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 think fairly symmetrical double gauss lenses like the Summicrons and Planars are candidates for nice smooth bokeh. And I believe Tessar and Elmar types are as well. More recent highly corrected types like asphericals seem more at risk for disturbing bokeh. I feel that my 50mm collapsible Summicron and 35mm f/2.8 Summaron are lenses with good bokeh. Oh, and my old chrome 90mm Elmarit.
 
Rob-F said:
I think fairly symmetrical double gauss lenses like the Summicrons and Planars are candidates for nice smooth bokeh. And I believe Tessar and Elmar types are as well. More recent highly corrected types like asphericals seem more at risk for disturbing bokeh. I feel that my 50mm collapsible Summicron and 35mm f/2.8 Summaron are lenses with good bokeh. Oh, and my old chrome 90mm Elmarit.
Click to expand...

I am interested in the optical causes of bokeh and rendering in general. The Zeiss Ultron is known for Bokeh, and it may be related to the concave front element (not sure). On the other hand the 50mm f2 and f1.5 Sonnars, as well as Biogons have good bokeh and are not symmetrical (nor are more modern Planars, nor is the Ultron). That is not to say that symmetrical lenses may have some advantages.
 
markjwyatt said:
I am interested in the optical causes of bokeh and rendering in general. The Zeiss Ultron is known for Bokeh, and it may be related to the concave front element (not sure). On the other hand the 50mm f2 and f1.5 Sonnars, as well as Biogons have good bokeh and are not symmetrical (nor are more modern Planars, nor is the Ultron). That is not to say that symmetrical lenses may have some advantages.
Click to expand...

Not sure if this helps or not - he goes in some depth into his explanation of the lens related causes of bokeh. I have not read it and probably will not do so because I am more inclined to the school of thought that "I may not know what good bokeh is but I know it when I see it". And then leave it at that. In relation to the technical issues I am fundamentally uncurious.

http://www.bokehtests.com/styled/

Others more technically inclined may wish to read it. I am sure there will be many opinions on why the author is wrong. :) :) :)

(Debating technical stuff on this forum sometimes reminds me of what I like to say about marriage: " There is a philosophical question asking ; If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?...I often think the same thing about marriage - If I say something and my wife is not around to hear it, am I still wrong?"

:D :D hahahahahahahhaha
 
peterm1 said:
Not sure if this helps or not - he goes in some depth into his explanation of the lens related causes of bokeh. I have not read it and probably will not do so because I am more inclined to the school of thought that "I may not know what good bokeh is but I know it when I see it". And then leave it at that. In relation to the technical issues I am fundamentally uncurious.

http://www.bokehtests.com/styled/

...
Click to expand...

Thanks, I will definitely check it out. I mainly like to produce images. On the other hand I am an engineer, so I always feel the desire to learn more about the technology around what I like. In the end, the proof is in the pudding, but when making the pudding it helps to stir it sometimes! Not sure it will help (probably will at some point), but it certainly won't hurt.
 
Pál_K said:
Just amazing.

I would like to try to duplicate the pictorialist effects - it would be an interesting project.
Click to expand...

Yes it would be interesting (using film or digital). A few years back I tried a bit of experimentation using Lightroom etc. Here are a couple of samples, the first being a portrait which I was reasonably OK with. I have only tried it a couple of times since - the second image being a cityscape where there is a slight hint in the direction of pictorialism. And the third image which really is somewhat pictorial in style was an easy one - I shot the image through a translucent blind when I noticed what a nice effect it produced. The final image is in color but I think even here you can see the homage to pictorialism (which was more or less intended).


Pictorialism Portrait by Life in Shadows, on Flickr


Urban Ecosystem 3 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr


Skyscraper Impressions by Life in Shadows, on Flickr


Verticality by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
 
peterm1 said:
Yes it would be interesting (using film or digital). A few years back I tried a bit of experimentation using Lightroom etc. Here are a couple of samples...
Click to expand...

You're getting there. The one article about Léonard Misonne mentioned that he "championed a highly diffuse printing system" - something for me to investigate.
 
