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...
Retro-Grouch said:
… in the High Modernist f/64 religion. It was a moral failing to let your background go out of focus, the argument being that you weren't "taking responsibility" for all the content in the frame. I confess that I internalized that nonsense, but did finally get over it...
Click to expand...
The fallacy was that “if it’s not in focus, you’re not taking responsibility.” But actually, you are taking responsibility for the entire content: you’re choosing exactly what’s sharp, what’s not, and to what degree. Even the human eye itself does not see great amounts of depth of field; it also depends on focus distance and lighting conditions.
 
Pál_K said:
The fallacy was that “if it’s not in focus, you’re not taking responsibility.” But actually, you are taking responsibility for the entire content: you’re choosing exactly what’s sharp, what’s not, and to what degree. Even the human eye itself does not see great amounts of depth of field; it also depends on focus distance and lighting conditions.
Click to expand...

Of course, but when you're a member of a cult, that sort of nuanced thinking is heresy!
 
A vintage lens adapted to a mirrorless camera shot wide open is sometimes used as a substitute for real photography skills. I'm practicing, but feel that my compositional ability is spotty at best, woeful at worst. But nail the focus on a subject, blur the background and Bob's my Uncle.

My lab has a dark coat, often 5-6 stops darker than highlights, and I like to go out early in the mornings with her. There's rarely enough light to stop down the lens when shooting her unless I want to push HP5+ or Delta 3200 to maximum levels. Still haven't figured out a solution for this problem, but I'm often shooting her at f/2-f/4, even when I'd like to stop down several stops further.
 
lohrentz said:
A vintage lens adapted to a mirrorless camera shot wide open is sometimes used as a substitute for real photography skills. I'm practicing, but feel that my compositional ability is spotty at best, woeful at worst. But nail the focus on a subject, blur the background and Bob's my Uncle.

My lab has a dark coat, often 5-6 stops darker than highlights, and I like to go out early in the mornings with her. There's rarely enough light to stop down the lens when shooting her unless I want to push HP5+ or Delta 3200 to maximum levels. Still haven't figured out a solution for this problem, but I'm often shooting her at f/2-f/4, even when I'd like to stop down several stops further.
Click to expand...

You need as second dog, a yellow lab, of course! Problem solved. You're welcome!
 
I recently purchased a very unusual lens, made in Japan for the Swedish market. It produces a very unusual boke.

IMG_5062.jpg

I did not buy it for the boke... in fact I had no clue that this effect would be produced! The aperture has two blades, which for some reason, the engineers decided should come together in such a way as to form this shape! The lens was produced for Weist, and I have never seen it under any other brand name, nor do I have any clue who made it. I have a few other Japanese made 2.8/50 lenses, but none of them resemble this one.
 
The idea of calling it a "cult" of bokeh is, I think, based around the slavish pursuit of our of focus blur to the detriment of the rest of the photo. Many people seem to think bokeh can BE a subject, instead of just being one of many elements of a photo. And I'm not talking about taking a photo out of focus with some nice bokeh balls of abstract light, because who doesn't like to do that once in a while... I mean when the photo is completely off-balance and just shows barely anything but bokeh. Like a sliver of a face with a single eye in focus, but the weight and balance of the photo not emphasizing that eye (even though it's sharp!) but instead the gratuitous bokeh.

I suspect at least a part of this fad started when SLRs, and later DSLRs, became readily available and cheap, and large aperture lenses became a way to signal that you had a "nice" camera and not just a compact, fixed lens with a middling aperture not larger than f2.8. Not that it was all posturing for the benefit of others, but also just a bit too much reveling in the different "look" you could get from your "good" camera and the lens you spent a lot of dough on.
 
Mos6502 said:
I recently purchased a very unusual lens, made in Japan for the Swedish market. It produces a very unusual boke.



I did not buy it for the boke... in fact I had no clue that this effect would be produced! The aperture has two blades, which for some reason, the engineers decided should come together in such a way as to form this shape! The lens was produced for Weist, and I have never seen it under any other brand name, nor do I have any clue who made it. I have a few other Japanese made 2.8/50 lenses, but none of them resemble this one.
Click to expand...

This shape reduces focus shift when stopping the lens down. A circular aperture is the worst case, A star shape is a compromise.
 
