ampguy
Veteran
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.
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.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I know someone who loves swirly, harsh, double line bokeh. The funkier the better. So in that sense, yes it's subjective.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Ya.. Bokeh is subjective just like art .....or......photos 
Cheers,
Dave
Cheers,
Dave
stompyq
Well-known
I like the extremes. Either it needs to be creamy nothingness or swirly crazy petzval bokeh. The middle grounds just boring.
bmattock
Veteran
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.
nonot
Well-known
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?
ferider
Veteran
100% subjective and subject dependent. Check this photo out, from Mael:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1025902#post1025902
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1025902#post1025902
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Is it subjective?
In terms of whether it matters or not, mostly,
YES
Cheers,
R
In terms of whether it matters or not, mostly,
YES
Cheers,
R
ampguy
Veteran
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.
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.
bmattock
Veteran
Can it be quantified and defined? Yes it can.
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.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,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.
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.
filmfan
Well-known
The topic of bokeh, at least to me, is one of much triviality.
bmattock
Veteran
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.
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.
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.
Frontman
Well-known
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.
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.
like2fiddle
Curious
Most certainly. It can be "described but not quantified."
yes, what he said.
I traded away a Nokton 40 that I otherwise liked because of my perception of its bokeh.
And,...I've yet to produce an image with the Canon 50/1.4 whose bokeh didn't appeal to me.
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?100% subjective and subject dependent. Check this photo out, from Mael:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1025902#post1025902
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.dcsang said:Ya.. Bokeh is subjective just like art .....or......photos![]()
My fifty Kopeks for the RFF piggy-bank
ferider
Veteran
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?
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:

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:

Best,
Roland.
Last edited:
Papercut
Well-known
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.
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:
NickTrop
Veteran
Everything is subjective. However, some lenses give you a double vision look which is ugly and distracting. But if that floats your goat...
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.