Three Articles about Bokeh: out of focus rendering in photography

[roentarre]

<p>This is a set of 3 articles stating the nature of bokeh and the use of bokeh in photography terms...<br /><br />Part I What is bokeh?<br /><br /><a title="http://www.roentarre.com/ViewComments.aspx?blg=181" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.roentarre.com/ViewComments.aspx?blg=181" target="_blank">www.roentarre.com/ViewComments.aspx?blg=181</a><br /><br />Part II Types of bokeh<br /><br /><a title="http://www.roentarre.com/ViewComments.aspx?blg=192" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.roentarre.com/ViewComments.aspx?blg=192" target="_blank">www.roentarre.com/ViewComments.aspx?blg=192</a><br /><br />Part III Standard of bokeh and how is it derived?<br /><br /><a title="http://www.roentarre.com/ViewComments.aspx?blg=192" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.roentarre.com/ViewComments.aspx?blg=192" target="_blank">www.roentarre.com/ViewComments.aspx?blg=193</a><br /><br /><br />I hope you enjoy the articles in deed<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />James</p>

[mike dixon]

<p>Unfortunately, you don't seem to have a very clear understanding of what you've written about. For example, you state: </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Suppose you want to capture a scene. The view you see from your lens is divided into three regions.<br /> <br /> • The starting area which is immediately next to the lens and is the out of focus area in front.<br /> • The area which is in focus.<br /> • The area in the end which is again out of focus.<br /> <br /> Now the two out of focus or blurry areas which we have seen form the ‘Bokeh’. Why do you think this area is of any importance?<br /> <br /> The two areas are together called the Circle of Confusion. The quality of lens has a major role in deciding the type of bokeh. An ideal bokeh is a polygon formation with no sharp edges and periphery, but a completely diffused hazy looking circle.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Circle of confusion" most-definitely does <strong>not</strong> refer to the out-of-focus areas in front of and behind the plane of focus. I'm not going to spend my time going through and correcting all the errors (it would take much of the afternoon), but this is an example of the muddled terminology and incorrect explanations offered in your articles.</p>

<p>The articles do NOT provide a clear explanation of bokeh. They also provide innacurate definitions of several other term. Read at your own risk.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>There are some uses of the term that seem awkward, to be sure. You meniton "bokeh photography," as if it were a style or genre. It should be more clear that this is a natural product of every lens, and that what matters are two things: the <em>quality</em> of the bokeh as rendered under given conditions by a particular combination of equipment and technique, and the suitability of those artifacts to the what the photographer wants to achieve (or can tolerate) in the image being created.<br /><br />In other words: nobody does "bokeh photography." They make photographs. And the bokeh in the image is just one part - ranging from very important to insignificant - of the details... just like the presence or absence of flare, the sharpness, etc. <br /><br />While yes, "bokeh" refers to the blur in the photograph, it only really comes up in discussion when it's the <em>quality</em> of the out of focus renderings (harsh edges, double lines, creamyiness, rings or not, etc) that matters to the photographer. So, we don't talk about "flare photography," we talk about whether or not flare from a lens (or its resistance to it) is an issue in a particular photograph, or in considering which lens to use or buy. Likewise with bokeh. It's a part of the behavior of the lens, and it's part of the creative process (or not) on the part of the photographer.</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>Here is another way of achieving results during the process stage with Photoshop:<br>

http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/examples-highlights.aspx</p>

<p> </p>

[cyr_smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Here is another way of achieving results during the process stage with Photoshop:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I looked and I wished I hadn't. Peee-uke-!</p>

[rossb]

<p>alienskin bokeh makes me feel depressed. </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here I just equate the B word to newBe; seriously.:)<br>

<br /> In cine work it is pre WW2 for focus pulls; one pulls the focus from actor #1 to #2 back and forth in a scene. One often wants a lens that has a pleasing non distracting out of focus background; one that does NOT compete with the actors.<br>

<br /> Its is really sad how "out of focus look" that was understood in the 1930's by cine workers took 1/2 century for still photographers to see; and coin a newBie term; the B word. Lenses that have a poor distracting out of focus look are typically post WW2 lenses; designed by folks who "focused/steered" the optical design towards test chart performance; to hell with images in the 3D world. It is like all the old master optical designers great creamy lenses with great out of focus designs got ignored; and the computers got worshiped. Thus some ultra fast 1950's lenses for still 35mm have horrid out of focus looks; but clock in decent on a 2D test chart. Maybe the 4 old master shot some actual images outside; or were not so stupid? It is actually many of early Japanese ultra fast lenses that have poor out of focus looks; and not the German or Swiss ones; thus maybe the B word was coined by the Japanese to study these defects.<br>

