Jump to content

Bokeh


Recommended Posts

This lens will do great with equivalent of 116 mm and nice up to F 2 and not bad at F 1.2. Only trouble is that you will Not likely find this 50 year old optic in mint or EXC for under five hundred USD and the tube is extra. Happily my neighbor willed it to me with his SRT 102. Could have come out of the box so clean...how come no fungus, one of life's myseries eh what? I see no urge to sell it off right now but we will see how my taxes fare in 2019..... ( Must be I am learning to appreciate the er out- of- focus effect whatchamacillit Great also for less than perfect skin ..btw:) 282145346_Minolta1.358mmGX8.jpg.0f859c30f473d35c06c36e9a17690ea0.jpg Shot with Lumix ZS 100. on P mode. Edited by GerrySiegel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Did you like it creamy or just yogurt style or swirly. I got settings for all.

You've been working on your sarcasm since those knee-high days also, right? :)

 

Anyway, I suppose people's panties wouldn't get all twisted up if the comments were simply in the form of "I like the way you blurred the background." But just supplant "like" with an actual description like "creamy" or "diamond-like" or "distracting" or, heaven forbid, "effervescent" and the language police will be all over you for being an elitist photographer snob. Best stick to the word "nice" and all will be well in Photoville. :):):)

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

Jerry, I think My Cousin Vinny described it well: do you like it creamy or al dente? But then he was talking about grits. My degree is is Literature and creative writing so I enjoy words like magical, and my personal favorite, like budda for the 135 dc. Yum, grits with budda.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one has to explain sarcasm, what price sarcasm. It has become a defense but wears thin on late night TV, where folks get paid for writing it... There is no emoji for it for the rest of us troops. And it is a poor substitute for humor. It takes some humility. But when I joke I also joke at myself. That is when I laugh the most actually. Looking in the mirror for a start. As a footnote, how often do we read a comment and on the alert for a slight or have all our six senses tuned to some insult or crack ?. I could be off base but words pop out and come from the random part of the brain. Do they fit or are they just close? Example. The other day I wrote that I was "ambiguous" about critique when I clearly was thinking ( if I was using the conscious brain) the word ambivalent. Quite a difference. If the word bokeh is now in the lexicon I must accept it as a word. It is here. It seems to have a life. As a concept, when I look close, it is overblown and misleading.1. Overblown because there are so many other qualities to an image that deserve more attention. 2.Misleading because we get sold that it ( the effect ) is solely related to the character of a lens. Lenses are all so great nowadays that selling new ones becomes tough. I understand. I accept with a twinkle now and then.

 

(PS. Having the background lighter than foreground is useful and the background lit in a non uniform way, Little observations.)

Edited by GerrySiegel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DOF preview with a DSLR gives only a rough approximation of background blur. You have to review the results for an accurate picture, which quickly becomes a task to avoid. When you stop down, the viewfinder becomes so dark you can't tell much. Modern mirrorless cameras with EVF attempt to keep the viewing brightness constant, making it easy to assess the results before the shot.With a Sony you have the option to show effects like darkening with the diaphragms setting, in real time, but I don't find that particularly useful.

 

In short, if you have tools which are ideally suited to the job, you tend to make more use of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the seasoning imagery, Wil Marco. It is a fashion and there you have it. Will it hang around, like blown out jeans. Or like fancy tattoos and wide ear plug rings. Or like Lousiana hot sauce be on the table if we need it or ketchup on our steak. Taste is taste. For me, with Before Bokeh and After Bokeh days i am slow to adapt. Unless I know why and where to. I used to suck on a toothpick after meals. And I still can't recall why. Environmental portraiture to me represents the most vigorous portraiture. In galleries, the artist typically embellishes the subject with the emblems of his trade or his nobility or class or wealth or vocation. Not always, but blur is not that common or was not all that common. Even drop backgrounds had fields and grecian temples and the like. Just reflecting. A green screen is for putting a nice something there. A clear nice something on the telly..
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I find annoying about bokeh is the over-use of the word bokeh, and especially when it is confused for shallow depth of field. As annoying as the word bokeh has become, it's not entirely about nothing. Aesthetic differences between lenses, (whether you find those important or not) do exist and not all lenses are created equal. Whether those (relatively minor) difference matter to your photography or not, is a personal choice. If you don't care about it, the fact that others care, doesn't mean they're wrong, misguided or being silly. They just have different priorities.