IMHO Bokeh is only a justification to purchase more lenses. And this is based on 50+ years of camera & lens purchases -:) When I started in photography more than 60 years ago I read a book (by Sussman?) that demonstrated over 75% of award winning photographs were taken with a slow normal lens and usually with a cheap camera. The point being that what makes a good photograph is the photograph's "vision" that makes great photographs not the equipment. Course that has never stopped me from spending thousands on cameras and lenses-:)
 
I've recently revisited Sussman's book (and I think in some regards it is still one of the best on the subject), and his point, more accurately, was that if one observes photos at an exhibit, they should note how many were taken with normal lenses at medium apertures, and how rare it is that we see extreme focal lengths, apertures, shutter speeds, etc. The point being that most great photos can be taken with nothing fancy. However he also points out that while this was true, the fancy equipment can make a photographer's job a lot easier to do. At another point in the book he points out that some of the most famous photos have been taken by amateurs, sometimes with truly basic equipment.

One of the photos mentioned is given a decent write up here: https://birdinflight.com/inspiration/experience/20170623-pulitzer-by-chance.html

And proves any camera is better than no camera!

The other photos, those of the sinking SS Vestris can be found online easily. They are however, not great photos in and of themselves (IMHO), rather the photographer was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and decided to document the disaster. Newsworthy yes, historically important sure, good photos though? I guess any photos are better than no photos.

To return to the topic at hand though: everything in photography is basically a subjective choice. B&W or Color? Big prints, small prints, digital, slides, etc. Although all those choices have their supporters and detractors, none of them seems to cause the amount of animadverting that boke does. Why is it that the rendering of the out of focus portion of the photo (which is till very much part of the photo!) is not worth considering, but we can discuss the pros and cons of split filtering, toning, etc. as though such things were perfectly integral to the art?
 
Interesting quote from the beginning of this 45pp (PDF) paper from Zeiss:
Depth of Field and Bokeh by H. H. Nasse

While the geometric theory of depth of field works with an
idealized simplification of the lens, the real characteristics of
lenses including their aberrations must be taken into
account in order to properly understand bokeh.The
diaphragm is not enough, and that is all that needs to be
said here.

There are also plenty of pictures for illustrating this topic for
those who do not want to get deeply involved in the theory
of their camera, so we really wish everyone a lot of fun with
the reading.
Click to expand...
 
Here is a nice article from B&H eXplora: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-bokeh

My personal view:

- Bokeh is mostly characterized by two things:
a) The shape of the OOF regions, determined by the lens design & aperture blades
b) The quality of the bokeh, from contrasty onion rings to a perfect gaussian function.

- For a) there are many different preferences while for b) the majority prefers a smooth function

- Many modern lenses can be optimized for lens characteristics such as sharpness, contrast, chromatic aberrations but often at the expense of b)
 
While there are many kinds of bokeh, some good, some bad, much middling, I have grown rather partial to this look which I have seen described as "wet on wet bokeh" as in it is slightly reminiscent of water color painting where wet paint is overlaid on previous, still damp colors causing thme to bleed into each other in an attractive manner.
I first heard this expression courtesy of the folks on the Vintage Lens Podcast. ( #53 Wet on Wet Bokeh! – Classic Lenses Podcast – Podcast – Podtail ).
We also had an earlier discussion on this in RFF, for anyone who might be interested in checking it out, as a number of people posted examples they felt matched this type of bokeh. And there ae some quite nice samples of bokeh there, though not all are of this type. "Wet on wet" Bokeh - Rangefinderforum.com

The following image was made with a Rokinon 85mm f1.4 (an inexpensive but very nicely performing lens).

Reserved for Lunch by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
 


1936 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5, wide-open on the M Monochrom.



Veiling flare, excellent Bloom, Sonnar Signature. One of my conversions to Leica Mount.
 
It would be convenient to first define bokeh. From Howard Merklinger's pioneer article forward, its been not about the shape of OOF highlights but how the focus transitions into less focused areas. His article in PhotoTechniques, 1997, was the beginning of Western discourse on the subject.

But isn't it a moot point with a rangefinder since you cannot see through the lens to observe it before clicking?
 
Short focal length wide angle, 35mm, modern lens, Voigtlaender, Nokton II. Leica M9, f/1.4


Click image for larger version Name: Rhodie Bokeh.jpg Views: 0 Size: 286.5 KB ID: 4796126​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom