The Great Bokeh Controversy: Snare or Delusion?

Bokeh is a Japanese word that refers to the subjective visual impression of the out of focus areas of an image. Just because bokeh isn't objectively measurable doesn't mean it's BS, but there's certainly been a lot of BS written about it. What imaging characteristics contribute to beautiful bokeh? What kind of lenses that are most likely to be "bokeh monsters?"? Which vintage and contemporary lenses should bokeh fanatics go for? Just ask me and I'll give you my arrogant but educated opinions-:)
 
Click to expand...
I don't have often the chance to shoot wide open. I used to have a Zeiss Nettar with a novar lens and did like the way it rendered out of focus areas. Here is a sample.

flare.jpg


I mostly use modern lenses, mostly the Nikkor 50 f/1.8. People complain online about its harsh boken but honestly i can't see anything wrong with it. Here another sample.

43326158364_48355758f4_b.jpg


As a general rule, the only bokeh that i don't like are the lenses that produce a very swirly background - personal preference but i find it really distracting.

Here is a portrait taken with an Ikoflex with a Tessar lens. Anything more swirly than this and i don't like it (this negative deserves a better scan).

3747123892_118c572859.jpg
 





Bokeh. The first with the Epson R-D1 and the CV Nokton 1.1/50, and the second with the Canon 5DMII and the Canon L II 1.2/85, aka 'the pineapple'.
 
p.giannakis said:
I don't have often the chance to shoot wide open. I used to have a Zeiss Nettar with a novar lens and did like the way it rendered out of focus areas. Here is a sample.

flare.jpg


I mostly use modern lenses, mostly the Nikkor 50 f/1.8. People complain online about its harsh boken but honestly i can't see anything wrong with it. Here another sample.

43326158364_48355758f4_b.jpg


As a general rule, the only bokeh that i don't like are the lenses that produce a very swirly background - personal preference but i find it really distracting.

Here is a portrait taken with an Ikoflex with a Tessar lens. Anything more swirly than this and i don't like it (this negative deserves a better scan).

3747123892_118c572859.jpg
Click to expand...

Pan, I love all these shots. The cat is wonderful, indeed there is nothing wrong with the bokeh.

Erik.
 
Great thread, bokeh examples and discussion!

Something it makes me think about is the unqualified expression of joy in this photo, accentuated by the backdrop from the out of focus background and bokeh of the 200mm Bronica Nikkor. This was a couple years ago at the waterfront in Baltimore.

000211380004 by Maryland Photos, on Flickr
 
To be honest I'm confused by the photos in this thread and the discussion about bokeh, probably my fault.

For sure the lens plays a great role but there are many other factors invovled.

Focal length, light, distance from the subject and distance from subject to background as well. The background itself can be in the same light as the subject or a very different light.
Background can be uniform or not, can include distracting elements or not. This of course bring up the importance of the framing, including more or less background, space around the subject.

Please keep the good photos coming, so I can make my own evaluation and maybe I'll be less confused :) Thanks everybody !
 
robert blu said:
To be honest I'm confused by the photos in this thread and the discussion about bokeh, probably my fault.

For sure the lens plays a great role but there are many other factors invovled.

Focal length, light, distance from the subject and distance from subject to background as well. The background itself can be in the same light as the subject or a very different light.
Background can be uniform or not, can include distracting elements or not. This of course bring up the importance of the framing, including more or less background, space around the subject.
...
Click to expand...

On the contrary, you're quite correct about these factors and not confused at all.

There are many dimensions to bokeh and I think we've just explored the surface here.
 
robert blu said:
To be honest I'm confused by the photos in this thread and the discussion about bokeh, probably my fault.

For sure the lens plays a great role but there are many other factors invovled.

Focal length, light, distance from the subject and distance from subject to background as well. The background itself can be in the same light as the subject or a very different light.
Background can be uniform or not, can include distracting elements or not. This of course bring up the importance of the framing, including more or less background, space around the subject.

Please keep the good photos coming, so I can make my own evaluation and maybe I'll be less confused :) Thanks everybody !
Click to expand...

One of my key objections to the cult of bokeh is that too often it is just another expression of the cult of gear, kit, equipment, technology. I like nice bokeh as much as the next guy. Probably more because I like shooting with an open aperture and more often than not I will end up with bokeh of some sort - good bad or indifferent.