Using (or abusing) very wide apertures is similarly a personal choice, and personally I think it is more than just 'fashion'. It's a creative choice a photographer makes to get a specific result (and sure the choice of lens matters here). The viewer may or may not notice it, or find it important in any way, but I don't think that's the only measure. A photographer also has to be happy with the result, and if the specific qualities of a lens get exactlty that, then it will help that photographer create - not a bad thing. Whether it's art of not is irrelevant to that.

In a very similar way, there are plenty of sites now doing lens reviews where the only real factors they value are resolution, a lack of distortion and (extreme) corner sharpness. Not arguing they do not matter, but to say that these are the qualities that make a lens good or bad is equally skewed as drooling over out-of-focus highlights. And sure marketing departments will jump on any of that, but well..... they're just doing what it takes to push some boxes.

 

So, yes, it is seasoning, in the same way that many other choices are. The overly saturated look of Velvia slides, developing black and white to exegerate grain, or a wide variety of options available in post-processing (HDR, excessive vignetting, .....) are equal examples. All tools in the shed, and like all seasoning, use with some caution, but when used correctly, they do make the difference.

 

I'll happily admit that I am particular about my lenses and how they render, simply because I feel some of them give me additional creative options that other lenses may not deliver. Personal choices, and even if a fair number in this thread feel they need to ridicule such considerations, it's "live and let live" as far as I am concerned.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bokeh is a creative choice. It's an element of seasoning added to the recipe by the photographer. It seems to be in fashion these days.

 

in fashion actually translates as marketing. "fast" lenses have always sold at premium prices. i personally wouldnt go out of my way to pay such high prices.

 

i use whats available and to the limit of my equipment. i find with medium format and large format lenses, its rare to find fast lenses. but the dof is certainy enough to do very selective focusing. i find that also to be format dependant.

 

my etrs 645 min f stops are around 2.8 to 3.5. my rb67 is 3.5 to 4.5. my lf lenses are 5.6 and up. but i can isolate a very thin slice in each format wide open.

 

brokeh :) smoothness seems to relate more to how the light enters the lens. at least this is how i see it.

 

to get those octagons, shoot into the light source or a reflection of the source. an evenly lit background will give you a silky smooth blur.

 

etrs, 150mm 3.5 tmy400

 

PS2013090800a.thumb.jpg.ed4ff50b287d0ed5f65b87efc71386f8.jpg

The more you say, the less people listen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading all of the responses to this post made me get up early the other morning (2 below zero F mind you) and shoot with my Rokinon 85mm 1.4 to capture some elusive bokeh that I knew was out there if I only made an effort to find it. Shooting wide open (what the manuals say to do) I did get some circles of light in the back ground but they were quite obnoxious being of many different colors. I decided to convert the image to black and white to get some uniformity to the blobs, I mean circles, I mean bokeh. I think it's bokeh anyway but wouldn't stake my life on it. It may appear to some sensitive souls that I am making fun of bokeh enthusiasts (and there are many of them) but I definitely am not. I love how the word rolls off the tongue, its Japanese origin, how it elevates the mystique of old lenses and most importantly of all, how it makes us photographers appear to be on the same philosophical level as writers, painters and sculptors by having are own enigmatic language. If we as photographers can't really nail down the definition of "bokeh", no one else can and that makes us special.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we as photographers can't really nail down the definition of "bokeh", no one else can and that makes us special.

