BOKEH, BOKEH, what governs bokeh?

<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>

<p>Next one</p><div></div>

<p>I would like to see some of your shots.</p><div></div>

<p>No bokeh here, just some of the beauty we have in the hills of Ky</p>

<p>next</p><div></div>

<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>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration</p>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p>See Rick Oleson's article <a href="http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-207.html">"What's BOKEH, Anyway?"</a></p>

<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>

Just for the discussion. Bokeh is the Japanese version of the french word we generally

use to describe a collection of (colorful) flowers. Bouquet!

<p>It's not the Japanese word for "bookie"?</p>

<p>Bokeh is in the eye of the beer holder.</p>

<p>All bokeh is beautiful if I'm the beer holder.</p>

<p>"how "pleasing" the fuzziness looks."</p>

<p>Define "pleasing." Some people find NASCAR racing to be pleasing.</p>

<p>What exactly is the difference between "bokeh" and <strong>selective focus</strong> ?</p>

 

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

 

<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>

<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>

 

<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>