Good work Peter (as most of times!).

i specially like the vision in your "Ecosystem 3" which gives a non stereotype view of HongKong and also "Impression" for its essentiality.

Your ideas and your postprocessing skills work well together.
 
The cult of Bokeh?

The cult of Bokeh?

Ricoh said:
Nicely expressed Peter.
What a lovely shot of the lady with the eyes that smile. Beautiful!
Click to expand...

Like everything else it's entirely possible to go over the top on Bokeh, but I don't think it's a cult, and it is not based on equipment but on a visual assessment of the out of focus areas of the image.
 
markjwyatt said:
I am interested in the optical causes of bokeh and rendering in general. The Zeiss Ultron is known for Bokeh, and it may be related to the concave front element (not sure).
Click to expand...
To first order, bokeh is tied to residual spherical aberration. Depending on the sign of the uncorrected spherical aberration, points behind the best focus will have buttery bokeh (and points in front of best focus will have bubble, or at least "nervous" bokeh). Normally the preferred situation. And vice versa for the opposite sign.

Spherical aberration means that light rays further off the optical axis converge to a point:
- farther from the lens : creamy bokeh for background objects
- closer to the lens : bubble bokeh for background objects

With perfectly corrected spherical aberration, all point sources (luminous small dots) in out-of-focus planes will appear as filled uniform disks (or more precisely filled uniform images of the diaphragm aperture.
 
BernardL said:
To first order, bokeh is tied to residual spherical aberration. Depending on the sign of the uncorrected spherical aberration, points behind the best focus will have buttery bokeh (and points in front of best focus will have bubble, or at least "nervous" bokeh). Normally the preferred situation. And vice versa for the opposite sign.

Spherical aberration means that light rays further off the optical axis converge to a point:
- farther from the lens : creamy bokeh for background objects
- closer to the lens : bubble bokeh for background objects

With perfectly corrected spherical aberration, all point sources (luminous small dots) in out-of-focus planes will appear as filled uniform disks (or more precisely filled uniform images of the diaphragm aperture.
Click to expand...

Thanks, BernardL. This is how it was explained in the link that that Peterm posted. I imagine that the concave first element may have an effect on the spherical abberation; though according to this link, the concave front element was used to correct astigmatism.
 
A lens that took me by surprise is the cheap minolta AF 50f/1.7. Very nice images wide open - pity i don't having any good minolta body to use it more. The 7xi is irritating to use. Here two samples, film is Delta 400 in HC110


Scan11840fb.JPG



Scan11835fb.JPG
 
Erik van Straten said:
Very nice Pan. Beautiful woods were you live. And those girls. The second shot is superb.
Erik.
Click to expand...


Thanks Erik, we are very lucky where we live to have access to this place. I revisited the same place with my models and took the same pics, this time with the Zuiko 50 f/1.4 on the OM4 and the AF Nikkor 50 f/1.4D on my F4. I will compare their looks when i develop the film.
 
Personally I think good bokeh looks organic. This can be of the smooth type, or, at times, the funky type. What I do not enjoy too much is Bokeh that has geometric shapes like pentagons or the crown cork shapes that many modern Leica lenses show in the highlights. Many SLR lenses have this problem as well, and also many medium format lenses. We photograph an organic world and somehow these geometric Bokeh shapes always distract my eye. Others have stated the opposite earlier in this thread, which goes to show that it is highly subjective.

Hence, it has become some sort of pet peeve of mine to look for versions of lenses that have many aperture blades. Right now I am lusting after the 9-bladed very early version of the Nikkor-P Auto 10.5cm in F mount. Only 5000 were made I think and so far I haven't found one. The later versions have 6 straight blades, and, well, read above...

My personal favourites are my Summicron 50 v3, Canon 50 1.5 LTM, Nikkor 8.5cm LTM. But the amount of variables influencing Bokeh is immense and you can get nice out of focus areas with most lenses under the right circumstances, see below which was taken with my newly acquired Summicron DR on PRO400H. A lens that is not particularly known for its nice bokeh.

7ZwNQKi.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom