Bokeh

People buy into f/1.4 nonsense (ironically) as a shortcut to originality. Hands up whose who have seen a truly great photo shot wide open (not your own blurry nonsense, please)

Go troll somewhere else, please.

Long ago and far away, I got my f/1.2 for low light and 'fast' film speeds of ASA 160 to 500. f/1.4 is not enough.

 

But I also buy into the f1.2 as a shortcut to originality too:rolleyes:

 

Sharpness is so 21st century!

Edited February 25, 2021 by JDMvW

I find it odd that people discuss the "Quality" of the "Out Of Focus" portion of a photo that has a shallow depth of field.

We choose certain apertures for a reason, that is true, but i cannot remember , in 1978, anybody being concerned with "Bokeh".

It was there for a reason, no further discussion needed,

The other side of the coin is also nauseating......... "Tack Sharp" is even more over-used than Bokeh.

I have never been concerned with either.

Not sure i ever owned a lens, made by Canon, Nikon, Minolta or Olympus that was not 100% acceptable in the real world. :)

None of us create images that contain/show just the subject. All of it is important

Nobody said the background wasn't important. However, since the 'invention' of bokeh, there's been a proliferation of (generally boring) pictures that appear to exist solely for the reason of showing OOF highlights in the background, and to the detriment of the foreground subject by distracting from it.

 

Even in this thread, the meaning of 'bokeh' is obviously not universally understood. It refers to the quality of OOF parts of the image, not just to general background fuzziness, or the degree of that fuzziness.

 

An f/1.2 lens does not automatically have great bokeh. It has a great ability to throw a nearby background or foreground out of focus, but that's not the same thing at all. The bokeh of an f/1.2 lens might be absolutely awful if those OOF blobs have a distorted shape, or show colour fringing or have hard edges and darker centres. That's what's meant by bokeh. Not just any old background/foreground blurring.

 

So let's be clear (pun entirely intended) what we're talking about. Before missing the point entirely.

Edited February 25, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

Nobody said the background wasn't important. However, since the 'invention' of bokeh, there's been a proliferation of (generally boring) pictures that appear to exist solely for the reason of showing OOF highlights in the background, and to the detriment of the foreground subject by distracting from it.

 

Even in this thread, the meaning of 'bokeh' is obviously not universally understood. It refers to the quality of OOF parts of the image, not just to general background fuzziness, or the degree of that fuzziness.

 

An f/1.2 lens does not automatically have great bokeh. It has a great ability to throw a nearby background or foreground out of focus, but that's not the same thing at all. The bokeh of an f/1.2 lens might be absolutely awful if those OOF blobs have a distorted shape, or show colour fringing or have hard edges and darker centres. That's what's meant by bokeh. Not just any old background/foreground blurring.

 

So let's be clear (pun entirely intended) what we're talking about. Before missing the point entirely.

Bokeh wasn't invented. At least not recently. The more widespread use of the term is.

And people knew about the rendering of out of focus parts by different lenses since the beginning of photography.

That is not recent or new.

It refers to the quality of OOF parts of the image, not just to general background fuzziness, or the degree of that fuzziness.

Or in other words: the extent/amount/degree of background/foreground blur is controlled by the aperture and the focus distance; the bokeh is dictated by the lens being used. It's a property (quality) of the lens and NOT under the control of the photographer in any form or shape.

I think people still aren't getting the point that just using a wide-aperture lens, with no regard to the background, doesn't guarantee a great picture, even if it has 'perfect' (debatable) bokeh.

 

An OK picture.

 

And one ruined by a distracting background, even if it is well out-of-focus and has good bokeh.

 

Not limited to the background either. Foregrounds can be distracting too.

 

Or they can actually add something.

 

All taken with 135mm f/2 lens wide open.

I think people still aren't getting the point that just using a wide-aperture lens, with no regard to the background, doesn't guarantee a great picture, even if it has 'perfect' (debatable) bokeh.

 

[ATTACH=full]1377553[/ATTACH]

An OK picture.

 

And one ruined by a distracting background, even if it is well out-of-focus and has good bokeh.

[ATTACH=full]1377554[/ATTACH]

 

Not limited to the background either. Foregrounds can be distracting too.

[ATTACH=full]1377555[/ATTACH]

 

Or they can actually add something.

[ATTACH=full]1377556[/ATTACH]

 

All taken with 135mm f/2 lens wide open.

I fully agree.

So stop worrying about the background and concentrate on the subject instead would not quite be the best advice.

