Jump to content

Bokeh


Recommended Posts

I have been photographing since early 1990. For the first 25 years or so, I didn't pay much attention to the smoothness of backgrounds or the shape of highlights in the background. Nowadays it's a little bit different story, sometimes I think I'm more interested in the backgrounds than the subject. Are there any cure for this, than buying fast prime lenses with circular aperture blades or trying to find old m42 lenses, which might make an unique bokeh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

cure for this

A cure for Bokeh or the cost of fast lenses, lol. There are a few inexpensive fast lenses out there.

 

We find things in photography that interest us and that can evolve and dynamically change as we grow in our skills and interest in improving and trying something new. You can play around in post editing a bit too, but when you get a really good fast lens and learn when to use it, with the right conditions and light, some of the images it produces can be magical. It's a great tool added to your bag of tools.

 

I don't know if there is a cure, just the price barrier, and willpower.

You could break down and find one or two really good lenses, used and just get it out of your system.

 

Or maybe you could start EPGA (Expensive Photo Gear Anonymous)

 

Hi, my name is Mark, and I have a number of fast lenses, I can't help it, I am hooked.

 

Group says, "Hello Mark."

  • Like 3
Cheers, Mark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Have you tried the Helios 44-2?

 

No I haven't tried, but those seem to create nice looking bokeh and they are cheap, so I guess I should buy one. My Pancolar 50mm f1.8 produces almost similiar swirly bokeh. I really like those old lenses; new lenses sometimes produce almost too smooth and round bokeh bubbles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I haven't tried, but those seem to create nice looking bokeh and they are cheap, so I guess I should buy one. My Pancolar 50mm f1.8 produces almost similiar swirly bokeh. I really like those old lenses; new lenses sometimes produce almost too smooth and round bokeh bubbles.

Distance to the background is key to the effect with the Helios. It's just a case of experimenting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am emphatically not an adherent of the Bokian Heresy, but you can get nice blur from lenses like the 105 f2.5 Nikkor, or the 60mm Fujinon macro for X-series, or the non-VR/IS Tamron 17-50mm. Also the Nikkor 180 f2.8 AI(s) and the Canon 50 f1.4 FD. The big advantage of the "full-frame" (giggle) lenses in this (very incomplete) list is that you can shoot film with them, and fake the EXIF so people think you spent thousands on Zeiss "glass".

 

BTW, if we stopped calling it "bokey" and used "nice blur" and "really nice blur", all the nonsense would cease.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long before the term bokeh was assigned to "out-of-focus blur" by Johnston (LINK) and Merklinger (LINK2) in the middle 1990s, there were discussions of how the shallow depth of field of some lenses would blur out distracting backgrounds.

 

On the other hand, sometimes a pole or streetlight growing out of the head of the subject can be amusing. I recall a presidential portrait, I think maybe of Obama, with a flag pole or some such, but cannot retrieve it right now.

 

But, some shallow focus lenses, like 500mm mirror lenses, may overdo the shallow depth of field trait, not to mention the circular torus blurs. (may be appropriate for police portraits) o_O

Campus-Lake-Sigma-600.jpg.1c75eeece76070fd3621346a7f1c5494.jpg

Sigma 600mm mirror lens bokeh

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought bokeh was named for "bokeh harum" and their song whiter shade of pale. Bad bokeh makes me seasick. It's why on my medium format I shoot f/45 , no bokeh with everything in focus. That's forty-five, not four point five. The background is none the less in the frame and the photographer is responsible for it. If he likes harsh, 8 pointed octogonal out of focus shapes, it may be appropriate for the image. Since I am usually looking for softness throughout the image, no sharp edges in the eye catch light like a rectangle or square soft box and same for the oof in the background. And do folks "feel" good bokeh just can't put their finger on why? That is the response I get to the images taken with a Nikon 135 2.0 dc with bokeh ring matching the aperture setting. You can picked up a used copy for about 800. If you are shooting crop, you now have a 2.0 200mm and have been really liking used at that distance. Once I get a FF d850 may shoot it at that distance and crop or shoot it in crop mode. I don't find that bokeh usually makes or breaks an image, it takes it to another level. Google photos for nikon 135 2.0 dc. If you can't tell the difference, you don't need it.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creamy bokeh sounds like the pasta of the day. We have pork cutlet today. Would you like that with creamy bokeh. Or a side of swirly bokeh. Bokeh is like a Chinese vegetable, sounds like bok choi. I consider this a cooked up fancy that misses the whole point of the whole image. Yes I am responsible for everything in the frame, but not to the exclusion of a main subject. All else are complimentary side dishes. Bokeh, phooey. Though I do have a mint Rokkor 58mm 1.2 which will be a good investment for my offspring some day. I have actually used that heavy old lens on my micro four thirds cameras. At full aperture it delivers, but not to my needs, and I may sell it one day. Or not.. Old lenses even with aperture blades that are not round holes per se do work well if wide open and you are after blur and its permutations. I am not gifted in shooting blur, thank you and sorry if this is unresponsive to your post, sire. I like your nature shots btw..... My personal view:The bokeh bandits have nothing to teach us. There I said it and I will not take it back, senor.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had someone accuse me of "busy bokeh". What's that? He was digging around in the background of my image at 100-percent! What's that about? There was no comment about the subject of the image. I think that some "bokeh queens" have gotten things backwards.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry, although the subject is the star player, it helps the image if everything in the image supports the mood, tone, feel of it. Bokeh is just one of those elements. It does not have to be at the exclusion of the subject in any way. I'm not sure how it would. It isn't the most important element but I want it appropriate to the image. Like I said I consider the catch light as well. Sure a rectangular soft box can look like a window and some folks even apply black tape to look like frames within the window, Some prefer it giving motivation to the catch light, explaining it. I also don't want ninety degree corners in the catch light nor 8 points in the bokeh or a harsh feel. It's why I never understood the rectangular opening that was created by 4 florescent banks and the strange rectangular line around the eye for one famous headshot guy. That's just critical to me to nail an image. Some folks don't care. Nothing wrong with that. No rules, just guidelines. But, I want everything in the frame to support the concept of the shot and if it is softness, harsh bokeh does not. Sure, most folks won't notice, but I do. Critical to the shot? not as much as as expression, lighting, pose, environment, but, none the less an element. It is why Ansel said we are lucky if we produce 12 outstanding images a year. I suggest anyone who doesn't think bokeh is important google 135 dc photos and look at them. Then take a look shots from a lens with harsh bokeh. I don't have to go to 100% to see the difference. It has nothing to do with being a king or queen, it has to do with maximizing image quality. Sorry, but to me, harsh bokeh is not appropriate for a shot calling for soft lighting, a gentle mood any more than would a high contrast ratio on a baby. It has nothing to do with snobbery as is often implied, and certainly goes more to the artistic intent of the image than the usual pixel peeping complaints often founded on some numerical criteria that folks wring their hands over. When an out of focus background forms a large part of the image, is it less important than some sensor dust remaining in the image? Most folks won't accept a few dust specks so why accept a third of the image out of step with the concept of the shot? I heard McNally tell a story about him relating to an art director the joke of how many photographers did it take to change a light bulb. Like we all probably know, the joke is 100, 1 to change the bulb and 99 to tell him how they would do it. This is how I would do it. But I like the art directors response. He asked how many art directors it took to replace a light bulb. None, we are art directors, we don't have to replace light bulbs.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had someone accuse me of "busy bokeh". What's that? He was digging around in the background of my image at 100-percent! What's that about? There was no comment about the subject of the image. I think that some "bokeh queens" have gotten things backwards.

I wasn't looking at 100 or 300 percent, I just was looking at picture as whole.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just was browsing through my books of well recognized masters of photography, and can't find any picks with those "swirly" backgrounds. Capa's D-day has motion blur, but it is whole image, not just background.

JDM posted perfect example, whatever subject you put against such background, it( background) will deteriorate image as whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had someone accuse me of "busy bokeh".

David, most of the work I've seen from you is so good that it's hard to imagine bokeh that would be so distracting coming from you. Nevertheless, I have seen (in others' photos) what I would consider to be busy bokeh, where the background blur, in combination with swirls and highlights, distracts from the main subject. If that were the case, in a quick comment I could see myself referring to the bokeh without necessarily referring to the subject. That wouldn't mean I didn't look at or care about the subject. Just that the focus and blur overwhelmed the photo enough that I thought it worth mentioning to the photographer.

  • Like 2
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry, although the subject is the star player, it helps the image if everything in the image supports the mood, tone, feel of it. Bokeh is just one of those elements. It does not have to be at the exclusion of the subject in any way.

+1 I very much agree. For me, photos are more holistic than a matter of subject and predicate.

Sure, most folks won't notice, but I do.

