Bokeh Mania: Can It Be Stopped?

[Matt Laur]

<p>Sarah: Notice that I wasn't harping so much on "good vs. bad," but rather on the fact that the differences are real, observable, repeatable, predictable, and thus something that a serious photographer may want to keep in mind while choosing a lens for a particular task.<br /><br />I've mentioned your same observation in other threads on this general topic. The way a lens handles OoF areas can be a huge factor in helping to convey the <em>texture</em> of that background. That's a creative choice. A sparkly, or wet, or shiny surface well out of focus and creamy-bokehed-to-death may actually come across as flat and lifeless, or fail to put the subject into the right context/environment. A lot of what makes a party atmosphere, or a glam location look somehow <em>right</em> can just plain disappear if the lens smudges every bit of that texture into a uniform blur. <br /><br />It's not that one is better than the other, it's that if you've got more than one lens to choose from for a task, it's one more thing to put into your thought process. And if we say that talking about it is nothing but Newbie Lens Fetish Fantasy Forum Frippery, then we're dismissing a real optical consideration as unimportant. And it may be unimportant for many people - or it could be central to a composition's success.<br /><br />By the way: how did I get the dog to hold that pose between lens changes for the example shots (other than the fact that I'm pretty quick at changing lenses)? One word: <em>cheese </em>(Manchego, in this case). Well, that and she's a pointer. I say "whoa!" and she's a statue, since that's in her DNA. And, she really will work for cheese.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I thought that bokeh was a town in Florida.</p>

[bgussin]

<p>I suggest "Udentified Foggy Objects".</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Matt: I wasn't saying *you* were calling either one good or bad, but rather that most people consider creamy=good and harsh=bad, when that's not necessarily the case. As you say, they're just different. In your last post you're essentially stating my point better than I did. On the same subject, I've actually seen the dreaded donut bokeh of a mirror telephoto used to good effect, although I can't remember where.</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>I suspect the creamy=good, harsh=bad judgment is because in the simple case where you use selective focus to direct the viewer to the sharp part of the frame, harsh bokeh can become sharp, high contrast distractions. So most of the time when you want a blurry background, you want creamy bokeh too. And that becomes one of those generalizations that just won't go away...</p>

[parv]

Sarah, please let us, or at least me, know if you do find the image where donuts were put to good use other than in my belly.

[sarah_fox]

<p>Perhaps also relevent to this Bokeh Mania thread, bokeh patterns say some interesting things about lens optics, and vice versa. As I understand it, a "perfect" lens with no spherical or chromatic aberrations and with perfect sharpness from corner to corner would have a perfectly neutral bokeh, similar to my 100/2. Both creamy and harsh bokeh patterns tend to be associated with spherical aberrations that can result in softness especially in the corners. There are a lot of "creamy bokeh" lenses that are popular for portraiture but that do not make the very best general purpose lenses. In this application the spherical aberrations are not a serious issue because (1) it's usually not desireable in portraiture to show every tiny pore and wrinkle, and (2) corner sharpness usually isn't very important. Thus an imperfect lens is often the perfect lens for a given application.</p>

<p>Geesh, when will all this bokeh-madness stop?!  (Apologies to the OP.)</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Sarah: Please stop citing perfectly sensible, real-life situations. You've disturbed the thread's entire Rant Feng Shui. :-)<br /><br /></p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Bad threads have thin DOF and very creamy bokeh -- focus too narrow. Good threads lack any qualitative bokeh and have extreme Depths of Field. </p>

<p>This thread has no discernable bokeh!</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Mark, I agree, that's USUALLY the case. But as Matt and I point out, a creamy bokeh can also kill the mood of a photo in which glitter from lights or reflections in the background isn't a distraction, but rather an important part of the picture that sets a mood (e.g. in my holiday portrait).</p>

<p>parv, I seem to recall the donut bokeh used to create an interesting, textury background, somewhat like this, except better implemented:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dementedjesus/4590454424/in/pool-1326121@N25">http://www.flickr.com/photos/dementedjesus/4590454424/in/pool-1326121@N25</a></p>

<p>Interesting, yes?</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>Sarah, I agree with you -- I'm just trying to explain where the generalization comes from.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Here is another one I like.</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Quoted from a very true statement espoused by <a href="http://www.pakin.org/complaint/">Rant Feng Shui</a>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Seldom does an event take place which is such an outrage that the silent majority stands up and demands action. But the silent majority is currently demanding that something be done about bokeh. One of my objectives for this letter is to step back and consider the problem of bokeh's op-ed pieces in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. If you read between the lines of bokeh's modes of thought, you'll honestly find that if bokeh truly wanted to be helpful, it wouldn't engage in the trafficking of human beings. Contrary to popular belief, bokeh is squarely in favor of tuchungism and its propensity to dismantle the family unit. This is so typical of bokeh: it condemns bigotry and injustice except when it benefits it personally.</p>

