Is Bokeh an overated property of an image?

Is Bokeh an overated property of an image?

  • Yes

    Votes: 191 51.8%

  • No

    Votes: 157 42.5%

  • I used to be decisive but I'm not so sure now

    Votes: 21 5.7%
  • Total voters
    369
  • Poll closed .
T

tlitody

Well-known
Local time
5:42 AM
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
1,768
I'm curious about this as it seems to me that that what is importatnt in an image is the main subject. If the subject is the bokeh then fiine but in most images bokeh is not the subject. The bokeh is just the out of focus area which serves to isolate the main subject bringing it foward and to the viewers attention. Whether the bokeh is smooth and creamy or swirly is hardly the point of the image in most cases.
 
What's in the image is part of the image, and all aspects contribute to the overall perception of the image. I guess that sounds convoluted, but that's how I think about it. I generally like really creamy bokeh, i love how soft it is. On the other hand, some lenses generate OOF areas that can be very distracting and actually take away from the main subject as well. it all comes down to preference. Some people care, some don't.
 
True to the sub line in my sig, I got myself an L-Hexanon 50/2.4 collapsible LTM lens (Planar design, tack sharp and modern) and a Zeiss Jena Sonnar 50/1.5 LTM (obviously a Sonnar and still very sharp for a 1943 lens, but also a bokeh king when I need it). The only other 50 lens I own is my self-constructed Wollensak Velostigmat 50/2.8 LTM and it's a nicely-inbetween lens.
 
What interests me about lenses with large apertures is their ability to isolate subject from background. It's the reason I dislike digital photography so much. Lenses with max f11 aperture make everything sharp. That's boring.

Bokeh is not overrated in my opinion.
 
It is just another tool... obession with showing a lenses bokeh where bokeh is the focus is lame i.e. tree branches, etc.
 
In general, yes, it is overrated.

More than the lens, it's the photographer who should compose for a nice separation between the zones in narrow focus and the background... For example, if we have a soft bokeh lens, but the photographer allows secondary objects to appear between the subject and the background, those secondary objects will be distracting and even confusing in B&W no matter the great lens' bokeh... If on the contrary the photographer used a busy bokeh lens but managed to avoid those secondary intermediate objects between the subject and the background, the shot will be a lot better no matter the busy bokeh... It's the photographer and not the lens who makes a better photograph... And what if the photographer composes for a great separation, without distracting objects, and uses a good bokeh lens or a bad bokeh lens? I think both images work well. I mean bokeh's character is the least important fact on any image. A great bokeh lens can't get the separation the photographer must achieve with composition and aperture decisions... The most powerful and beautiful images can be made with different kinds of bokeh. Horrible photographs are never horrible because of the bokeh...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Yes, bokeh is only a tool. To some (including me), it's a useful and valuable tool. One whose effects I like and appreciate. To others, it's a tool that only a poor photographer would utilize.

We can make the same arguments about cropping. I don't have a problem with cropping. To others on this forum, it's regarded as evil.
 
Bokeh and creamy backgrounds became more important since every 200$ digital camera could produce a bitingly sharp picture.
Also gives an artsy feel to otherwise mediocre pictures.

Yes i think it's an overrated concept !

But at the same time i am guilty loving wide open pictures with good bokeh ;)
 
Last edited:
This brings us straight back to the debate about the meaning of 'overrated'.

For me, once the bokeh tail starts wagging the photographic dog, and people are more concerned with what's out of focus than what's in focus, it's very likely they're overrating it.

I completely agree with Brian: Like many things, it's only important when it's bad. And when, as Juan pointed out, the photographer was unable to or incapable of composing the shot better to begin with.

Cheers,

R.
 
Dear Ed,

Try Geoffrey Crawley's definition: 'good bokeh (preservation of subject shape in out of focus planes)' [Amateur Photographer, 8 August 2009, page 74]

Cheers,

R.
 
Gumby said:
Yes, that's the definition I subscribe to. I'm not sure others all agree.
Click to expand...
Dear Ed,

Just about everything else is hopelessly vague. Sure, you can begin to understand descriptions like 'wiry' and so forth, just as you can begin to understand wine-speak: 'a nose of red fruits' (smells a bit like a summer pudding), 'robust', etc. -- though my favourite, of a New World white, was 'cat pee on a gooseberry bush'. But it's all a bit oblique after Geoffrey's definition.

Some more obervations from http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/bokeh.html

It's also fair to say that bokeh is frequently used as something of a catch-all to laud or deprecate several of those aspects of a lens that are not readily quantifiable. A kindred term, now substantially fallen into disuse (apparently it dates from the 19th century), is 'drawing'. As applied to lenses this is even more vague than bokeh. The closest it comes to precision is in the phrase 'rectilinear drawing' (as opposed to fish-eye or curvilinear drawing), but this is fairly specialized and more precise than most people have ever cared for.

Mostly, 'drawing' seems to have been a generalized term of praise: 'good drawing' seems to have included elements of bokeh, microcontrast and indeed 'plasticity'. Also in the 19th century, and well into the 20th, 'plastic' rendering was a popular term of praise. As far as we can work out, 'plastic' meant 'creating a three dimensional impression' but it seems also to have had aspects of bokeh in it.


Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
There are three ways the word is used: a general character of the out of focus zones and how relaxed and uniform and without whirls or double images it is rendered... How circular -instead of polygonal- and how soft blurred point light sources appear in a defocused background... How soft is the transition from focused zones on a subject to defocused zones on the same subject, and to other zones of the image...

Cheers,

Juan
 
I think that the portion of lens prices determined by bokeh appreciation may be high, but that is typically how things work. Sharpness is now expected, while "good" bokeh is still hard to achieve, or even define for that matter!

Economics tells us that the small details that separate the top from the next will undoubtedly have the highest cost per benefit ratio. I assume bokeh characteristics are evaluated much more thoroughly in the upper echelon of lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom