Bokeh - it's origins?

philip_woodcock · November 20, 2001

I'm new this group and although I've been a Leica owner (user sounds cold to me) I never really got into the philosophy of it. However having read a lot of the archives it seems I adhered to many of its principles naturally, I suppose that must how the camera changes its owner (I know it changed the way I take pictures).

Well this concept of 'Bokeh' fascinates me, could any of you kind people fill me in on the origins of 'Bokeh' (and how do you pronounce it too)? Are there any rules to 'Bokeh'? Who thought of 'Bokeh'? and how many of you regard it as integral to their 'art'?

michael_darnton1 · November 20, 2001

Bokeh is what you see when the subject of the picture isn't strong

enough, or interesting enough, to keep your attention, so you start

wandering through the background. :-) That's how *I* think of it,

anyway. :-)

You should do a web search--a lot will turn up, including pages of

examples of good and bad bokeh, history, definitions. Basically, it's

the quality of out-of-focus stuff--whether it's smooth and creamy

(just plain "out of focus" as you'd want it to be) or a bunch of

angry semi-sharp repeating lines and stuff (there are lots of ways to

be bad). If you start looking, you'll start noticing it.

peter_hughes1 · November 20, 2001

</center>

From my experience, certain lenses produce a particularly

beautiful rendition of the out-of-focus areas of the shot. Non-ASPH

Leica lenses have that reputation, as do lenses from Zeiss, such as

those for the Hasselblad camera. It is especially important at the

maximum aperture, which is the only "natural" aperture any lens has,

and which is not influenced by the shape of the iris opening.I

could post any number of pictures taken with Leitz or Zeiss glass

that demonstrate beautiful bokeh. I've chosen one that I've posted

here before but which, I think, sums up the reason why I do consider

it integral to my art. You may find more on my site.<a

href="http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm">Peter Hughes

Photography</a>

Rob F. · November 20, 2001

Philip, it's a Japanese term for the appearance of the out-of focus

part of the image. When a lens is described as having "bad bokeh" it

seems to be the case that the out-of focus areas are rendered in a

more complex way that makes them less smooth, and thus more

distracting, than "good bokeh". With good bokeh details are reduced

to a blur; with bad bokeh, there seems to be detail within the blur.

I've seen this referred to as "busy bokeh." I've experienced this

with my 55mm Micro-Nikkor, which renders out-of-focus details as

double images. Thus, a twig separates into two blurry twigs.

It seems that more highly corrected lenses are more at risk for bad

bokeh. The new 35mm Summicron ASPH, as an example, (according to

some), has a busier bokeh than a pre-ASPH one.

We do not yet seem to have much of a common language yet for

describing Bokeh, beyond the possibly arbitrary judgement of "good"

vs. "bad." I had noticed the effect, though, years before I knew it

was called bokeh. I knew there was something odd about the

appearance of pictures taken with certain lenses. Seeing it

acknowledged in print has helped me learn how to think about it, and

it does influence my selection of lenses.

Regards,

Niels - NHSN · November 21, 2001

It is japanese and means fuzzy or fuzziness. I is not specifically a

photographic term. I am told it is often used as a polite way to

descripe a senile person.

victor_randin · November 21, 2001

I can�t remember that I have ever shot the bokeh as the purpose

instead of something interesting, just as a background.

I agree �this damned �Bokeh� appears when you shoot either a senile

person or nothing interesting:?)

kaj_froling · November 21, 2001

I thought that the Bokeh "thing" was rather new, but resently I read

a book about Leica SM & M3 from the late 50' and under the decription

of some of the lenses there were mentioned that "this lens have a

very plesant change from sharp to unsharp" So at least for Leica this

have been a thing that they was consirned about.

Kaj

ray_moth · November 21, 2001

Philip,

Some members of the LUG get unreasonably irritated when someone

mentions bokeh. I think that may be because, being Leica users, they

haven't seen many examples of bad bokeh; it's only when it's ugly

that you notice it!

The following example has strange bokeh (apologies to Doug Herr, who

first pointed this out in a diffeerent forum and to Mark Cassino,

from whose site it is taken and who also has some outstandingly

beautiful wildlife pictures - do yourself a favour and browse his

site):

http://www.markcassino.com/0007/gallery2/0007ndx.htm

To read some explanations on bokeh, you could try the following sites:

http://www.flarg.com/bokeh.html

http://www.slonet.org/~dkrehbie/bokeh/bokeh.htm

michael_darnton1 · November 21, 2001

Different strokes for different folks--you'd best look around and

form your own opinions. I ran to Peter Hughes' site to see what was

to be found there in the way of beautiful bokeh, and a lot of what I

saw, I would mainly put in the "irritating" class--no double lines,

but too granular and harsh for my taste. Fortunately, the subjects

overpowered the backgrounds.

michael_kastner · November 21, 2001

Philip, just in case you haven't already checked out one or two

of these:

<A

HREF="http://digistar.com/rollei/1999-09/0629.html">http://digistar.co

m/rollei/1999-09/0629.html</A>

<A

HREF="http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/ATVB.pdf">http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/

ATVB.pdf</A>

<A

HREF="http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/HMArtls.html#anchor26001">http://fox.

nstn.ca/~hmmerk/HMArtls.html#anchor26001</A>

<A

HREF="http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/HMBooks.pdf">http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmme

rk/HMBooks.pdf</A>

<A

HREF="http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/DOFR.html">http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk

/DOFR.html</A>

<A

HREF="http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/Guy/bokeh.html">http://home

pages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/Guy/bokeh.html</A>

<A

HREF="http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v17/msg11954.html">http

://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v17/msg11954.html</A>

<A

HREF="http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v18/msg09754.html">http

://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v18/msg09754.html</A>

<A

HREF="http://members.aol.com/abreull/htm/08a.htm">http://members.aol.c

om/abreull/htm/08a.htm</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.foto.no/nikon/lens_surv.html">http://www.foto.no/niko

n/lens_surv.html</A>

<A

HREF="http://nemeng.com/leica/">http://nemeng.com/leica/</A></U

>

<A

HREF="http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/8827/TamronBokeh.html">ht

tp://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/8827/TamronBokeh.html</A><

/U>

<A

HREF="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004

RVI">http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004R

VI</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004

X5S">http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004X

5S</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005

rYD">http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005r

YD</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005

uFo">http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005u

Fo</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006

Ds2">http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006D

s2</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006

h9m">http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006h

9m</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006

RAB">http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006R

AB</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006

RQ7">http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006R

Q7</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006

swA">http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006s

wA</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/faq.html">http://www.

imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/faq.html</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/optics01/lensdesign01

.html">http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/optics01/lensdesign0

1.html</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm">http://www.kenrockwel

l.com/tech/bokeh.htm</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.lynnfarmerphoto.net/35MMBoard/messages/2dqtr99/3896.h

tml">http://www.lynnfarmerphoto.net/35MMBoard/messages/2dqtr99/3896.ht

ml</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.lynnfarmerphoto.net/35MMBoard/messages/3dqtr99/5343.h

tml">http://www.lynnfarmerphoto.net/35MMBoard/messages/3dqtr99/5343.ht

ml</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.minox.org/bokeh.html">http://www.minox.org/bokeh.html

</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.pathcom.com/~vhchan/bokeh.html">http://www.pathcom.co

m/~vhchan/bokeh.html</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000fFO">htt

p://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000fFO</A></U

>

<A

HREF="http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/cameras.html">http://people.sm

u.edu/rmonagha/mf/cameras.html</A><FONT

COLOR="#000000">

Have a nice Bokeh!

michael_kastner · November 21, 2001

Okay, here we go again => Don't know why all that formatting

here often leaves something undone.

luther_berry · November 21, 2001

Philip,

Only in the last couple of years have I seen the term "bokeh"

applied to describe the out-of-focus areas of a picture. But 30

years ago, when shooting 500mm mirror telephotos, we noticed that the

out-of-focus areas were populated with small "donut shaped"

highlights. I never heard a specific term applied to it but that was

apparently also bokeh. Most people disliked that particular type of

bokeh. It didn't bother me because using mirror lenses was the only

way I could then afford good quality long telephotos. LB

philip_woodcock · November 21, 2001

Thanks everybody, I suspected a lot of this. Having looked back at

old photos taken with different cameras I can see 'good' and 'bad'

bokeh.

My first SLR was an old Praktika with a few nice Zeiss lenses and

they always looked nice even when I didn't know quite what I was

doing with it. The Canon that replaced was HORRIBLE, even sharp

pictures never felt right. Fortunately I had the good sense and luck

to replace it with my SL a year later.

It all seems to make perfect sense now, the old Zeiss lenses - my SL -

and a friend's 'Blad, always looked good.

Yes we are spoilt by Leica, I'll never have anything else.

andrew_schank · November 22, 2001

One of the best "bokeh" producing lenses I own is my current 85mm

f1.8 AFD Nikkor, so German manufacturers do not have the market

cornered on pleasing out of focus highlights.

Sign In

Bokeh - it's origins?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in