Gumby
Veteran
... and that applies to all other topics, discussed on or off of the internet!
aizan
Veteran
you don't have to describe the physics at all. looking at the film, print, or file is easier and more direct. are the OOF highlights brighter on the edge and darker in the middle? are they circular, or do they become oblong along the radial axis toward the edges? do straight lines become double edged as they go out of focus? how quick is the transition between the focus and defocus?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
What for bokeh is? Best explanation was giving me by sales assistance in the Michael's art store. She was showing me the photo album section and specifically pointed to dedicated part with nothing but fancy stickers. She told me to put many of them around pictures in the album to make it looks awesome.
So, in the DIY photo album we have the image itself and stickers are the best possible bokeh because you could make it with full subjectivity.
The subjective part of bokeh is ... Why do you need it this way of another? I think, if super delicious bokeh is something important for some, perhaps, they are trying to compensate the absence of main pert of the image.
Recently, some where here, we have interview with big name from England. I just can't remember names after first time. But I remember what this person told how good are passport photos. No Bokeh, but eyes to look at...
So, in the DIY photo album we have the image itself and stickers are the best possible bokeh because you could make it with full subjectivity.
The subjective part of bokeh is ... Why do you need it this way of another? I think, if super delicious bokeh is something important for some, perhaps, they are trying to compensate the absence of main pert of the image.
Recently, some where here, we have interview with big name from England. I just can't remember names after first time. But I remember what this person told how good are passport photos. No Bokeh, but eyes to look at...
The is definitely the bokeh as subject matter crowd.
pgk
Well-known
Zeiss covered the technical side of bokeh in a newsletter or download from their website a few years ago. If I remember correctly they explained that the characteristics of oof areas can be predicted and even designed for, so technically its production must be fairly well understood. Whether anyone like specific bokeh is something else .....
seany65
Well-known
Unless a lens has what to me is really ugly Bokeh, I don't notice it or think about it. I don't know when this idea of Bokeh arrived, and I don't remember any photo magazine ever mentioning it during the years I was reading them.
skucera
Well-known
When I was in art school 30-35 years ago several of my painting and drawing teachers used to say that blurring the background was one of many tools to emphasize visual focus on the subject or subjects of a composition. It's just a tool in the toolbox.
I gather that the term "bokeh" was first used in photographic magazines sometime around the year 2000, a period when I was too busy being a new dad and a breadwinner in uncertain economic times to read many camera magazines. It's nice to have a specific word in photographic jargon to describe the concept of using focus and blur to emphasize the subject.
My dad really appreciated the broadest possible depth of field and "tack sharp" focus at all distances. He really enjoyed going for the smallest possible aperture, using tripods or multiple strobe flashes to freeze everything in focus in his pictures. It was his pet pursuit in photography, and he often gave me suggestions on how I could extend my depth of field, even when I was deliberately shooting "natural light" with shallow depth of field for emphasis. He also didn't share my delight in exploring motion blur either, seeing it as a failure to make a sharp photo. Maybe it was a generational difference....
Scott
I gather that the term "bokeh" was first used in photographic magazines sometime around the year 2000, a period when I was too busy being a new dad and a breadwinner in uncertain economic times to read many camera magazines. It's nice to have a specific word in photographic jargon to describe the concept of using focus and blur to emphasize the subject.
My dad really appreciated the broadest possible depth of field and "tack sharp" focus at all distances. He really enjoyed going for the smallest possible aperture, using tripods or multiple strobe flashes to freeze everything in focus in his pictures. It was his pet pursuit in photography, and he often gave me suggestions on how I could extend my depth of field, even when I was deliberately shooting "natural light" with shallow depth of field for emphasis. He also didn't share my delight in exploring motion blur either, seeing it as a failure to make a sharp photo. Maybe it was a generational difference....
Scott