ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Photography was *so* much better before bokeh was invented...
Chris
Chris
ssmc
Well-known
No - examples
No - examples
Take your pick: hard-edged, swirly, or neutral:
http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/88513485/original.jpg
one more good/bad example of "busy" bokeh:
http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/88533296/original.jpg
Scott
No - examples
Take your pick: hard-edged, swirly, or neutral:
http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/88513485/original.jpg
one more good/bad example of "busy" bokeh:
http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/image/88533296/original.jpg
Scott
tlitody
Well-known
I think I prefer the neutral by far.
Brian Legge
Veteran
Personally, I really don't like swirly bokeh. It makes itself a major feature of the image, pulling me away from the subject. I get this being the photogrphers intent, but I don't care for the results at all unless the intent of the shot is for the viewer to feel a touch dizzy. 
That - for me - is why bokeh matters. For me, it can detract from the image in a big way. I won't use a lens with bokeh like that wide open. I like separating the subject from the background via dof every now and then so it makes lenses that like much less appealing to me.
That - for me - is why bokeh matters. For me, it can detract from the image in a big way. I won't use a lens with bokeh like that wide open. I like separating the subject from the background via dof every now and then so it makes lenses that like much less appealing to me.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Bokeh is absolutely overrated I think. Sometimes people discuss the bokeh in a photo instead of discussing the interesting content. And then there are the f0.95 to f1.1 threads. A lot of photos are only there to show some nice out of focus rendering.
tlitody
Well-known
well I kind of thought that bokeh was overated which is why I asked the question. But having seen some of the images posted here and in the bokeh thread, I now think that it's not about it being overated but rather that it can detract from an image instead of helping the image as Brian Legge points out above. But in some cases it can add to an image. But in itself it is worthless unless the image is about bokeh only.
Like any effect, it has to be used wisely and not overdone at the expense of the main subject. i.e. not bokeh for bokehs sake.
Like any effect, it has to be used wisely and not overdone at the expense of the main subject. i.e. not bokeh for bokehs sake.
Last edited:
Neare
Well-known
I posted once in this thread that bokeh wasn't. I retract that, it is completely overrated.
A boring subject with a swirly background is still a boring subject. If the swirly background is what makes the photo, that photo will enter the 'no one will care about it tomorrow' bin.
A boring subject with a swirly background is still a boring subject. If the swirly background is what makes the photo, that photo will enter the 'no one will care about it tomorrow' bin.
chrismoret
RF-addict
I've got the feeling it's a bit fashionable to go on-and-on about 'Bokeh'. Every lens got his own characteristics, with there own charms. Sometimes it sounds like these kind of bloated discussions about wine.
I use the term unsharpness, and everyone knows what I mean to.
I use the term unsharpness, and everyone knows what I mean to.
Tipton
Tipton Photo
I think people spend too much time thinking about it. At the same time, I think it's worth considering when you're buying a super fast lens. It all comes down to personal tastes in the end. I won't lie, I've stayed away from certain lenses because they had some distracting out of focus areas, it's just preference. I'd rather not have those areas end up the focal point, or a distraction from the focal point.
If i can have the OOF areas just smoothly disappear, I'm happy, because it's not taking away from whatever the "subject" of the frame is.
It's also the reason I hate those photos of something like a single tiny twig with a leaf on it, shot at 1.0, and the crazy Noct like swirl behind it, that damn swirl becomes the photo, while that can be interesting in some frames, in others, like that, it's just too much in my opinion, but to each their own!
Luckily there are plenty of options out there for us all.
If i can have the OOF areas just smoothly disappear, I'm happy, because it's not taking away from whatever the "subject" of the frame is.
It's also the reason I hate those photos of something like a single tiny twig with a leaf on it, shot at 1.0, and the crazy Noct like swirl behind it, that damn swirl becomes the photo, while that can be interesting in some frames, in others, like that, it's just too much in my opinion, but to each their own!
Luckily there are plenty of options out there for us all.
Tipton
Tipton Photo
I've got the feeling it's a bit fashionable to go on-and-on about 'Bokeh'. Every lens got his own characteristics, with there own charms. Sometimes it sounds like these kind of bloated discussions about wine.
I use the term unsharpness, and everyone knows what I mean to.
Haha, maybe it's just me, but I hate saying the word bokeh. Much prefer "out of focus area" etc. I feel you on this one. When friends of mine start in on their wine rants, I just shake my head. It's one thing to have your own opinion, and even to study those things you're interested in, that's awesome and I respect it, and do the same thing, but, do it for yourself, not to lay on other people
The worst is when I'm at a restaurant and they apparently think they're at a tasting, and stick their face in the glass, and go through the whole thing, just to say "Yes this bottle will do." Ugh.NLewis
Established
Yes, bokeh quality is overrated. However, sharpness, contrast and most other lens qualities are overrated too. Most any half-decent lens of the last 50 years is fine. You just have to avoid the really bad stuff. There are some truly pukey lenses, and there are some lenses with really, really bad bokeh. However, if you avoid the junk, then anything of remotely aspirational quality is fine for most anything.
With that said, a really great lens does have a noticeably different presentation than a simply good lens. Like anything it's a matter of diminishing returns, like the difference between a $15 bottle of wine and a $50 bottle, or a $5 cigar and a $25 cigar, or a sirloin and a filet mignon.
In other words, you can shoot Voigtlander and be perfectly happy.
With that said, a really great lens does have a noticeably different presentation than a simply good lens. Like anything it's a matter of diminishing returns, like the difference between a $15 bottle of wine and a $50 bottle, or a $5 cigar and a $25 cigar, or a sirloin and a filet mignon.
In other words, you can shoot Voigtlander and be perfectly happy.
NLewis
Established
Maybe you can put it this way: guys like to obsess about gear. Whether it is vintage motorcycles, audio equipment or power tools. if you're going to obsess about lenses, then you have to have something to obsess about, especially these days when plenty of lenses are sharp as can be.
INHO, bokeh that draws attention to itself is undesirable. As with wines, one can study the character if you wish, and arrive at opinions, and maybe draw some inferences of a technical nature.
Lenses have various characteristics that receive more attention or less as the fashion swings. Sharpness may be an overrated property too, if that's all one uses to judge a lens. I'm getting more concerned about focus shift and various color aberrations, now that high-resolution digital capture is more picky about such things.
Lenses have various characteristics that receive more attention or less as the fashion swings. Sharpness may be an overrated property too, if that's all one uses to judge a lens. I'm getting more concerned about focus shift and various color aberrations, now that high-resolution digital capture is more picky about such things.
peterm1
Veteran
Simple answer no.
At least not in the sense that it is important for certain types of photos. But just as pixel peepers make too much of sharpness, bokeh bunnies make far to much of that characteristic in and of itself.
In an other wise good picture I much prefer good bokeh to poor bokeh.
But most of all I prefer a photo where everything that needs to be sharp is sharp, everything that needs to be out of focus is out of focus (preferably with good bokeh) and the image is well exposed and nicely composed. Oh and of course has a good subject that tells a story or engages interest. So bokeh is not everything, but its an important part of the story.
Like I said bokeh is not over rated - unless you pretend that it is all there is to a good image.
At least not in the sense that it is important for certain types of photos. But just as pixel peepers make too much of sharpness, bokeh bunnies make far to much of that characteristic in and of itself.
In an other wise good picture I much prefer good bokeh to poor bokeh.
But most of all I prefer a photo where everything that needs to be sharp is sharp, everything that needs to be out of focus is out of focus (preferably with good bokeh) and the image is well exposed and nicely composed. Oh and of course has a good subject that tells a story or engages interest. So bokeh is not everything, but its an important part of the story.
Like I said bokeh is not over rated - unless you pretend that it is all there is to a good image.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Bokeh as the main subject does not qualify as the main subject?
To me, what is important is the photograph. The image is contained by it. Looking at a painting only by the brush strokes rather than the "image" or the "image" rather than the brush strokes is lacking depth of vision.
I guess that's why that Van Gogh guy didn't earn that much money...the intelligentzia of ze day felt pretty much about the "image" as much as they did about their wallpaper.
darkkavenger
Massimiliano Mortillaro
Bokeh is just an empty word. The interesting topic is the subject of the photo, then the DOF choice and how the OOF zone will look like is a deliberate artistic choice of the photographer (or just pure luck!). Although one cannot deny that some lenses beautifully render OOF zones, those are just a decorum, a setting for the main topic of the photo. Just my 2 crowns
Tikles
Member
I think bokeh is pretty important in the sense that bad bokeh could be distracting from the main subject if the reason you have bokeh is because you were focusing in on the main subject to begin with.
There are a lot of variables involved like lighting, shadowing, edges of the background, etc. But I've seen some bokeh look funky enough to almost look like out of focus shattered glass. Personally, I don't like it. Then again, there are photographers who specifically look for that type of effect....
There are a lot of variables involved like lighting, shadowing, edges of the background, etc. But I've seen some bokeh look funky enough to almost look like out of focus shattered glass. Personally, I don't like it. Then again, there are photographers who specifically look for that type of effect....
retro
Well-known
bokeh is a jokeh.
GSNfan
Well-known
I still don't know the difference between beautiful bokeh and ugly bokeh, to me all shallow dof pictures look the same.
tlitody
Well-known
well look at the bokeh thread. Its for you to decide whether swirly bokeh floats your boat or creamy bokeh does it for you.
Personally I think swirly bokeh often looks like boke (scottish word for vomit) but some times it looks good.