I am just a hobbyist but I read somewhere, think it was on the internet, that the Art of Bokemy was the condensation of scattered microplasma originating from the fires of mount doom, from the elusive ether, through specially coated lenses......but I can' find the Bokeh Button on either of my newest cameras.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading all of the responses to this post made me get up early the other morning (2 below zero F mind you) and shoot with my Rokinon 85mm 1.4 to capture some elusive bokeh that I knew was out there if I only made an effort to find it. Shooting wide open (what the manuals say to do) I did get some circles of light in the back ground but they were quite obnoxious being of many different colors. I decided to convert the image to black and white to get some uniformity to the blobs, I mean circles, I mean bokeh. I think it's bokeh anyway but wouldn't stake my life on it. It may appear to some sensitive souls that I am making fun of bokeh enthusiasts (and there are many of them) but I definitely am not. I love how the word rolls off the tongue, its Japanese origin, how it elevates the mystique of old lenses and most importantly of all, how it makes us photographers appear to be on the same philosophical level as writers, painters and sculptors by having are own enigmatic language. If we as photographers can't really nail down the definition of "bokeh", no one else can and that makes us special.

 

Well, every pastime has its jargon and expressions. Photography is no different. f-stop?, stopping down?, focal plane?, depth of field?, circles of confusion?, fast lenses? Is there some point where adding new jargon shouldn't be allowed? The term "bokeh" started showing up in photography publications about 20 years ago. Is that "new"? Depends on your perspective I guess. It's new to me because photography is something that's become more of a hobby in the past year than it was prior to that, but then again, so is the expression "depth of field". Maybe I heard that in my 9th grade photography class 30 years ago, but I don't remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Beatles and their Sherpa guides traveled to the foothils of the Kashmiri Himalayas to seek Truth and Beuty. Paul said all they got was a couple Chines made T shirts with the kanji script letters on it. Translated as " Bokeh." Camera companies quickly saw its significance. And the faithful followed. It exists. It lives. It came from the mountain sages--

It read 暈け. ...mysterious Orient.

Edited by GerrySiegel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Wikipedia, "bokeh" is a Japanese word meaning blur or haze, but is used most often in conjunction with the out-of-focus quality of lenses. It's hard to say what the Beatles found in Nepal (I suspect it was drug related), but unrelated to "bokeh" as it is now used.

 

Bokeh is at once so desirable and contentious because you can't put numbers on it. Whether objective data translates to photographic value is another matter, as we see with resolution via test charts. Describing bokeh as "creamy" is about as accurate as describing a camera or lens on an auction site as "mint."

 

Semi-objectively, we can test the out-of-focus appearance of a point source of light as circular (e.g., not an image of diaphragm blades, nor cat's eyes) and uniform throughout (no soap bubble or bright center). In general, objects beyond the plane of focus will look more uniform than those closer, which may be a design intent. Zeiss Otus lenses are generally considered nearly perfect in regard to uniformity. Zeiss Batis and Milvus lenses come close to Otus performance, often at the expense of linear distortion (and price)..

 

"Perfection" by a certain standard may not translate to a desirable appearance in all circumstances. Every process distorts, so you choose a distortion that suits you. An extremely shallow depth of field allows you to isolate a subject against an OOF background. It may not matter wow "creamy" those OOF areas appear. Lenses like a Leitz Summitar behave badly by Otus standards, yet are popular for their rather unique rendering. Some people like fried liver, others grimace at the thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this earlier in Nature of Walter and his new girl friend but no one caught what I like about the 400mm 2.8 at f/8, the heart shaped bokeh. I always love heart shaped bokeh on a romantic shot. Ever hear of heart shaped bokeh before? It's pretty new with the 400 2.8

 

1026338242_Walterhasagirlfriend(1of1).jpg.fa4228c2cb39513141bb93132ba721af.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice bird bonding image Bill. Now that you mention it the backlight has a hearty shape...it is OK. I think I have to restrain scorn for the really serious devotees of the bokeh grail, Creamy, lens based with round apertures, Zeiss glass from the Rhine, the over the top part like any obsession. The ineffible quality of certain Zeiss lenses for example.. Here I am today reading a recent article on the latest hot audio goods to blow you away. Concert hall and studio and to die for sound to make us all drool.. That 400 is a nice lens I hear, kind of pricey but less than a new car...