<br /> It is trendy to use new terms for some folks. Global cooling becomes global warming; now climate change; in a few years some new buzzword will emerge. Film to many is now analog; folks shoot analog; buy analog; process analog in D76. Short stop became stop bath; that doesnt bug be as much. Since analog is dying off maybe folks should coin new terms for developer and fixer?<br>

<br /> What bugs me about the B word is that somebody will say a lens has Bokeh; with NO EXTRA info. That is stupid. It is like saying Seattle; LA; Toyko and London have weather; with no extra info. One is left hanging wondering what the other person means.</p>

<p>ALL LENSES have an out of focus look; whether a 1600's eyeglass lens; an eyeball fromn 4000 years ago; a cellphone cam today; a walmart magnifying glass on a speed graphic; a 50mm F1 Noctilux or 43mm F11 lens on an instamatic 104 or a glass marble.<br>

<br /> In film work a lens with a pleasing out of focus look means that with a focus pull back and worth between two lovers dialog; one is on distracted by crap; clutter; crud stuff in the background. IF a lens that has average to poor "out of focus looks"/B has to be used; one often CUT/REDUCES the light in these horrid areas; thus one has less distracting stuff to interfere with the actors.<br>

<br /> In film where on has a bogie/unknown/boogie man/murderer/burgler/monster creeping around in the background; a lens with DISPLEASING "out of focus look" adds more tension; one can purposely cloud the identity of the person/thing with the lenses out of focus discord.</p>

<p>Using Photoshop to reduce "discord" in a still images out of focus areas is really just like using another tool ; folks did this with dodging via a wand 1/2 century ago; or screen wire to selectively add missfocus to some regions. Or one used a mask during printing.<br>

<br /> One issue that ALL of us fall into is that out of focus looks vary WIDELY with lighting conditions; thats why when I tested some cine lenses for out of focus looks in the 1960's I used a controlled indoor settup; thus the batch of lenes for a focus pull could be compared. One held the test variables constant; a controlled test. This is more naturally done with cine work and studio still work ie food; since lighting is worshiped and respected more than a snapshooter.<br>

<br /> When you talk about the weather; or out of focus looks; or the B word use a modifier!<br /> The B word seems like with somebody from Miami moved to Canada Today and "discovered" snow; and how snow has different types; something that our Northern friends from 10,000 years ago to yesterday never even noticed.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>A lens is like a Violin or speaker or golfball; its subtle design and build are often not defined by a few sterile specs. Thus the "art" of the masters design is over subtle things another new designer has no feel for yet; or ignors.<br>

<br /> B or out of focus effects of a lens are like subtle things a violin has; or speaker has. A new person to a field often cannot tell yet the subtle flaws of a chainsaw; hammer, lens or whatever. One might go an entire lifetime and not have to worry about the best 10" saw blade; one is not making fine furniture but doghouses.<br>

<br /> Use a hammer, shovel; lens asll day long and one will have a stonger feel for the subtle things.<br>

<br /> Those who cannot "see" these subtle things yet will often downplay anothers concern. To them there is one one type of snow; a 2 buck harbor Freight blade is as good as a Forrester blade for 130 bucks.<br>

<br /> Talk of the B word; out of focus effects is a subtle thing. You need to place your flak jacket on! You are a brave person; brace for the battle! :) There are many who cannot even see or tell yet that Lens or Blade #1 versus #2 is any different AT ALL; maybe the have been workers for decades!:)<br>

<br /> We all have different tools; experiences; needs. Here I have about 7 different popcorn poppers; 7 different chain saws; 7 + different circular saws; 3 sewing machines. The first cordless battery operated circular saw was bought back in 1987. The sewing machine for sails and canvas has a different "B" than my Elna Supermatic.:) Popcorn popped in the Popgun tastes different than the Sunbeam with clear lid; versus the air popped unit that tastes more like packing peanuts.</p>

<p>The out of focus look from my Nikkor 50mm F1.4 from my Nikon F is different than my 50mm F2 Summicron. The "look" of a saw cut looks different with my Stihl versus my McCollough chain saw.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>On many previous occasions the felicitous misspelling "brokeh" has turned up (e.g., <a href="../search/?cx=000753226439295166877%3A0gyn0h9z85o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&section=all&q=brokeh&filter=0&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search#1269">link</a> ). This may be another argument for its use.</p>

<p>It was nice of the OP to try to "give back" to the community at large; but if I were the OP, I'd pay attention to the criticism received.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Nice blog, glad to see you've put up some helpful entries. I'm really not into bokeh, but it's nice to see that you're writing. To me, it's either in-focus, or DOF blur. That's it. But, keep on striving. J.</p>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Nisen Bokeh</strong><br>

