How would you describe this bokeh?

[john y.k. lee]

I shot this picture either with my Contax T2 or my Canonet GL17.

Unfortunately, the eyes are not in focus, but I thought the bokeh

was interesting. There is the star pattern in the background.

Would you describe this as pleasing or unpleasing, etc?<div></div>

[Rob F.]

Both the ceiling lights and the pentagonal diaphragm images appear doubled, which I find rather troubling. And I wish the diaphragm had more than 5 blades. Overall, a fairly rough and busy looking background. My 2 cents.

[andrew_lee2]

Yuck (the boke). Looks like you shot it with the Canonet stopped down (the five aperture blades on the Canonet stop down to form that pentagonal shape). Wide open the Canonet would've given you "donut" ceiling lights.

[huw_finney]

Out of focus.

[jbq]

Unpleasing.

 

That's a neutral bokeh with a stopped down lens whose diaphragm has 5 straight blades. The bokeh is very slightly "negative" at the far right side (edge of the OOF highlight slightly brighter than the center), and the falloff/vignetting on the side also shows up (the rightmost highlight got its right side clipped).

 

That's not the kind of background blur that I personally strive for, prefering round highlights and light concentrating more in the center of the OOF highlights.

[peter_white2]

Foogley!

[paul_neuthaler]

don't quit your day job!

[ronald_moravec1]

Small debth of field concentrates attention on subject. Nobody but nuts would look at the background. That said, there seems to be more doubling of the lights in the corners rather than center. This tells me perhaps some coma is also showing up. Maybe coma will do this to any lens and maybe coma is hard to control in out of focus areas.

[capocheny]

John,

 

As HUW said... it's out of focus and, therefore, it's hard to comment on the bokeh on this

basis!

 

Cheers

[jeremy_tok]

Bokeh is by definition OOF. Why would you need anything in focus to judge bokeh? The bokeh in the picture above is just as bad without the foreground. (It reminds me totally of the Konica Auto S2.)

<p>

Also, I do not pay attention to those who regurgitate in the best schoolboy style the Johnston/Merklinger definition of good and bad bokeh. Lots of lenses with donut ringed highlights have great bokeh.

<p>

Below is an example of what I find to be neutral bokeh.

<p>

<img src="http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y209/jmtok/smile.jpg">

<p>

Now, now, don't stare too long and closely at it. Blindness may result.

[john y.k. lee]

I really appreciate how many people commented so quickly regarding this picture. I also found the background quite unpleasing, but I wanted to learn about bokeh. What is good and bad bokeh?

 

This seemed to be one of the worst bokeh I have seen from my cameras. I am accustomed to nice solid circles instead of this pentagon. Also, the blur appeared harsh.

 

I didn't realize that the same camera with wide open and stopped down apertures created different bokeh. I was pretty sure that this was shot wide open, but I can't remember.

 

As for quitting my day job, you can be sure that I enjoy photography as a hobby only.

 

Thanks everybody.

[brunom]

Jeremy

 

Your ' here's an example of what I call neutral bokeh ' contains areas that are in focus - why ? as you say that's not needed to examine bokeh. Why not post just the OOF background for your example?

 

Bruno

[jeremy_tok]

Bruno, ask not what photo.net can do for you, but what you can do for photo.net! Be my guest at photoshopping away the in-focus areas. I have better things to do myself.

[brunom]

Jeremy

 

If that's the case why make your schboyish remarks above, as well as the paraphrase of a president Kennedy comment?

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[pvp]

<I>What is good and bad bokeh?</I><P>

Usually not a question that needs to be answered, since bad bokeh beats no photo. Unless you have the same subject that was shot with different lenses; in that case the one where the OOF parts of the image are less distracting has better bokeh! Your example is a bit harsh, though I've seen much worse.

Looking at the somewhat dimmer pentagonal highlight on the right side of the image, it is obviously a bit brighter at the edge than in the center; this is the opposite of what is usually described as "good" bokeh. Be glad it wasn't a mirror lens.

[brunom]

Alan

 

You are right about the mirror lenses where the resultant highlight doughnuts visually spoil the photo, unless of course if you happen to like doughnuts as some obviously do.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[richie chishty]

Bad bokeh! Really bad bokeh! This is why we like the older Leica lenses with their creamy smooth bokeh. :-)

[terry_rory]

Leica bokeh...(40mm Summarit at f/2.4)...

 

<center><img src=" http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=20859784"></center>

[terry_rory]

Leica bokeh (2) Summicron 50mm .....

 

<center><img src=" http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=21492884"></center>

[terry_rory]

Nikon D70 bokeh... (at the barber)...

 

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3149828-lg.jpg"></center>

[Prof-K]

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3434774-lg.jpg"></img><br>Nikkor 28 bokeh

<br>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3409049-lg.jpg"></img><br>Some other Nikkor bokeh</center>

[ray .]

Nicely seen on the first two pics Trevor.

[capocheny]

Jeremy,

 

Of course, you're abbbbbbbsolutely correct.... your picture has the mooooooooooooooost,

beauuuuuutiful neutral bokeh I've eveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer seen!

 

You should be designated the Bokeh King/Expert!

 

Thank you for your input.... it's a brilliant revelation to all of us!

[alvin_hear]

<a href="http://memers.aol.com/dcolucci/bokeh.htm">Bokeh Central Page</a><p>

here is an example how bokeh can ruin a pic<p>

http://www.photo.net/photo/3446772&unified_p=1

[alvin_hear]

oops<p>

<a href="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/bokeh.htm">BOKEH CENTRAL</a>