 

Following adjectives appy from the Economist1843 pub on latest audio speakers and phones: 'honeyed tones'. 'character,' 'full bodied, ''airy feel. ' ( If my wife can not hear the difference between AAC and MP3, who cares not she -no class I guess :). Is a honeyed tone a different frequency than a sour tone. don't bother answering...music used be pretty circumscribed in the 1800s and before we could make it a college course and define the beat and chords and orchestration et al. With a touch of individual honey of course.

 

How to deconstruct and ruin the ineffible part ot the thingt--Sound engineers now find that the ear and brain fills in the spaces. So I am thinking to photograph is to deliver a visual illusion- as audio is an inner ear and brain illusion, nay? . So they say from the empirical jokers in sound labs. And yet, and yet, I sort of know what they mean about analog sound and digital sound. I think I hear something but just what? And yet, like sound, visual effects ( bokeh and OOF are kindred) are the artifacts that our brain says are important. Or are they important because others say they are important. A conundrum...If latter, then it is pure fashion and a will o the wisp. But men live long and well by such illusions, so not to snort... Fashion not quite as short as Mini Skirts were. I do not defame minis let the word go out, They beat torn jeans. :)

Edited by GerrySiegel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or are they important because others say they are important

What others say matters to the extent they supply facts and perspective that can support something and enlighten me. I would sooner be influenced by an architect and sound engineer talking about the way acoustics work in a symphony hall. And I would be influenced by an engineer who knows about or works on lenses. As far as my aesthetic appreciation of either sounds in a symphony hall or visuals in a photo, I make that determination. Occasionally, another voice will supply a different perspective that will make me hear or see something a different way. I like when that happens and it doesn't undercut my ego or confidence. As a matter of fact, learning from others bolsters my self confidence. And I'm well aware that there are many, many subtle things going on in sound architecture and engineering and photo viewing that I'm not conscious of but are still having a profound effect on my experience. Again, no one is going to be as intimate or familiar with Van Gogh's brushstrokes as he was himself. But I believe I'm affected by every pain he took to get the strokes just as he wanted them, whether or not I can point to each. I'm not a pixel peeper, which is every bit as ridiculous a phrase as bokeh may be a word, but I have no interest in minimizing the effect the look of bokeh will have on a viewer, whether they realize it or not, just because there are some people who have turned it into a fetish.

Edited by Norma Desmond
  • Like 1
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reasonable comment which is my conclusion on those who insist on the term. I am not what some call a word policeman. i have not of course changed my opinion about Timi the OP post about his infatuation ( my interpretation) with this one feature. Noone else has exhibited that. So is good. I know that backgrounds need not be sharp but I think they should enhance the subject or define it. So it is indeed a matter of taste. Jan Van Eyck leads off in the book Environmental (photographic) Portraiture. And its use of color adds so much that it is hard to see great environmental portraits without color. But since I see them, that is something I may learn to appreciate..

Eyck's Arnoflni portrait for instance has a story to tell in the in focus bgrnd. Our benefit today for the setting even as the faces were not revealing, Stern and posed for hours no doubt. Must have been a bitch. Van Gogh would have thrown his pallet on the floor and gone ape. But he did what he did for his pleasure and not his patrons like we all. We can still apply some of his vision for sure. And play with a Joe Karsh crisp view of the subject which is more revealing by his rapport and manner. He was a good kibbitzer and that counts. Digress I know... Given the short time he had with most I think background flitted only in his subconscious. Do we think so maybe,

Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Van_Eyck_-_Arnolfini_Portrait.jpg

Edited by GerrySiegel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to keep the backgrounds in my portraits in focus because I like photographing people in their own environments, often their homes, and like showing the things they surround themselves with, hopefully adding to their character and story in doing so. Having said that, I have portraits that are more simply photos of someone's face, which I think can also provide for a lot of character, and in those cases I may very well blur the background. So, basically, I'm of the mind that a background needn't do this or that, though I have my preferences and choose more often to have an in focus background.

