The best bokeh is no bokeh

[tri-x1]

Hooked up one of my all-time favorite Nikkors, the 50mm f2, to my D300 recently and it made me remember why I

like the lens so much.

There is a lot of discussion about the "bokeh" of a lens. The term basically refers to how a particular lens

handles out of focus background. As a friend of mine observed on seeing this shot, the f2 has great bokeh because

there is no bokeh--kustt a very smooth out of focus background.<div></div>

[michael_darnton1]

In these days of slow zooms being used as normal lenses, I think a lot of people have forgotten the reasons for large lens openings.

[frank_skomial]

"seeing this shot, the f2 has great bokeh because there is no bokeh" - rather seems like there are no subjects in the background. Try another picture with many subjects all over background...

[Matt Laur]

<i>a very smooth out of focus background</i>

<br><br>

Well... that IS the bokeh of that particular lens used in that way. Bokeh isn't an artifact, it's a quality. There are a

thousand subjective flavors of that quality, but they are all words that assign a qualitative (and sometimes

quantitative) value to that quality. You've just done exactly that... you've described your 50/2's bokeh as "very

smooth." I know, it sounds like semantics, but it's not. It's not that there's "no bokeh" in the image shown, it's that

the bokeh has a quality you like and descibe as smooth. That it's free from crunchy-looking artifacts is (if it serves

your vision/purpose) definitely a good thing... but we don't say that a model who is exactly as tall you need her to be

is free from height, or that a perfectly painted wall that has no lumps on it has no finish. It just has the finish you

<i>want</i>, and it's not distracting.

[Mary Doo]

Honestly I don't quite understand all these talks about Bokeh. It can be had with most any lens if the background is

far enough from a close-up subject and the DOF is shallow. As Matt said, it is subjective. Personally I prefer a

green background for nature subjects such as flowers and butterflies.

 

Mary

[bambang indrayoto]

i see fantastic bokeh in that no bokeh picture. what a beautiful "no bokeh" bokeh...

[Palouse]

Beautiful bokeh is indeed beautiful! And while it is not for every picture, good bokeh is preferable to bad bokeh. However this shot, while nice is not about bokeh but about the flower in the foreground. Would it have been better if it had been shot with a "bokeh king" lens--the 85 1.4 or the 50 1.4, for example? Not necessarily. Bokeh needs out of focus DETAILS, not simply a out of focus background.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

This is what very smooth nice bokeh can look like....

<p>

<img src=http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1279/538227468_998994f4ff_o.jpg>

[Peter_in_PA]

And it's really hard to get that smooth bokeh on my 11-16mm lens at 11mm. Oh well...

 

Depends on the moment.

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

All I have to say is this......

 

I shoot a lot with the Sigmonster - - that's actually my most used lens.

 

Last weekend, so a week ago, I went to a Japanese Garden here in San Fernando Valley. I shot with the 24-70mm f/2.8 & the 300mm AF-S f/4. Got to try out a friend's 105VR as well while he tried my 10,5mm Fisheye.

 

All I can say is this.

 

I know how to get the Sigmonster 300-800mm look very nice - - but out of camera, the Nikon Nikkor shots already just "sang" to me. The colors, the bg's - the sharpness...... There is something to be said for a top quality Nikkor lens.

 

Heaven on Earth for the photographer in me. :-)

 

JMHO

 

Lil :)

[Matt Laur]

I agree that when it really works, it's sometimes because it provides for an interesting, but not too distracting almost painterly background to the subject. It helps relieve the eye of specific information to focus on while still providing a sense of context for the image.<div></div>

[Mary Doo]

Bokeh oh bokeh, here is a recent one.<div></div>

[peter_n1664876959]

Another recent one...<div></div>

[graham_marsden]

I think enough background to hint at the environment is best. I thoroughly dislike the modern practice of throwing the background so much out of focus that the picture looks as is everything except the main object has been given the 'gaussian blur' treatment in CS3.

 

In the UK Camera Club scene, the look I'm talking about is nearly always used in natural history pictures and the Judges seem to favour it.

 

Give me some identifiable bokeh anytime.

[lex_jenkins]

Heh. This is sorta like saying "You know, the best walls are unpainted walls. Just tasteful, plain white paint. Maybe bone or ivory. But no paint."

 

The 50/2 AI Nikkor is a terrific lens for the money. But given the wrong background it can produce some odd nisen bokeh, especially when well defined linear shapes are in the background.

[kelly_flanigan1]

There is always an out of focus look of a lens; thus no bokeh makes no sense; is gobble kook. Its like saying city XYZ has no weather today; or

[lex_jenkins]

One of my worst fears has come true. Bokeh has been elevated to religion:

 

http://www.srichinmoycentre.org/Members/prashphutita/published-photography-articles/the-way-of-bokeh

[mvisionphotography]

I love playing with my bokeh ;)

[mvisionphotography]

oops forgot the link :)

 

<BR><BR>

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6830227

[studor13]

I think that pleasant bokeh is a very important in certain types of photography, say portraits.

 

In the following two images it should be clear which has a more pleasing background.

 

Both images were shot within a few moments of each other. When I saw image 1 come back on the LCD I knew immediately that it wasn't the sort of bokeh that I like. I moved in a touch closer and recomposed to take out the hot spots and got image 2.

 

Both with D300 and Nikkor 105mm f2.5 AIS @f2.8<div></div>

[studor13]

And this one.<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

Too much bokeh. You should get a lens with less bokeh. The Fauxtoptics Bokehgone has no bokeh.

[Landrum Kelly]

"There is a lot of discussion about the 'bokeh' of a lens. The term basically refers to how a particular lens handles out of focus background."

 

The bokeh IS the OOF portion of a photo, by definition. Most of it is usually in the background, although it can be in the foreground as well.

 

At issue typically is the quality of the bokeh, not its existence, at least if one has opened the aperture enough to have noticeably OOF elements in the photo.

 

--Lannie

[matthijs]

I couldn't resist adding one too:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7510471

 

 

It's shot with a Canon 50/1.8, a lens not really famous for it's bokeh quality but every now and then the stars align just right...

 

 

Regards, Matthijs.