kymtman Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>Bokeh, a japanese word meaning "out of focus" that can become very pleasing to the eye in a portrait. Everyone is talking about what lens renders good bokeh. I took a few lens and tried a few shots and found a few things that will produce good bokeh. The lens may have a lot ot do with it, but it is in the background that lies the key. If the background has good color saturation and lots of contrast, you have the potential for good bokeh. The next thing is the DOF. I found if you are real close to the subject and the shorter the DOF the greater the bokeh becomes. If you shoot with the sun behind you or within 45 degrees, either side of you, this makes for good bokeh. I have gotten great bokeh with expensive and cheap lens, so don't think you have to have the best to get the best. I will show a few of my shots. These three were made with a 80mm Biometar @2.8.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kymtman Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>Next one</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kymtman Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>I would like to see some of your shots.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kymtman Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>No bokeh here, just some of the beauty we have in the hills of Ky</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kymtman Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>next</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>Bokeh is governed by Lex Jenkins. He's actually the Right Honorable Viceroy Of Bokeh, not the <em>governor</em> per se. Also, he was appointed by Illinois Governor Blagojevich, and that makes the issue a little touchy just now.<br /><br />Now. As for lenses... the form of the aperture iris (round? hexagonal?) plays a role, especially when there are highlights in the OoF areas. To be pedantic about it, think of bokeh as the <em>quality</em> of the out of focus areas, not the fact that the background <em>is</em> out of focus. It's probably no coincidence that my more expensive lenses tend to produce a less harsh, less crunchy-looking blur.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltflanagan Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmroc Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>>>>>>>Bokeh is governed by Lex Jenkins. He's actually the Right Honorable Viceroy Of Bokeh, not the <em>governor</em> per se. Also, he was appointed by Illinois Governor Blagojevich, and that makes the issue a little touchy just now</p> <p>lol@ Matt. Too funny!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>Somebody here once innocently referred to <em>Brokeh</em> . I thought we had all agreed to call it that from then on?<br> As Matt says, it's easier to get the desired buttery effect with a lens aperture mechanism that has a circular profile as it stops down, but I have seen very pleasing results with less optimal aperture shape, especially in cases where the highlights are subdued, and of course most lenses wide open are circular.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_medin Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>I have a picture somewhere that demonstrates bokeh very well. I was going for a hummingbird with a wide-open aperture. It darted away (and I got a photo of a bare branch for my trouble), but the circular out-of-focus areas were remarkably like dabs of paint. It wasn't the absolutely best bokeh I'd ever seen (it was a lens I basically got for nothing and had to repair), but it was very pleasing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donnie_strickland Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>See Rick Oleson's article <a href="http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-207.html">"What's BOKEH, Anyway?"</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_wisniewski Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>You are confusing quantity with quality. The term "bokeh" is generally not used to describe "how fuzzy" parts of the image are, but how "pleasing" the fuzziness looks. (My old mentor predated the term "bokeh", and used to rattle off the phrase "the quality of the out of focus parts of the image" so frequently and so quickly that you came to think it was a single, 15 syllable long word).</p> <p>In the three images you present, the second and third have a bokeh that I don't consider to be very pretty. Although there's a lot of stuff very, very out of focus, mixed into that out of focus stuff are "hard" lines and edges.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_foreman1 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Just for the discussion. Bokeh is the Japanese version of the french word we generally use to describe a collection of (colorful) flowers. Bouquet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
summitar Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>It's not the Japanese word for "bookie"?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene m Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>Bokeh is in the eye of the beer holder.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Collins Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>All bokeh is beautiful if I'm the beer holder.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene m Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>"how "pleasing" the fuzziness looks."</p> <p>Define "pleasing." Some people find NASCAR racing to be pleasing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverscape Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>What exactly is the difference between "bokeh" and <strong>selective focus</strong> ?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick j dempsey Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>Yup, as others have said, it's really up to the viewer... and I've found that different lenses having different bokeh's are suitible for different kinds of shoots. "Harsh" bokeh I have found looks really nice to me with plants having a kind of paint-brush look, and not so much with people... smooth bokeh looks better with people. Some bokeh is just too smooth for my taste and just looks like a blurry watercolor mush.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chauncey_walden Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>Gene, there is nothing "pleasing" by anyone's definition about the double-line bokeh that some Nikon lenses give. The OOF areas are doubled, jagged and harsh. On the other hand, the 35 Summicron gives a smoothly increasing softness with distance that enhances the in focus subject. There was an article in the old Photo Techniques around 1999 or 2000 that had great examples. Wish I could find a link to it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>Chris: that's like asking, "What's the difference between taking the train, and the quality of the food on passenger jet?"<br /><br />Selective focus is a technique. It means that something will be out of focus. Bokeh is the <em>quality</em> of the appearance of the out of focus area.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverscape Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>okay, but aren't by definition pictures with "Bokeh" using the selective focus technique? So the only difference is an abstract, subjective "quality" of the out of focus background?<br> I'm still just kind of confused by how Bokeh is different from any picture taken using selective focus. I've also seen some websites where people seem to be confused and call <em>any</em> picture with a blurry background (but sharp foreground) "Bokeh"...that's why I'm asking what the difference is. Technically, isn't it all just using the selective focus technique? Maybe some pictures look better than others and make better use of selective focus than others....but aren't they still all just <em>selective focus</em>? <br /><br />I guess what I'm asking, is why is there even a need for the separate term "Bokeh" ? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rnt Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>Personally I like the filters that turn bokeh into cute little hearts, or bunnies, or (my favorite for Christmas) trees. It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Waterhouse had some of these in his collection of stops. <br /> <br /> In the same vein I will, in the future, call the bokeh created by my 500mm mirror lens 'Homer Simpson' bokeh... :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gt1 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>"I guess what I'm asking, is why is there even a need for the separate term "Bokeh" ?"</p> <p>Because selective focus is about the in focus area of a composition, and bokeh is about the quality of the out of focus areas as Matt put it so well. Different lenses have different quality bokeh, some of it is very harsh and ugly to most, some have beautiful bokeh. Some of my photos with my Mamiya 7 and Press cameras I can just gaze at the bokeh, or out of focus areas, because they're so smooth and beautiful.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsfbr Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>It is my understanding the the general character that usually causes bokeh to be considered "good" is that which turns points of light that are out of focus into blobs that are smooth centroids, rather than sharply defined circles with bright and abrupt rings at their outer perimeter. The key, again, my understanding only, is that the blob is rounded, as opposed to hexagonal for example, and smooth - ideally with a gradual decrease in luminosity from center to edge. Note that this does not mean that it only applies to out of focus point sources of light, but a lens the demonstrates a subjective "good" bokeh would behave this way when showing such. This will tend to create a "creamy" out of focus rather then a confused multiple image out of focus area. <br> Finally, as I understand the physics of it, a lens will have good bokeh (if it does at all) behind or in front of the focus point, not both. A "good" lens will have it behind the focus point because usually we don't care as much about the foreground's bokeh as much as the background's.<br> My 85mm f1.8 has what I consider good bokeh when wide open.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now