"bad" bokeh: an example

I lied. In a previous thread I wrote that I had thrown out all my

photos showing "bad" bokeh. Here's an example; not one of my

better shots but you can get some idea what ugly bokeh will do

to a photo:<BR><CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/tech/badbokeh.jpg">

</CENTER><BR>

This is a worst-case example, a mirror lens, yet I've seen many

photos made with modern Pentax, Canon L, and Nikon ED

refractive lenses with bokeh that was nearly as harsh. In

contrast,<BR><CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/gbhe.jpg">

<BR>

<I>Leicaflex SL, 400mm f/6.8 Telyt</I><BR>

</CENTER>this is what I consider "good" bokeh because it

helps me make the photo I wanted.

I am in a disbelieving mood today, Doug, when it comes to bokeh ;-)

 

Are you sure the differences in bokeh in the two pictures is not caused by the fact that the background grass in the first picture is in bright sunlight, causing bright hot spots on the blades of grass, which are then very prominent out of focus against a very dark far background?

 

By contrast, in the second picture, the grass is dark colored and in shade, and the OOF spots are muted (look at the upper left corner) especially against the equally dark background.

 

Just a theory, you're the expert at this kind of photography...

"yet I've seen many photos made with modern Pentax, Canon L, and Nikon ED refractive lenses with bokeh that was nearly as harsh."

 

Hmmm. I just looked through 'The Art of Bird Photography', by Arthur Morris. I couldn't find any examples of bad bokeh. He uses Canon lenses. There must be a special method to hide the harsh bokeh.

Bokeh <i>is</i> highly variable I find. You can get great bokeh one day, and it can be horrible the next. Not because it feels like it, but as pointed out, lighting is incredible important. Mirror lens or no, you can have good shots and bad shots. The best example I have of this was when I was out shooting one day in a school cafeteria. With a 50mm 1.4 on my EOS, some had beautiful bokeh, but when the light was right, particularly on very brightly lit edges of class batters, there were distinct circles. Obviously lens design is important, but if the lighting is right (or wrong as the case may be) it can bring out the worst in any lens.

<I>I just looked through 'The Art of Bird Photography', by Arthur

Morris. I couldn't find any examples of bad bokeh.</I><P>

I don't have a copy of his book in front of me, but I know his style

well enough that harsh bokeh won't show up in his photos, if his

particular lenses have this character. Note that I didn't claim that

all Canon L lenses always show bad bokeh, only that I have

seen examples (numerous, BTW) of harsh bokeh from Canon L

lenses. <P>

Morris tends to isolate a subject against an obliterated

background color having no detail. This can be done by using

full aperture with no background material anywhere near the

plane of focus. Bad bokeh shows up most with stuff that is near

enough to the plane of focus that individual objects can be

discerned.<P>

<I>Are you sure the differences in bokeh in the two pictures is

not caused by the

fact that the background grass in the first picture is in bright

sunlight,

causing bright hot spots on the blades of grass, which are then

very prominent

out of focus against a very dark far background?

 

By contrast, in the second picture, the grass is dark colored and

in shade, and the OOF spots are muted (look at the upper left

corner) especially against the equally dark background.

</I><P>Yes, I'm certain. The first photo is typical of the "look" I

got with that lens; I never saw smooth OOF areas made with that

lens. The 2nd photo is typical of what I see with the 400mm f/6.8

Telyt. I've never seen harshness anywhere near that of the

mirror lens in photos made with the 400.

What film did you use for these photos?

Thank you, Doug! In that case, these are very good illustrations indeed. I must add that your Leica telephoto shots do have very smooth OOF areas in every instance.

Hmm.. my experience of Canon L lenses is that the bokeh is

generally superb (the 28-70L is particularly fine in this regard).

The long lenses are almost universally excellent when it comes

to handling OOF highlights. Everyone is entitled to a different

view but, Douglas, I'm not sure why you illustrate your

proposition about the bokeh superiority of Leica optics by

comparing a slow 400mm Leica lens with an unspecified mirror

lens. The only meaningful comparison would be that made

between lenses of similar type taking the same shot unde the

same light conditions.

Hi

 

Douglas, i'm not sure about your comparison - looking at your second photo, any Canon L lens will be able to produce the same kind of OOF effects. If u have a picture taken with an L lens for comparison here, it might help. Using a sample from a mirror lens (i'm sure it's not a Canon one) hardly helps your case.

 

In fact, with a 400 f2.8L, i'm sure i can get even better OOF effects than the one shown in your picture - at f2.8 at 400mm focal length, the entire background is thrown into a pleasing blur....more so than at the slow speed of f6.8. And hey, i'm probably able to use slower film than you for less grain and overall image improvement at low light levels.

 

how much time have u spent using Canon L lenses anyway? (not challenging you, but really curious.....)