<p>Before bokeh initiated a vigilantism flap to help promote its biased, hidebound scare tactics, people everywhere were expected to substitute movement for stagnation, purposive behavior for drifting, and visions of a great future for collective pettiness and discouragement. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that there is a problem here. A large, wishy-washy, pestiferous problem. Before I move on, I just want to state once more that I hate it when people get their facts utterly wrong. For instance, whenever I hear some corporate fat cat make noises about how we should all bear the brunt of bokeh's actions, I can't help but think that if I am correctly informed, bokeh's intellectual dishonesty, mismanagement of facts, and outright lies make choleric hooligans seem ready for sainthood, in comparison. In any case, it claims that I'm too crude to exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in its complaints. Then again, I have a practical plan for improving the state of education in this country. I propose that we get knowledgeable and well-trained teachers, equip them with syllabi filled with challenging texts and materials, and have them teach students that bokeh coins polysyllabic neologisms to make its plaints sound like they're actually important. In fact, its treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary.</p>

<p>Once one begins thinking about free speech, about morbid disgraceful-types who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own pathological beliefs, one realizes that bokeh says that everyone who scrambles aboard the bokeh bandwagon is guaranteed a smooth ride. Whenever I hear such statements from bokeh I reel in disbelief. Does it really believe such morally crippled things? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that the best gauge of the value of my attitudes, the sincerity of my convictions, and the force of my will is the hostility I receive from malodorous palookas. But upon further investigation one will find that it's a serial exaggerator. If I were to be less kind, I'd say bokeh is a liar. Either way, its reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth but only avaricious answers, self-satisfied resolutions to conflicts. I'd like to finish with a quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of mine: "Bokeh's jackals allege, after performing shoddy research and utilizing threadbare scholarship, that a number of bokeh's adversaries are planning to make my worst nightmares come true".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>'nuff said?</p>

[parv]

O' Sarah, that was interesting indeed. Thanks.

[bobcossar]

<p>Tears off and passes to Lex a suitable supply of toilet paper.....(Made in.....ah......Korea)</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Lex, you have restored the universal balance between the forces of blur and clarity, the bokehntropy and sharpitects, ying and the yang, the rant and the ranteh.</p><div></div>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>It is all about names. The exotic versus the mundane. Bokeh is exotic, asian, mysterious, nay? Here is an exercise to stretch the ole mind, similar to what Lex has offered in sense. Next time you see or are tempted to use the word bokeh, substitute another silly word for bokeh. <br>

Example. Someone suggested, in the context of rabid Mel Gibson's movies, that one substitute "dick" for " heart." (Braveheart becomes bravedick see what I mean..).<br>

When you are tempted to reply to " bokeh" comment , go ahead, say " dick" or something equally silly. We will have a contest for the silliest substitute, with a subscription to Ken's site. Yes, you can have an equal amount of fun with <strong>other</strong> substitutes. Be creatvive. Be silly. Let loose your inner woodchuck. cheers.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>But Gerry: you could say the same thing about all sorts of other commonly used, if (when you think about it) really obscure terms used in the photography world. How many people know why a century stand (a "c-stand") is called what it is (no, you may not google for the answer). And how many newbies mis-use that term, just like they might initially misuse "gobo?"<br /><br />To someone who's never used that word, "gobo" sounds potentially hip and possibly exotic. Certainly is easier than saying "one of those things that <em>goes between</em> the light and the set" - and it's now a common utterance in the lighting world, even though it's outside of common English vocabulary.<br /><br />The Japanese (from whom we have imported the word in question) have likewise adopted completely new (to them) collections of syllables that more or less resemble the English words from which they sprung (see "konpyūta" - on some of which at least a few no doubt highly amused Japanese folks are reading this thread rigfht now). Is it silly for them to have adopted such a word, going the other direction? Nah.</p>

[jason]

<p>I understand the word, the meaning,the result. Why is everybody else out of step or is it focus or is it..</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>But is bokeh kawaii like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sochd9Xqlos">Dramatic Prairie Dog</a>? Or mebbe we're all just <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVsKegGEgVw">spacing out</a>.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Also, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QxSrM7UrnY">this guy advises "Never use 'boke' in real life in Japan."</a> Good advice anywhere.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>That settles it! I'm going back to just saying 'blur'.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>You know, now that I think about it ... I don't know if I've ever actually spoken that word, out loud, to another human being. Ever. That's unsettling. I'm trying to think back on several conversations that <em>might</em> have included that word, but they're all a blur. That's right, I said it.</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>We talk about which lenses flare, which have worse CA, which distort more in which ways ... so why not also talk about which ones happen to make a busier hash of the OoF background? If it doesn't matter for a given person's photography, then it really doesn't matter. End of story. If you notice things that are more or less obvious depending on which tool you grab, why not be conscious of it? Personally, I'm not embarassed to use a short simple word when mentioning those artifacts (or the lack of them). Yes, I'm annoyed when people confuse the decision (or necessity) to use shallow DoF with "using bokeh." Drives me crazy. But I don't rant about it, I just use the word and address the underlying notion as appropriately as I can, hoping it will rub off a bit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well put and agreed. Your two examples from two lenses really demonstrate the point. The difference is in the lens, but such comments are not found in most lens reviews. Without side by side comparison of shots from different lenses. other images in this thread are missing the point.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I've been taking photographs for 45 years and until a couple of years ago I'd never heard of bokeh, and do you know something, in the previous forty-odd years of taking photographs my ignorance of bokeh did not affect a single shot I took.</p>