But on some photo forums and blogs (I am not referring to RFF) what one sees more often than not when someone wants to post a picture with "bokeh" are photos of nothing more than a fairly close up subject (often a flower) with carefully position background, at a carefully selected distance designed to prove whatever the author wishes to prove in that post - usually that this or that lens has wonderful bokeh, or that this or that lens has cr#p bokeh or that the bokeh is "caffeinated" or "squirrelly" or whatever with this or that type of background. Just as you say bokeh characteristics vary with subject, background, distances etc etc. Even with the same lens.

I am much more interested in just using my lenses and seeing how they perform in everyday shooting situations of the type I normally participate in (after all what's the point of having a lens with "nice bokeh" if all you can do is make close up pictures of flowers with it - something i almost never do personally). If lenses generally perform nicely in some respect (bokeh, sharpness, color etc.) then I tend to use them more often. If they do not, I may use them more selectively. In any event, I get heartily bored with looking at pictures of flowers etc. even with "nice bokeh". It kind of misses the point in my view - a picture should seldom be about bokeh and nothing else. Particularly if the image neglects the other aspects of good image making.

BTW I kind of like the bokeh in these images (both shot with the Voigtlander 75mm f1.8 classic. Admittedly I have fritzed around with the first one in post as I often do. In the second image there is just enough detail to make out what is in the background while representing the fence sharply in the foreground. The background in it looks to be closer to the camera than in the first shot and in any event the image may not have been shot at full aperture.

Eyes that Smile by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Church by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
 
Coffee house portrait of an attractive young woman

Coffee house portrait of an attractive young woman

med_U78406I1593748010.SEQ.4.jpg


I love her assertive presence and insouciant expression. I shot this with a Leica M-240 and 75mm f/1,5 Voigtlander Nokton in M-mount.I love this lens for its beautiful bokeh and classic vintage rendition and recommended it to Leica M shooters looking for a reasonably priced alternative to the 75mm f/1.4 Summilux (discontinued) or the phenomenal 75mm f/1.25 Noctilux that costs over $14K!
 
peterm1 said:
One of my key objections to the cult of bokeh is that too often it is just another expression of the cult of gear, kit, equipment, technology. I like nice bokeh as much as the next guy. Probably more because I like shooting with an open aperture and more often than not I will end up with bokeh of some sort - good bad or indifferent.

But on some photo forums and blogs (I am not referring to RFF) what one sees more often than not when someone wants to post a picture with "bokeh" are photos of nothing more than a fairly close up subject (often a flower) with carefully position background, at a carefully selected distance designed to prove whatever the author wishes to prove in that post - usually that this or that lens has wonderful bokeh, or that this or that lens has cr#p bokeh or that the bokeh is "caffeinated" or "squirrelly" or whatever with this or that type of background. Just as you say bokeh characteristics vary with subject, background, distances etc etc. Even with the same lens.

I am much more interested in just using my lenses and seeing how they perform in everyday shooting situations of the type I normally participate in (after all what's the point of having a lens with "nice bokeh" if all you can do is make close up pictures of flowers with it - something i almost never do personally). If lenses generally perform nicely in some respect (bokeh, sharpness, color etc.) then I tend to use them more often. If they do not, I may use them more selectively. In any event, I get heartily bored with looking at pictures of flowers etc. even with "nice bokeh". It kind of misses the point in my view - a picture should seldom be about bokeh and nothing else. Particularly if the image neglects the other aspects of good image making.

BTW I kind of like the bokeh in these images (both shot with the Voigtlander 75mm f1.8 classic. Admittedly I have fritzed around with the first one in post as I often do. In the second image there is just enough detail to make out what is in the background while representing the fence sharply in the foreground. The background in it looks to be closer to the camera than in the first shot and in any event the image may not have been shot at full aperture.

Eyes that Smile by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Church by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Nicely expressed Peter.
What a lovely shot of the lady with the eyes that smile. Beautiful!
 
Jason Schneider said:
Which vintage and contemporary lenses should bokeh fanatics go for?
Click to expand...

When I first started selecting lenses for portraits, the word "bokeh" was not in our vocabulary. "Out-of-focus background" was the term we normally used.

The lenses I used for individual portraits on my 35mm included:

A. Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D AF-S (77mm filter)
B. Zeiss 135mm f/2 ZF 2 APO Sonnar (58mm filter)
C. Nikkor 75-150mm f/3.5 AIS Series E zoom (52mm filter)
D. Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AI converted (52mm filter) (This lens was replaced by the 85mm f/1.4 AF version)
E. Nikon 105mm f/2.8 AIS macro (52mm filter)
F. Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8 - f/5.6 zoom auto focus (72mm filter)

The 85, 105, and 135 were the ones I normally used to throw distracting background objects out-of-focus.

In the portrait below, I used the 75-150mm to eliminate distracting background objects.