Of all the different types of bokeh that photographers use, this one is most hated by people who like to look at photographs (and even those who don't.) They might not know the technical term for this technique, but they don't like it. This style is known because it goes beyond just blurring the image and can have an effect on the photo, causing it to be distorted. This can really detract from the overall picture sometimes, which is why so many people don't like it. Also, it's used a lot by amateur photographers who can't pull off the more advanced bokeh techniques.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The picture attached to this paragraph is from a mirror lens. All mirror lenses do it and I could tell you how to modify a none mirror lens to do it. But you don't provide the reader with any of this information. The circular bokeh is not a technique. It is caused by how the lens is built. Not by how it is used. And where did you get the word "Nisen"? I have never heard of it before when discussing bokeh.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>it goes beyond just blurring the image and can have an effect on the photo, causing it to be distorted.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All lenses distort. Furthermore distortion is mainly a lens effect that is seperate from the bokeh effect and will be present even if the all of the image is in focus. You are mixing two very different subjects here and implying that they are a style of photography when they are not. </p>

<p>In your last section on bokeh you talk about how good Leica lenses are but you don't say why. What causes good and bad bokeh in a lens is known by photographers and Leica doesn't have a monopoly on it. In my experience Canons 100-400 and the Sigma 50 F1.4 both produce exceptional bokeh. And in your "Bokeh Lens Tips" you actually don't provide readers with any information on how to achieve the bokeh look. Again how that is done is known and frequently comes up on photo.net. You should discuss how to adjust the aperture and where to place the subject in relationship to the lens to get the background out of focus. But you don't</p>

<p>To be honest, I don't think you really understand what you are talking about.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>If you want to look over some circle of confusion reference materials, I recommend: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/</p>

<p>The whole section about "Leica and Bokeh," is on thin ice, in a way. Rhetorically, the whole text can be misread in a way that backfires. It can be misread in a way that may discredit your assertion.</p>

<p>For example, "[Leica lenses] as the 'standard' for quality of blur in photographs." This can be misread in a way that's not flattering; most people use lenses to focus the image. The whole page is filled with declarative statements like this; it almost invites someone to say, "Oh, yes, I totally agree, those overpriced Leica lenses are lousy for focusing, but do a great job with the blurry areas." The sarcastic would have to agree.</p>

<p>One way that you ground that section a little better, would be to predicate some of the assertions on a demonstration of an in-focus photograph with a long depth of field; and then feature an "after" picture, with the same equipment, showing the deliberate application of the technique or equipment you want to feature. This kind of lets readers see for themselves; and, they don't have to swallow quite as many up-front assumptions. </p>

<p>Quite frankly, I haven't seen anything special about the optical quality of a lens assembly, based solely on the manufacturer. Most established camera and lens companies have a pretty good midrange quality to them. </p>

<p>So, you may want to have someone edit that cold. I see what you're trying to say; but, I think it needs to cool a little bit, and then work in some polish. And look over those optics references; photographers can be merciless when it comes to scientific allusions or topics.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>The reason that I'll never be a good photographer is that I don't have the attention span to delve into and learn the details, for me,CoC starts with the acronym.</p>

<p>So I just play with DoF and hope that the pic looks ok. This is one where I wanted the subject to be less confused then the fore or background. I like the way The Turbo Dog appears to sit in a circle of focus, maybe not a great photo but for a mechanical rangefinder I was able to accomplish and learn.</p>

<p>To me a good bokeh smells like dog poop.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>I attached the wrong photo, so this is the one I wanted to add.</p><div></div>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>Since I didn't have much of a life exept to take pics of doggies, this is a good example of evil lurking in the background. If I could take a serious photo, this would make a good evil theme.<br>

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7528896-md.jpg</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>If you're going to write about bokeh for a U.S. readership you might as well start with the source I credit/blame for popularizing the term and awareness of the topic here in the U.S.: <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/">Mike Johnston</a> .</p>

<p>Talking about bokeh in the U.S. without first referencing Mike Johnston is like talking about the Zone System without first having read Ansel Adams.</p>

<p>Otherwise, to quote Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I have to confess that in twenty-five years and more of serious photography, I've never given my bokeh a second thought.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p><em>boke</em> 暈け, meaning "blur" or "haze" (Mike Johnson ref in Wikipedia as to spelling (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh">link</a> , and cited as Johnston, Mike (2004) <em>The Sunday Morning Photographer, April 4, 2004: Bokeh in Pictures </em> . The Luminous Landscape .</p>

<p>From 1997, see (<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml">link</a> , which also has an excellent description of the phenomenon)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Thanks, JDM, I'd misplaced those bookmarks. I remember Mike's writing about boke or bokeh back in the mid-'90s after hearing about it on the old pre-web CompuServe photo forum. Before then I recognized the differences in the quality of out-of-focus areas, but didn't know there was a word for it. By the early 2000's the topic had flooded the Olympus OM discussion groups. Heck, might as well blame Zuikoholics for popularizing the concept.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I say blame them for EVERYthing! <em>Somebody</em> has to be at fault! ;)</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>You've certainly given a whole new meaning to Circle of Confusion, in more ways than one!</p>