 

As far as color, I switch back and forth depending on the shot, my mood, and sometimes the context. Some months I find myself preferring color, some months black and white, some months I surprise myself each day with where I will go.

 

Rapport with subjects is always an interesting thing. I recognize its importance but will say that I've come up with some of my favorite portraits of people who I've been very uncomfortable with. Sometimes, discomfort can really motivate me and I think it's a state worth exploring and being with when shooting some people and for making some photos. For me, sometimes, trying to make the subject of a portrait feel comfortable actually can make for a very uninteresting and generic-looking portrait, whereas a little tension can read as much more real and authentic. Again, subject to each individual photo and the particular chemistry involved and how that can be worked with.

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

I think I have to restrain scorn for the really serious devotees of the bokeh grail

One thing to keep in mind, which seems harder and harder in these days of what always seem to be put forth as binary choices and as extreme this-side or that-sidedness, is that there's a lot of ground between bokeh fetishists on the one hand and really serious devotees of the bokeh grail on the other. One can simply be a photographer who notices and cares about the quality of the blur in proportionate degrees as he or she cares about everything else in a photo. I don't know Bill well enough to hazard a guess, but judging strictly by what he's said in this thread, I sense he may be more of the latter than either of the former.

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

Fred, thanks for the benefit of the doubt but admitting my addiction is the first step.

My name is Bob and I am a bokeholic. It is a disease so it's not my fault so no on has a right to criticize my behavior. I once woke up after an all night bokeh bender in a run down hotel smoking cheap cigarettes and drinking aqua velva. It was a cold and rainy night. I had hit bokeh bottom. Bokeh will do that to you. It can be a monkey on your back. Walk down many streets in Manhattan, especially around B&H and and you will hear, psst buddy, I 've got some killer creamy bokeh. Want some? A grand for a hit. I am also bokehphobic, terrified of bad bokeh. I wake up in the middle of the night screaming, bad bokeh, bad bokeh. It really upsets my dog, bokeh who thinks he is being chastised when he hasn't done anything wrong. Well, got to pick up some bokeh crap, or is it crappy bokeh? Absurd enough? To me, all the bokehphobia, hatred of bokeh, is amusing bordering on the absurd. It is merely one element in an image. I don't hear anyone railing against the mirrorless worshipers-except me mocking them saying I have gone sensorless, ie to film. It's no holy grail, it is a valuable tool. It can be over emphasized, like tilting, blurring, fading, saturating. Remember HDR? My eyes are still bleeding. For those that shoot stopped down, I understand them not appreciating it's value. But for those that strive for perfection in their images, it is just another element to maximize. If it seems unimportant to some folks, that's fine. I strive to create the best image possible. I don't spend money on gear to collect it, I make a purchase on the results it will produce. I don't think anyone demanding a high standard including bokeh is any different than someone wanting sharpness, high resolution or accurate color. I have yet to meet someone that worships bokeh like some camera or lens brand. . You know, pray in the direction of Germany. Ernst Hass didn't say bokeh smokeh, he said Leika smeika, the camera doesn't matter. As for the revulsion to a word, what really grates on me is folks who condescendingly correct me for pronouncing ISO not spelling it. Same folks who pronounce RAW, TIFF and JPEG. I just find the whole debate amusing since it appears a group apparently really likes a lens quality and another group is put off by it so they ridicule it. Fortunately, I am down with the flu so have time to waste on such a silly debate. Always looking for the silver lining.

  • Like 3
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...