Shallow DOF and good bokeh (at least IMHO): Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro

 

Shallow DOF (f/2) in an image where I care about the quality of the OOF rendering - but used a lens that's a bit controversial in that regard (Sigma 35/1.4 Art). To me, the background looks sufficiently smooth:

 

Shallow DOF and bokeh not to my liking (Nikon 50/1.8G):

 

Shallow DOF, background so far away (100 yards at least) that the lens characteristics hardly matters any more (500PF)

Edited February 25, 2021 by Dieter Schaefer

It's a property (quality) of the lens and NOT under the control of the photographer in any form or shape.

 

With the notable exception of a couple of older Nikon DC lenses, the 105mm f/2 DC and the 135 f/2 DC, which offer "Defocus Control" that allows the photographer to turn dial and undercorrect or overcorrect spherical aberration. Other lenses may allow this as well, I just don't know of them.

 

And those are lovely photographs.

With the notable exception of a couple of older Nikon DC lenses, the 105mm f/2 DC and the 135 f/2 DC, which offer "Defocus Control" that allows the photographer to turn dial and undercorrect or overcorrect spherical aberration. Other lenses may allow this as well, I just don't know of them.

 

And those are lovely photographs.

The appearance of out of focus areas changes with aperture and distance. It is not always the same even with a lens that does not offer defocus control.

Spherical aberration is rather sensitive to stopping up or down. Distances too play a part.

So yes, knowing how a lens behaves allows a photographer some control over the quality of how out of focus parts are rendered.

 

One lens i have used a lot, the Zeiss Planar f/2 110 mm, is a fine example. Wide open, the transitions at short distances are very smooth, but at mid range it produces ugly double contours. Stop it down a bit, and both disappear and there is nothing special about how out of focus areas are rendered.

Other lenses may allow this as well, I just don't know of them.

There are some APD and STF lenses that allow that kind of control too. Just like the Nikon DC lenses, I don't consider this "under the control of the photographer" - it's still an inherent lens characteristic - but one that's "adjustable".

knowing how a lens behaves allows a photographer some control over the quality of how out of focus parts are rendered.

Agreed - to a point. The characteristic of that Zeiss lens is inherent - nothing you can control. The control you have is knowing about it and using that knowledge to your advantage. But maybe that's just arguing over semantics.

Agreed - to a point. The characteristic of that Zeiss lens is inherent - nothing you can control. The control you have is knowing about it and using that knowledge to your advantage. But maybe that's just arguing over semantics.

Well, no.

 

Those inherent characteristics aren't fixed, but change with aperture (and distance). So you do indeed have a way to change how the lens behaves in this respect. Other lenses behave more or less the same. How much control you have varies. But it is not just about knowing a lens (which is a prerequisite, yes). You do indeed have, some, control.

 

The DC lenses do this by offering the possibility to change the correction for spherical aberration. And they give more control than you have with most other lenses. But merely stopping down also changes that in most other lenses. Just not as much.

And talking about bokeh, the appearance: many people praise lenses with many bladed apertures and round openings. But remember that just about all lenses have a round aperture opening, even when they have, say, only 5, straight, aperture blades. You just have to use the lens wide open. A change from pentagonal blobs to circular blobs, available to the photographer at will. And very easy to do too.

 

Presenting a manual adjustment we can apply at will as an adjustment that we can not control could be the beginning of a discussion of semantics.

Its pretty simple really. As many people have already mentioned, bokeh usually refers to the quality of the out of focus area in a photo. Most of us learned early on that when photographing a specific subject, such as a person, it can be helpful to separate the subject from the background to avoid distracting elements. Longer lenses and wider f stops help in doing this. If the out of focus rendering is soft and not distracting it can be advantageous as it doesn't distract from the subject. I suppose it could be a fad by exaggerating out of focus using close up lenses wide open for effect. I've seen this. I have a young friend who is just getting into photography and this is "really cool" to him. For me, like I said, its more about separating subject from background. Here's a typical example I did years ago of my daughter. She was standing out in the yard in early evening, natural light. I used a lens well known for "good bokeh:" the Nikkor 105mm f 2.5 Ai manual focus. I think I shot at about f 4. This was the film days.

Be it a lens or drinking glass, fine ones stand out. The proper lens for the task in the right hands will most often get the desired result. Wine, Whiskey, Cordials benefit from being served in a "proper for beverage", high quality glass or crystal. Even lesser quality beverages benefit. Have quite a collection of inherited and purchased glassware - both lenses and the beverage kind, so can afford to be picky.:D

Often an effective tool for portraits