I think this is important and is probably worthy of a discussion in itself. Not that I'm comparing any of us to this master, but I'm sure Michelangelo spent painful hours on every minute detail of his sculpture, much of which wouldn't be consciously noticed by viewers of his work. He did it because that's what he was about and it was important enough to him. Most viewers won't notice every nuance of every one of Van Gogh's brushstrokes, but they're there because he wanted and needed them to be. While viewers may not consciously notice certain things and could easily live with a few less hours' time being put into finished photos and artwork, I think all those details photographers and artists may fuss over do wind up having an impact, whether any viewer consciously realizes it or not. It all goes into the fullness of the experience of the photo. My refining certain textures here and there or my getting a background blur just the way I want it or my nuancing color gradations for hours in post processing may seem like just a fussing over detail, but I do think those things affect viewers in all kinds of ways that aren't overt. It's at least part of why people master both their art and craft. Sometimes, it's the most subtle actions taken that have the most profound, even if unnoticed, effects.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred, you are absolutely right about Michelangelo. He spent many hours studying the anatomy of cadavers to be able to have a deeper understanding of the human form for his sculpture. They look alive. Mine work is inspired and given to specific people who I educate on what is in their image. Much of it they wouldn't have understood without the explanation. In one of your shots you posted showing how you display photos, I notice one with a guy in coveralls or jeans shirtless that could have been inspired by Herb Ritts' "Fred with Tires." I had meant to ask if that was the inspiration and if it was, many folks would miss that connection to a fantastic portraitist and photographer of the human form and an iconic image. Most folks miss my profile photo being an homage to Karsh and Hemingway, among my favorite photographers and writers inspired by the photo on Hem's wall in his Key West home. Photographers have criticized the kickers as being to hot, to bright. Right, rule violated til I explain they represent Hem's white beard and Karsh's kickers on them. Exactly as you describe, Fred, carefully fine tuned in post. Most folks have seen Karsh's photo of Churchill with the lit wood paneled wall behind him. In the new Churchill movie they actually have a tobacco warning at the end because, true to life Churchill always had a cigar in his hand or mouth. Notice in the photo how Churchill's left hand is somewhat ackwardly posed on his left hip and there is no cigar in the photo. Because to get the belligerent expression, Karsh grabbed the cigar and when Churchill reacted with a belligerent look, click. He captured the guy who just kicked Hitler's ass in the air battle of Britain. Most folks have seen that image but never wondered where the cigar is. If they read this, from now on, they will always see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, the Ritts photo was not a conscious inspiration though I never underestimate the power of unconscious inspirations! I believe I'm very much influenced by all the art and photography I've looked at, whether I remember it vividly or at all or am thinking about it at any given time. That's a big part of my view that art and photography are shared, a kind of dialogue over the ages among artists, photographers, practitioners, and viewers, forming a sort of chain of connection among all of us who participate. Sorry, getting a bit afield from bokeh.

 

One of the things I tend not to like about out of focus backgrounds (which certainly have their place and times and can be very effective in many instances) is when they seem to stifle what I often see as greater potential in keeping the background somewhat or completely in focus. There's often a lot of story in a background. And subjects interacting with as opposed to completely standing out from their surroundings can be rich and layered whereas, in many cases, a subject shot against bokeh and a strongly blurred background can seem much more one-dimensional to me. Of course, it depends on the particular photo and I'm not developing any sort of rule. It's more just something I've noticed in looking at a lot of photos. I find a lot of photos not realizing their full potential because of depth of field choices.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am shooting a portrait and I want the subject to be well represented, then the background should enhance and not distract. Agreed and few will argue that one. ( Well OK some may, but we are visualizing the calm rational non hyperventilating ordinary folk we all know and understand) My objection - longstandingnow-is to the fetishization of something that is not new, has been around forever, and never applauded, and lacks a real universal definition. ( I don't need Google thanks) Timo wrote that he is now more interested in the background blur than anything else. Not I Timo. Bokeh is still not in my lexicon. Background blur is there. Though for years I needed hyperfocal setting to be sure I got my stereoscopic films clear from fore to aft. The eyes fuse the subect and the cyclopean center blurs the background. So I got it from physiology. Just as I got perspective, light and shade and the distance of haze and soft hues in the distance. The rest takes a book. Yipes maybe bokeh has invaded photo books by now...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is indeed, Fred, a lot of interest in the environment of a subject,especially in revealing the character of a person or object. That to me is holistic. Though we may not agree on holistic as applied to photos. That is why words fail me. A lot. Even when I can move them of the tip of my tongue lately. ( Is there a word for that, not destinesia, that applies to something else, like why did I come in this room now.._) Edited by GerrySiegel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred, was just showing a lady friend a book of Ritts work as well as karsh and am designing a photo similar to the Fred shot. You are right, all those images reside somewhere in the back of our heads. Gerry, you have to be enjoying some of the only warm weather in the US. Had to wear long pants here in FL the last week or so. I guess I have had blur in my entire life, my vision is 20/1200 and without glasses or contacts, everything is a soft blur. Just checked my eye bokeh, soft. I have wondered if the first 7 years of my life with vision uncorrected gave me an attachment to it and it is still what I see if I take off the glasses. I agree on the word bokeh. I guess it is easier to say than quality of out of focus areas particularly highlights. It's like "defocus control" on a 135 2.0 DC. Not and accurate description and bokeh? I don't speak japanese but I understand it translates as blur. So why don't we just say blur??? Same reason as saying full cut cto, it sounds cool and only those knowing the jargon share it. I am looking down a 200 yd pond in my back yard and with a portrait at say 11 feet,1.4 to 2.8 turns it into a gorgeous wash better than a painted background especially when the clouds add pink reflections on the water and the white arched bridge at the end is oof. I have been putting off hand painting a canvas background because I find so many in nature that are stunning when so rendered. I liked a quote I just heard from Joe McNally's studio manager who when asked where his studio is located says, the world is his studio. Happy New Year to all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...