Is bokeh completely subjective?

ampguy

ampguy

Veteran
Local time
11:51 PM
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
6,946
I don't think it is. Here's why:

It can be quantified in several ways. One is to take an x/y area of an OOF portion of a similar image with different lenses, and one lens may have be completely white, while with another lens, completely black.

Even if the overall exposure average EV's are the same, and on film or digital. I don't see bokeh differences between film and digital with the same lens, but without ff digital, you do have to match the appropriate areas to compare properly.
 
I know someone who loves swirly, harsh, double line bokeh. The funkier the better. So in that sense, yes it's subjective.
 
I like the extremes. Either it needs to be creamy nothingness or swirly crazy petzval bokeh. The middle grounds just boring.
 
You may be able to quantify what a lens produces, but whether it is pleasing to the eye or not is completely subjective. So one could say X lens produces Class Y bokeh of Type a and Subclad 1, but that doesn't mean people will or won't like it. Some will, some meh.
 
What makes bokeh "good" is totally subjective. Unless we can agree on what the overall "best lens" is across the board, then, because we've all agreed that that lens is the best it's corresponding bokeh would also be the best. Then we'd have a benchmark by which to measure all others. Should be easy?
 
I've found that this site has a reasonable analysis of the subject, for me.

http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

While, I agree with all of his "distracting" conclusions, there are some of his "pleasing" conclusions that I would consider "neutral"

So is it subjective? maybe what is pleasing and what is distracting. Can it be quantified and defined? Yes it can.
 
ampguy said:
Can it be quantified and defined? Yes it can.
Click to expand...

So can just about anything.

I know that a healthy human being generally has an internal temperature of 98.6 degrees F. I can find out the range that is considered normal for healthy human beings. I can't tell you if that is 'hot' or not, because everyone has a different idea of what 'hot' is and whether or not it's acceptable. I would not mind my steak to be that hot, but I'd for my beer to be that hot. If I drank beer anymore, that is.
 
bmattock said:
So can just about anything.

I know that a healthy human being generally has an internal temperature of 98.6 degrees F. I can find out the range that is considered normal for healthy human beings. I can't tell you if that is 'hot' or not, because everyone has a different idea of what 'hot' is and whether or not it's acceptable. I would not mind my steak to be that hot, but I'd for my beer to be that hot. If I drank beer anymore, that is.
Click to expand...
Dear Bill,

Or 98.4 outside the USA. A classic example of false precision. 'A little over 98' would be more meaningful. And of course 'generally' is a weasel word. Mine is a little over 97, most of the time, so 99 (generally inside experimental error for 98,x) is a mild fever for me. So much fot quantification!

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Bill,

Or 98.4 outside the USA. A classic example of false precision. 'A little over 98' would be more meaningful. And of course 'generally' is a weasel word. Mine is a little over 97, most of the time, so 99 (generally inside experimental error for 98,x) is a mild fever for me. So much fot quantification!

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I think the point remains - it's a lot easier to pin down the measured value and a range of acceptable values than it is to get an objective answer to the question 'is it hot in here, or is it just me'?
 
The specific rendition of the lens can be traced to over/under correction of Spherical Aberration, astigmatism, coma, and all of the other optical compromises that go into the prescription of a lens.

As to whether it produces Bokeh that someone likes, it is all subjective. I like the subject of "Bokeh". However, when someone labels a lens as having "good" or "Bad" Bokeh, they are assuming that everyone has the same taste as they do.

The classic Summarit is one of my favorites. Great for portraits. Preserves shadow detail and highlights, flattering soft focus, and makes the world revolve around the subject.
 
Pretty much. I've always wondered about bokeh; people's fascination with it, and it's purported Japanese origin. In Japan "bokeh" it is written using katakana , which is generally used for words of foreign origin.

Personally, I think bokeh is over-emphasized nowadays. I think bokeh's importance in a photograph is minor, too minor to justify spending big money for a "killer bokeh" fast lens.

But that's just my opinion.
 
ferider said:
100% subjective and subject dependent. Check this photo out, from Mael:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1025902#post1025902
Click to expand...
Your example actually points toward the objective component of bo-ke, as even those who prefer an abrupt transition to the OOF areas would dismiss this as singularly disturbing. Isn't that why you chose such an extreme example?

dcsang said:
Ya.. Bokeh is subjective just like art .....or......photos :)
Click to expand...
But even here there is a strong objective component: good painting and good photography cannot just be any haphazard arrangement; and even if it seems haphazard, if it spellbinding then it has structure, form. If the geometry of a photograph is askew, you can be sure that that photo is binnable.

My fifty Kopeks for the RFF piggy-bank :).
 
Boniface XIII said:
Your example actually points toward the objective component of bo-ke, as even those who prefer an abrupt transition to the OOF areas would dismiss this as singularly disturbing. Isn't that why you chose such an extreme example?
Click to expand...

I picked this, since Mael used lens' behavior constructively. The final picture shows "good" bokeh. IMO, saying a lens has "good" or "bad" bokeh without context is quite meaningless.

Two of my own examples:

562276402_heVeG-XL.jpg


A mundane portrait, but one of my favorite "bokeh shots", since it came out as planned, and the family really liked it (the context being the son in the foreground having been accepted to his college of choice).

This one hopefully speaks for itself:

371687042_6jK2j-XL-1.jpg


Best,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Nice examples, Roland. They demonstrate, very well IMHO, that the OOF rendering of a lens (which can be optically/mathematically quantified) is fairly meaningless on its own. The football shaped "googly eyes" bokeh of the second image makes an eloquent statement that when it adds something to an image (in this case a resonance with the lady's eyes) even a "flaw" can add something wonderful to an image.

The real proof is the final image. It is only there that we can evaluate whether the "bokeh" adds to, is neutral to, or detracts from the whole impression. Even if quantified, there is no way to say "objectively" that A is good or B is bad, etc., only whether the lens characteristics (of which bokeh or OOF rendering is merely one among many) contributes something positive to the final whole of specific images. (And different people are going to evaluate this differently as it is a subjective assessment.) What is a defect in one image or situation can make an important contribution in another.

The whole subject and fetishization of OOF, when conducted in the 'abstract', is myopic.
 
Last edited:
Everything is subjective. However, some lenses give you a double vision look which is ugly and distracting. But if that floats your goat...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom