Rolleiflex Bokeh

[luisarguelles]

Hi all, After taking a picture of a classic Cafe in Spain with my 3.5E

wide open at f/3.5 (Planar), I've discovered it renders images with a

really nice bokeh. The picture link is:

</p>

http://www.photo.net/photo/2452665&size=md

</p>

Film used was FP4. Scanned with Epson 3200. I would like to see nice

bokeh MF pictures in PN. If you know any link, please, share it here.

[steve_levine]

Such lovely bokeh,would be a source of pride for us all.

[luisarguelles]

Thanks, Steve. I have always used 400 ASA film with my T and 3.5E Rolleiflexes, so after using FP4 (125 ASA) for the first time with the 3.5, I've discovered a new source of pleasure!. In fact, when I was tooking the picture, I was missing 400 ASA due to the low speed (I don't remember if it was 1/15 or 1/8s), but now I'm going to explore more this interesting side of the 'flex.

[eric rose]

Bokeh? What bokeh? The whole picture seems out of focus, just not limited depth of field. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[lex_jenkins]

I don't find the bokeh of my Rollei (2.8C with Xenotar) to be anything special. Neutral at worst. Most of the time I stop down the lens to get everything in focus, partly because I don't find the bokeh particularly pleasing. My cheapo zone focusing Agfa Isolette folder has better bokeh. OTOH, the lens isn't as sharp.

[luisarguelles]

Eric, am I correct suspecting you don't like the photograph?. Do you think that if I use a tripod and adjust the camera at f/22, things would improve?. Hints for other film?. Would it help to use a plastic digital camera, perhaps?. Please, enlight me!

[oskar_ojala]

The bokeh seems good, but I hate to make careful evaluations based on small jpegs. Bokeh is also a matter of taste.

[andy m.]

It's a very nice image, but bokeh as a general concept is IMHO, overrated.

[scott_mcloughlin]

No, bokeh is not an over rated concept. Sharpness is blathered about constantly - now that's an over rated concept. By now, there are just oodles of sharp lenses at reasonable prices, but decent OOF rendition is very hit or miss.

 

The picture is hardly completely out of focus. Wind up my Nikkor 135/2.8 at f2.8 and close focus - now that is a background all out of focus.

 

To my eye, your picture indeed has wonderful bokeh. There is great definition in the OOF regions. Focus drifts smoothly into OOF. I see no doubling. Most of my own 35mm lenses (Nikon and Voightlander) would needlessly exagerate the specular highlights, e.g., the lamp above the woman's head. Drives me crazy.

 

Nicely executed pic. My critical comments are 1) you might be able to pull more detail out of the white sleave which looks a little blown out, and 2) a stronger foreground subject might help the overall composition.

 

Have fun.

[gene m]

Bokeh ? Yuk. What a silly word.

[ian_greant]

whoops, no image attachements in this forum.. <p>

 

OK <a href="http://www.51North.com/henri.html" target="new">rollei bokeh</a>

<p>

'55 Rolleicord, TXP 320 @ 1600, D76

[ike k]

Ian,

 

That's a very good Bokeh indeed.

[andy m.]

I maintain that there are few classic images, i.e. one that any us would aspire to take, that would not have become famous due to marginal "bokeh".

 

Generally speaking, the reason for rendering part of an image sharp is surely to draw attention to that element of the photo. Again, generally speaking, if people preferentially look at the "wonderful out of focus background of an image, what does that say about the image?

[luisarguelles]

Andy, your comment is really interesting. Have you noticed that in my picture, the theoretical main subject (the two persons) is deriberately defocused?. Yes, the chair is focused, but it doesn't have enough "weight" or importance in the overall image. Due to this, the eye walks from foreground to background and back, and then, helps to capture a 3D sense. I've learnt a lot taking this picture.

[luisarguelles]

Hi Scott,</p>

>>>

Sharpness is blathered about constantly - now that's an over rated concept. By now, there are just oodles of sharp lenses at reasonable prices, but decent OOF rendition is very hit or miss.

>>></p>

I completely agree with you. I spent my first 20 years of photographic activity looking for the "ultimaye sharpnes", using fine lenses and APX25, but actually, the quality of defocused areas interests me a lot more. By the way, thanks for your hints and comments about the image!

[andy m.]

Luis,

 

I meant no disrespect, and I like your images very much. In fact, some of your earlier posted work has encouraged me to seek out a Rollei to replace the 3.5F type 4 I foolishly sold 10 years ago (not easy to find a nice one though). Your image "Just Before Sunset", for example, is a notable example of a brilliant Rollei image).

 

My claim in this discussion is that it is rare for bokeh to "make or break" an image.

 

Also, it seems that no one can really agree on which cameras have good or bad bokeh. Most seem to agree that the Leica Summicron 50mm has nice bokeh and that Nikon lenses may not all be great in the bokeh department. Then some say that the Rollei Planar/Xenotars are not good, whilst others say that Minolta lenses are generally good, although I read here recently that the Minolta Autocord (and other Tessars) had bad bokeh (my Autocord and Automat have very nice bokeh, by the way).

 

So I guess I am arguing that it isn't an especially big deal, and that there are other variables that are more important, such as having a strong image in the first place (as in your image).

[luisarguelles]

Andy,

</p>

>>>

My claim in this discussion is that it is rare for bokeh to "make or break" an image.

>>>

</p>

I perfectly understand your point. I see bokeh as a complememt that in some way enriches an image, but this "enrichment" is clearly a personal preference. Ansel Adams or any other member from the "f/64" school would hate bokeh, I suspect. In my experience, some Leica lenses have superb bokeh and the Planars (both the 45mm for the Contax G1 and the 75mm in my 3.5E1) have very pleasant one, although not so intense as the ones from Leica lenses. By the way,I'm happy some of my images helped you in some way to think about getting another 'flex!

[luisarguelles]

Andy, I almost forget: Yes, it's true. If you don't start with a more or less good idea for taking a picture, then it's irrelevant if a lens gives good or bad bokeh, resolution, color rendering..., you name it.