, by the way, but the aperture is round when wide open.
Looks like what people call 'ring bokeh' to me, in combination with something like astigmatism towards the edges of the frame.
For giggles, what do distant point light sources look like near the edges of the frame, focused close and wide open with that lens? I'd guess the edges are hard and brighter than the middle, and that the circles of confusion show as ovals.
The scanning could exaggerate the effect for sure.
I've seen similar OOF areas from my Pentax normalish primes (50/2 and 35/2). Both have 5 bladed irises, by the way, but the aperture is round when wide open.
sam_m
Well-known
This is one of me taken by my Dad, I think the bokeh (hate that word) is nice, but it does get a bit of that "funky" look on the menu board, if you really look for it:
R
rich815
Guest
Timmy P said:
According to this extensive test:
http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm
....that's a bunch of hooey.
"Apertures shapes are not really an issue with bokeh, especially near wide open. In none of these tests was aperture shape the main determinant in apparent bokeh quality. So, we should stop counting aperture blades. The lens with the most aperture blades was the B&L Tessar, but it had uniformly the worst bokeh. "
Xmas
Veteran
The effect is really apparent (pronounced) at night without of focus light sources.
It seems to be abberation dependent rather than iris blade shape, it is very characteristis off axis, like the menu shot.
Noel
It seems to be abberation dependent rather than iris blade shape, it is very characteristis off axis, like the menu shot.
Noel
Timmy P
Established
rich815 said:
Well whoever did that test is on some wacky tabacky then, the shape of the iris definately affects the appearance of the boke. If you don't believe me, try out a Canon 50 f1.8, or like I said, an Olympus XA. I'll pull the scanned neg with the funky background boke from the Q17 if you still think I'm crazy.
It also depends on what near wide open is. Near wide open where the DOF is extremely small, it will hard to tell any shapes in the background anyway. But when you get to lenses with blur that is more subtle, you will see the shape of the iris reflected in the boke.
And sorry, but I hardly find internet tests definitive. Plently of people will tell you that an Epson V700 just can't scan 35mm, and believe me, it does quite well and makes very exceptional prints. Also a test for something like boke, which is possibly the most subjective element of a lens, is like comparing scotch to vodka. Some hate one, and like the other. You'll never find a winner.
Like I always say, test it out yourself.
And shoot lots of pictures. Both of which are very fun
PS: Personally I like Scotch and Vodka :-D
Catch ya,
-Tim
photophorous
Registered User
Hey Ray,
Here's an example of a Canonet QL-17 GIII shot very near wide open...I think it was about f/2. The pentagonal shape of the aperture is obvious in a few of the highlights. Not sure why it's as soft as it is, but I would blame my focus accuracy and my crappy scanner, in that order.
Paul
Here's an example of a Canonet QL-17 GIII shot very near wide open...I think it was about f/2. The pentagonal shape of the aperture is obvious in a few of the highlights. Not sure why it's as soft as it is, but I would blame my focus accuracy and my crappy scanner, in that order.
Paul