Hi<br><br>

 

anyway, my point is that good bokeh isn't a specific quality of Leica lens....and in the end of it, it's the picture and content / message of the picture that counts, not the quality of the out of focus areas!<br><br>

 

<b>Bokeh? u want bokeh??</b><br><br>

<img src="http://www.sg-gaming.com/photos/D30/outing/CRW_6489.jpg" border="0">

I want to stress that the idea behind this thread isn't "mine is

better than yours" or bashing any particular brand (that's why I

didn't mention the brand of lens I used for my "bad" example),

only that harsh bokeh can have an adverse effect on the

image.<P>

David Ho asked: <I>What film did you use for these

photos?</I><P>Kodachrome 64 in both cases.<P>

Ian Watts wrote: <I>I'm not sure why you illustrate

your proposition about the bokeh superiority of Leica optics by

comparing a slow 400mm Leica lens with an unspecified mirror

lens.</I><P>I'm not trying to say that Leica is Best. The point of

the original post was to point out that bad bokeh sucks. In a

previous thread someone opined that one would not see bad

bokeh in a modern refractive lens from a top manufacturer.

Relax, I'm not dissing your choice of Canon L glass. One Pentax

ED lens with the Pentax 1.4 extender has bokeh as harsh as that

of any mirror lens; I think it's a 600mm f/4. There was an

example on Mark Cassino's website but it looks like he has

replaced the photo. See www.markcassino.com, lots of very

nice nature photos there. I don't know what equipment he uses

now but if you e-mail him he'll readily acknowlege the ugly bokeh

of that particular lens/extender combination. Browse through the

reader's forum of www.naturephotographers.net and if you are

watching for it you will see numerous examples of harsh bokeh

in photos made with modern N and C glass.<P>

Boon Hwee Teo wrote:<I> any Canon L lens will be able to

produce the same kind of OOF effects. If u have a

picture taken with an L lens for comparison here, it might help.

</I> <P>

again, this thread isn't supposed to be a brand war.

<P>

<I>with a 400 f2.8L, i'm sure i can get even better OOF effects

than the one shown in your picture - at f2.8 at 400mm focal

length, the entire background is thrown into a pleasing

blur....</I><P>

but I don't want a pleasing blur. That's Art Morris' style. I want my

photos to have a suggestion of habitat, something that a

pleasing blur doesn't allow.<P>

 

<I> i'm probably able to use slower film than you for less grain

and overall image improvement at low light levels.</I><P>That's

not the issue - the issue is "does bad bokeh detract from the

image?" I'm sure you can use slower film with the 400mm f/2.8

than I can, in dimmer light - duh, that's what f/2.8 does! This is

not a brand war thread. There are several other 400mm f/2.8

lenses on the market, including brand N, brand C and an

obscure brand L ;-) BTW I used Kodachrome 64 in these

photos.<P><I>anyway, my point is that good bokeh isn't a

specific quality of Leica lens....and in the end of it, it's the picture

and content / message of the picture that counts, not the quality

of the out of focus areas!</I><P>we agree on your first point, but

IMHO the out-of-focus areas of the picture IMHO are part of the

picture, and that the appearance does matter.

Seems to be that the bokeh depends more on what bird you're shooting at than the lens being used! :) LOL.

Doug

 

I am with Mani here. This is bad bokeh, but the background illumination is completely different with specular reflections off the grass. You need to show us a picture of the same scene with the Telyt to convince me it is really the lens and even if it really is the lens whether the Telyt is much better. I do accept that mirror lenses give poor or at least unusual bokeh, but they are an extreme and it is a known limitation of their design. The point is I can imagine getting bad bokeh from this example using .......... (insert your "best bokek lens name here).

I've got a good Japanese contact in Nagoya, a Leica user, and I'm going to ask him what he thinks "bokeh" means.

Robin, I can't show the same scene made with the 400 f/6.8 and the mirror lens because I got rid of the mirror lens long before I bought the 400 f/6.8. I'm not sure why you want that comparison. My point in starting this thread is to illustrate that bad bokeh can make the picture less appealing. Since I don't habitually carry multiple lenses of similar focal lenghts and apertures to make bokeh comparisons, you'll have to take my word of it: some lenses produce ugly bokeh, others don't, regardless of lighting. This is my experience from 30 years of using long lenses. I've used 10 different 280mm or longer lenses, and it's not just mirror lenses that can show ugly bokeh. If backgrounds and foregrounds are far enough away from the plane of focus, harsh bokeh will not show up. This is the style of wildlife photo popularized by Art Morris.<P>

I don't want to waste bandwidth including more photos in the thread but if you're interested, see my

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/acwo.jpg">Acorn Woodpecker</A> or

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/mammals/redfox.jpg">Red Fox </A> photos for more examples of harsh bokeh. The bokeh of both lenses I used in these photos was predictably harsh and you'll see that in these photos as well as in the Yellow-billed Magpie photo at the start of this thread, the lighting is all different: backlight, front light, and diffused overcast light. BTW one of these lenses is the mirror lens, the other is a Famous Brand ED lens.

Doug

 

I agree there is such a thing as good and bad bokeh - all I am saying is that none of us seem to be able to agree what it is (despite you definition given in an earlier thread). I also agree some lenses are better than others. Your shots too I agree, one has lovely bokeh and the other doesn't. All I am saying is that scientifically, given the info we have, I cannot conclude it was the lens that is responsible for this, although it might be. The only way to really tell would be to take the shot with the "good bokeh lens" and shows us that the background is now nice. My other point was that actually we might have found, given the specular reflections, even a "good bokeh lens" would produce an unpleasant background in this lighting.

 

Good bokeh does exist, no question, but being so unquantifiable and subjective I find all the endless musing about it rather unsatisfactory. I know what I like, but others may not agree.

I think the red fox is fine. Perhaps you are very sensitive to it all? In which case then I must not be.

Robin, here are some links to photos made with "good" bokeh lenses and backlight, many of which are the same brand as the "bad" bokeh lenses:

<P>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/lbhe_im.jpg">Little Blue Heron</A><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/nhow0.jpg">Northern Hawk Owl</A><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/buow1.jpg">Burrowing Owl</A><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/wipt1.jpg">Willow Ptarmigan</A><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/pbgr0.jpg">Pied-billed Grebe</A><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/HBIRD.JPG">Hummingbird</A><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/CBTH.JPG">Curve-billed Thrasher</A><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/BUOR.JPG">Bullock's Oriole</A><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/mammals/jackrabbit.jpg">Black-tailed Jackrabbit</A><P>Based on my experience, I wouldn't have tried making these photos if I had been using a lens with harsh bokeh.<P>

Two more, showing a case where bokeh doesn't make much difference because the backgrounds are so far away that they're obliterated:<P>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/mobl0.jpg">Mountain Bluebird #1</A><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/mobl1.jpg">Mountain Bluebird #2</A><P>

With these two bluebird photos, the first one is a "mediocre" bokeh lens, the 2nd bluebird is a "good" bokeh lens.

Does this mean bokeh is for the birds?

 

Seriously, excellent shots.

mirror lenses are famous for bad bokeh. out of focus points of light will show up as hollow circles or ovals. this is not a function of the glass, but a basic function of mirror design. not all canon telephoto lenses show bad bokeh, however they will show more bad bokeh than the leica 400 f6.8 again due to their lens design. the leica is technically not a telephoto lens and is a long focus lens since it does not have a rear element. it consists solely of a cemented doublet up front. while this arrangement produces a slight curvature of field, the fact that it only has two air to glass surfaces means that ther out of focus areas are genrally nicer than a typical 9 element 7 group design.

"I want my photos to have a suggestion of habitat, something that a pleasing blur doesn't allow"

 

Bokeh has a funtion, it is a compositional tool....

 

Bokeh in terms of smoothness is nothing more than photographic technique, any lens can produce super bokeh. High contrast backgrounds have bad bokeh potential, depending on the lens you use it will be better or worse.

 

Douglas your bokeh is GOOD.

 

Greetings,

<I>Bokeh in terms of smoothness is nothing more than photographic technique</I><P>

Not entirely. If I can keep backgrounds far enough away from the plane of focus they will be blurred enough that an odd-shaped Circle of Confusion, a major cause of harsh ("bad") bokeh, will be spread over a large enough area that it becomes a smooth wash of color. The problem with this is that it limits my compositional options because I often want to include habitat.

<P>

<I>High contrast backgrounds have bad bokeh potential, depending on the lens you use it will be better or worse.</I><P>I agree.<P>

<I>Douglas your bokeh is GOOD.</I><P>keep in mind, I threw out most of the photos showing harsh bokeh a long time ago, and sold the lenses that consistantly produced these harsh OOF areas.

"Not entirely. If I can keep backgrounds far enough away from the plane of focus they will be blurred enough that an odd-shaped Circle of Confusion, a major cause of harsh ("bad") bokeh, will be spread over a large enough area that it becomes a smooth wash of color. The problem with this is that it limits my compositional options because I often want to include habitat."

 

THIS is photographic technique my friend ;)

 

I would vote for habitat instead of nice looking bokeh, photo-editing is something that is invented for technique imperfections.

 

Maybe you are too hard on yourself, i always just leave the OOF and make a nice long DOF pic if i know the bokeh wouldnt turn out good. Or shoot a few extra. I know of some nature photographers who have a crew who litterally chase the wildlife towards the photographer who has set everything up to get the right lighting. But sitting on a chair with a big auto-zoom-focus-everything camera isnt what youre after is it?

 

Working with limitations can be very creative and a good learning experience.....

 

Greetings,