Portrait Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr


Model by Narsuitus, on Flickr
 
Out to Lunch said:
Sure but peterm's extensive photoshopping garbels the bokeh, at least it does for me. Cheers, OtL
Click to expand...

You are right I think to a point, Out to Lunch. My processing does garble the bokeh and I acknowledge that perhaps in a thread like this that can be an issue. Though I would argue that you can still perceive the underlaying bokeh in this portrait image if you study it carefully, and in the second photo I don't think it has been processed much at all apart from the "usual" basics. So the natural bokeh of the lens I used is quite apparent in that image.

Besides, the general point is that for me, my approach to photography is that I am only interested in the end result - the image out of camera (including bokeh) is only a starting point for the final image. If I like the final result that is really all that matters. If others do too that's the cherry on the cake but it does not bother me much is some don't as some will enjoy such images and some won't. I am quite philosophical about that. You have to be true to your own vision if you are going to maintain your own interest and creativity over time.

I guess my overall approach these days is that I tend to like photos that demand a bit of interpretation of the images - a bit like an impressionistic painting. This forces the viewer to think about the image more deeply and if I have done my job right, it can help build more of an emotional connection to the image. The parallel I have used in the past is that it's like writing a poem compared with writing prose. A poem forces the reader to interpret it in a personal way based perhaps on their own life experiences, while prose just lays the author's own interpretation out on the page - it's more of a "take it or leave it" proposition. Which is probably why poems can have more emotional content - assuming they hit the mark. (Though of course just like my photos they do not always hit the mark, well not for everyone anyway.)

It could be argued that one advantage of shooting with an open aperture, thereby producing bokeh in the image is that it leads somewhat to the above type of image making much moreso than does just stopping the camera down and getting everything sharp. It can help create that more painterly effect that demands investigation, interpretation and thought. And of course it also works as a device to frame the main subject, focusing the viewer's attention on it. Of course not all photographers want to achieve this and that's fine too. Many see themselves more as documenters or reporters and bokeh is not so relevant in that case, where accuracy and realism is more desired. In other words it's the difference between a photographer accurately capturing an image so the viewer can see what the reality was like, on the one hand. Or on the other hand, the photographer interpreting the image in a way designed to capture the feeling of being there so the viewer can feel what it was like to be there. I go more for the feelings.

BTW this debate is not altogether new - in the late 19th and early 20th century the "pictorialism" school of photography developed. Its adherents much preferred a more impressionistic approach to photography, partly in answer to the painters who argued that photography was not a "real" art. And one of their devices (although they did not refer to it as such) was - bokeh in images.

Anyway that's how I see it. Maybe I am off the mark in that last couple of paragraphs. I would be interested to know what others think because if I am on the money it may help explain why bokeh in an image is so beguiling for so many image makers (and image viewers). And for those who don't "get" bokeh it might explain why - because they happen to be of the sort who simply prefer a more "reportage" approach to photography.

cheers Peter

BTW here is a lovely example of early pictorialism in photography (I do not know the photographer). Observe the soft background bokeh and fog that create a very poetic result. Wow!

leonard-misonne-photography-5.jpg


Lots more examples here for anyone interested. https://www.bing.com/images/search?...&form=EQNAMI&first=1&scenario=ImageBasicHover
 
peterm1 said:
... BTW here is a lovely example of early pictorialism in photography (I do not know the photographer). Observe the soft background bokeh and fog that create a very poetic result. Wow!
...
Lots more examples here for anyone interested.
Click to expand...

I looked at some of those - they're impressive.
 
I tend to classify bokeh as a subcategory of 'rendering', which is another highly subjective area. Some of my favourite lenses for the way they render, both in the in-focus and out-of-focus areas, are not the technical best.

The Zeiss C Sonnar is one, providing a very organic rendering with smooth out of focus areas, but with a touch of chromatic aberration. Another is the Leica Summicron 50 v5, which sometimes has oddly nervous bokeh, but the in-focus areas are rendered with great sharpness and definition, making the subject stand out somehow 'more' from the background than with other, similar lenses.

Another lens I enjoy for the bokeh and overall rendering is the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8. On a crop body Canon, zoomed out to 35mm on a full frame camera, or on a Metabones Speedbooster, the Sigma has a clean, medium contrast look that is easy to work with in post, and the bokeh is smooth and unintrustive.
 
Objectively there is no bad bokeh. What is best, is whatever suits the whims of the artist and delivers the desired results. Objectively red paint is not bad, but if the artists wants blue paint, subjectively it may be the worst. And so it goes with any effects a lens may produce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom