Bokeh - is it me?

[kira_greene]

<p>I have been working with my zoom lens, 75-300mm. It is an older lens, all metal, push/pull zoom. I got it used for about $100.00. Is it my lack of understanding or does this lens produce excellent bokeh? </p>

<b><i>[Approx. 2000x3000, 3MB photos deleted. Please resize photos to less than 700 pixels and under 300KB.]</i></b>

[kira_greene]

<p>Here is another example:</p>

<b><i>[Approx. 2000x3000, 3MB photos deleted. Please resize photos to less than 700 pixels and under 300KB.]</i></b>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>

 

<p>Kira, Bokeh is by definition the "rendering of the out of focus elements within an image". The areas that are out of focus in your images are almost blank. So it's hard to tell. </p>

<p>You images do show some motion blur due to the fact that the squirrel is chewing stuff. You probably shot it wide open, as the DOF is relatively shallow. </p>

 

</p>

[User_276104]

<p>I bought the old 75-300 lens a few months ago just because it has a tripod collar, and paid about the same as you. It's great for tripod work.</p>

<p>"Nice bokeh" is very subjective. I think the bokeh looks OK in your photos, but some people believe that good bokeh holds some definition of what is behind the subject. </p>

<p>This photo was taken with the 70-300 ED on film, probably wide open; certainly no smaller than f/8.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>nice one, eric. i have that lens too, and it's capable of pretty good images if you know how to use it.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ps my favrite bokeh lens is the sigma 30/1.4.</p><div></div>

[kira_greene]

<p>I thought that good bokeh was the out of focus area being so out of focus that it didn't detract from the subject. I didn't realize it applies to all parts of the photo that are out of focus.</p>

<p>Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. :) I appreciate them, as always I learn something from these forums, which is awesome - at least in my view. </p>

[User_276104]

<p><em>"I thought that good bokeh was the out of focus area being so out of focus that it didn't detract from the subject."</em></p>

<p>That's pretty much what I've always thought, though I haven't really considered bokeh much because of the type of scenes I tend to shoot (wide angle at small apertures).</p>

<p>Sometimes bokeh threads can end up as heated as digital vs. film "discussions".</p>

[rossb]

<p>When people say it has good bokeh they are referring to the quality of the out of focus portion of the picture..Generally speaking that quality is subjective. What looks good to one person might look poor to another. </p>

[photo5]

<p>I like my 50mm f1.2 AIS...<br /> <img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/497716408_U29Bc-L.jpg" alt="" /><br>

D700 Railing Nikon 50mm f1.2 AIS</p>

 

[conrad_hoffman]

<p>Out of focus rendition is affected by many things, more having to do with lighting than with the lens itself. IMHO, most conventional wisdom on the topic is myth and hearsay. Shoot two or more identical photos of the same subject at the same time under the same conditions, using two or more different lenses of the same focal length, set to identical apertures. Use a tripod. The shots, digital or film, must be processed identically. When you compare apples to apples, differences in bokeh become very elusive except when the lens designs are radically different. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i've always thought of bokeh as an artistically-blurred background which allows greater emphasis on the foreground subject. any large aperture lens can do it, but some do it better than others--the 50/1.8, for instance has what's often described as nervous or distracting bokeh, as opposed to smootht and non-jarring to the eye, as in the sigma 30 shot above. you can get good OOF effects with the 50, but you have to be a little bit more deliberate in your composition to get it right.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the above shot is about as good as the 50 gets with bokeh; if the background had been farther away, it might have been more distracting.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>and here's another sigma 30 shot, of a household appliance</p><div></div>

[photo5]

<p>Eric, how do you make your text below the photo centered? This site ignores the <center> command as well as even using the space bar to center text (it will look OK in the preview message editor, but when it's posted, it's not centered).</p>

[conwaygroup]

<p>My understanding of good bokeh is that it is a pleasant and unobtrusive background to the main subject. Good bokeh should represent an even blending of out of an out of focus background.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>another good bokeh lens is the sigma 50-150...</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ps dave, i just upload a photo from my computer and insert the text in the appropriate box right below it. not sure how you're entering your pics...</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Eric's photos are uploaded as attachments to photo.net. Photos hosted off site (like Dave's smugmug account) are linked and do seem to create minor problems with photo.net captions.</p>

[acarodp]

<p>A good bokeh is not give by HOW MUCH a OOF area is OOF. That is dependent on focal length and aperture (and sensor/film format). A lens with good bokeh is a lens that produces OOF areas which are pleasantly drawn. As a consequence, one cannot judge bokeh from OOF areas which are a LOT OOF (John Conway's photo just above). Even my Sigma 150 2.8 macro would do that well, and I can assure you that is a nasty bokeh lens. You actually need images displaying parts which are somewhat OOF but not too much, so that you get the sense of depth but can still recognize what it is there.<br>

Still, since it is about "pleasant" OOF, good bokeh stays largely a subjective matter. Personally, in the Nikon Lineup I think among the most beautiful OOF rendering are the ones provided bit the two DC lens, AF 105 f2 and AF 135 f2. Unsurprisingly, since they were designed as portrait lenses. My 135 DC really spoiled me in this respect (you see it below, at 2.8). Another well known example is the 85 1.4, which I don't own, but I'm quite happy of the bokeh of the 85 1.8, although it does not have curved aperture blades, which spoils OOF highlights a bit. The 50 1.4 and 35 f2 are instead rather bad in this respect (the 50 in particular)...</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8803831-lg.jpg" alt="" width="682" height="1016" /></p>

[kira_greene]

<p><i>"You actually need images displaying parts which are somewhat OOF but not too much, so that you get the sense of depth but can still recognize what it is there."</i></p>

<p>Ah! That was a piece of the bokeh puzzle I did not have. Thank you! :D</p>

<p>Great images, all who posted.</p>

[sandysocks]

<p>I am with Conrad Hoffman, but coming from a different perspective. I believe lens bokeh is mostly smoke since every virtually every image will improve if the bokeh is tampered with in software. Even with Lightroom, bokeh can be adjusted 6 ways from Sunday. Why throw money at glass over it when this is the case?</p>

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>I believe lens bokeh is mostly smoke since every virtually every image will improve if the bokeh is tampered with in software.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, take the image I posted above and tamper with the bokeh in software. That image depicts a series of ancient guns in display in a museum. Now you need to take every single gun, select its shape, and tamper with it differently, because you see... they are at different distances. Or take this other image of mine I post below (again 135 DC, meant as an OOF rendition test) and tamper with it in software, handling <strong>every single</strong> water droplet differently, since again, they have different OOF levels. This one has quite good OOF specular highlights, because it is the 135 DC, but imagine if each one of that was ugly, heavily outlined, or even better, hexagonal.<br>

You can do a lot in software to <strong>flat</strong> OOF background. That is easy, and people do it all the time. When you have something in perspective which is smoothly passing from in focus to OOF, and you tamper with it in software, I fear you will either end up with some clearly artificial result, or spend so much time photoshopping, that the point of a good bokeh lens will appear stronger. In fact to be frank I suspect that no amount of PS would bring you there, but I have been wrong before.</p>

<p>The same goes if you are a professional who shots a lot. You would really welcome <strong>not to</strong> have to do one more intervention.<br>

Nice bokeh is not just gaussian blur, it depends on how the image is drawn by the lens, and as such it is pretty obvious that the lens should have something to draw in the first place: this is why I say that you do not see the quality of bokeh in deep OOF areas. In my photo of the guns, you don't look at the last ones on the top, you look at the first one beyond (and before) the one in focus. There is where it is difficult for the lens.</p>

<p>As a word, bokeh means simply "the way OOF are are rendered". As such it is non-specific, but it is definitely there since every different optics will have its own. Whether you <strong>care</strong> for its quality or not, and what you like best, this is another issue. Personally, I don't care a lot for it. I love the one of the 135 and hate the one of the 50 but still use the 50 a lot (much more than the 135). Yet, I recognize it when I see it.</p>

<p>L.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7171065-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="688" /></p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"I believe lens bokeh is mostly smoke since every virtually every image will improve if the bokeh is tampered with in software. Even with Lightroom, bokeh can be adjusted 6 ways from Sunday. Why throw money at glass over it when this is the case?"</p>

<p>eh, i don't know. you can post-process anything these days, from bokeh to noise to distrotion, but there's still something about getting the shot right in-camera. obviously, this might be attractive for folks who dont have good bokeh lenses, but i do minimal PP as i'd rather be out shooting pics.</p>

[leighmcmullen]

<p>Erik: Wasn't your photo of RZA flipped before? It really feels like it should read from the other direction: with your eye entering from the left, and following his gaze to the right, rather than entering from the left and sorta looping there. (example attached).<br>

Whichever, I've always loved that photo as you know, I'm probably just jealous that you get more great photo ops in okland than I do in the big D.</p>

<b><i>[Oversized PNG deleted. Please resize to 300KB or smaller and use standard JPEG format.]</i></b>