Nick D. Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 There are no polls on the out-of-focus area quality Actually they are exists, somehow lots of the photographers think it is important. The bokeh of any conventional lens is just fine, mate, super duper, everyone agrees. Name those everyone mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 It is incorrect to say "nobody cares," for no other reason than most of the members posting in this thread obviously do care. If bokeh adds to the aesthetics of the image, it's good. If the OOF areas distract and seem busy, not so good. Some lenses are better than others, and if you're paying good money for a lens, the quality of its bokeh should be a consideration. Mirror lenses have absolutely terrible bokeh, an odd collection of superimposed doughnuts. However these lenses have reach in a very compact package, at a reasonable price. A shallow depth of field helps isolate a subject from the background, for dramatic (and intentional) effect. That tends to require using the lens at its maximum aperture. For many years, this was the strength of medium format and Leica lenses, and sadly lacking in SLRs. This is predicated on actually focusing a Leica well enough to see the difference (mine stayed on f/5.6 or f/8 pretty much full time for 40 years). Cameras are better now, and lenses better yet, and bokeh is proportionately more important as a consequence. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Bokeh for bokeh sake is usually bad. Some of the images in the link I liked and thought that the bokeh added something while some of the others were too gimmicky for my taste. Of the hundreds of thousands of images I have taken over the years, I can only remember a few that I actually noticed and still remember what the bokeh was like. It's a very subjective thing but pretty much something I don't think of because I very seldom shoot wide open. Here is one from my Nikon D70 with the 18-70 kit lens a long time ago and another image I took with my D750 and 24-120mm f4 a few years ago. I agree with Steve Murray that the 18-70 kit lens was a really nice lens, especially for the price. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn McCreery Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Sigma Art 24mm f: 1.4 lens on Canon 5D IV, at f:1.4. I primarily purchased this lens for nightscape images with star field backgrounds, for which background bokeh for an in-focus night sky would be meaningless. For nightscape images I might make a composite of in-focus night sky and in-focus foreground. I never want the foreground to be out of focus. Does anyone worry about foreground bokeh? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shadow Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 The popular and historical understanding of subject against blurred background seems to me reason enough to find other uses for and approaches to background blur and bokeh. If limited to the traditional rule of thumb, isolating subject from background, of course Michael’s background will be seen as a “distraction.” Seen differently, Michael’s photo, IMO, takes what seems to be asking for a more standard treatment of foreground subject with blurred and receding background and, instead, makes a more demanding and more interesting photo. There’s always something new under the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Here is the more recent image from the Nikon 24-120mm f4 lens shot wide open. This was a little too much bokeh for my taste so I used another shot of my nephew for a series of portraits I was doing of my relatives. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leo_papandreou1 Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 The only measurable and half-way predictable property of "pleasing" in bokeh threads is how much you paid for the lens. It really do be like audiophiles listening to pins drop in the recording studio on their expensive stereos. Regular people listen to *music* -- on cheap radios even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn McCreery Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) t To try to answer my own question "Does anyone worry about foreground bokeh?", it might be argued that this out of focus foreground cat gives a more menacing sense of danger to this photograph than an in-focus cat. (No birds were harmed making this photo, my cat was looking out a window). Canon 5 D II with Canon 24-105mm L lens at 93mm, f:11. Edited February 25, 2019 by Glenn McCreery 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Parsons Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 No one cares about the out of focus areas. You lens nerds are worse than audiophiles. Shure 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_gallimore1 Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 I don't think there's such a thing as 'good' and 'bad' specifically. It's good if it works with the image, or at least doesn't distract the viewer's attention from the subject, unless that happens to be the point of the image. It's bad if it gets in the way. It's not something that can be seen in the viewfinder in most cases, so it's important to know how a lens will render a scene beforehand. Unless I'm specifically looking to utillise the out of focus areas of an image, it's not something I'll give a lot of thought to, but I will consider in when selecting which lenses to take with me, if I have a particular subject in mind. The Mir-1 photo is an example of this. It was actually quite a challenge searching through my photos to find examples. Normally when shooting anything in which bokeh is likely to be a factor, I'll bracket a selection of apertures, if I have time, and choose the final image at least partly on the bokeh. I can't say I've ever bought a lens 'for the bokeh', but it is a factor in selecting which lens to use. I still can't quite get my head around michaellinder's photo, which I think is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidTriplett Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 I take mine creamy... Nikon D810 + Nikkor 200-500/5.6 + Nikon TC-14E II, @ 700mm, f/8, ISO 250, 1/160s. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leo_papandreou1 Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 It brings me no pleasure to report that no one (whose brain hasn't been washed smooth by Big Photo) cares about "image quality" either. Not reading replies to this one ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Parsons Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 That's OK - we ain't replying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shadow Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Regular people Guess it all depends on whether the goal is to be a regular person. I prefer a little eccentricity. In developing my own photographic eye, it’s important to be aware of certain lens behaviors as well as the different looks blur and bokeh can take on. I try not to obsess about it and balance those kinds of things with concern for subject matter, storytelling, and a sense of composition and timing. My guess is that being an audiophile doesn’t necessarily preclude actually appreciating the music as well. But, clearly, artists and technical experts often have a different approach to their disciplines and different priorities from “regular” people. Andy Warhol was a pop artist and appealed to a mass audience. He didn’t do that by being regular. Anything but! 1 There’s always something new under the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wogears Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 It brings me no pleasure to report that no one (whose brain hasn't been washed smooth by Big Photo) cares about "image quality" either. Not reading replies to this one ... Not as defined by gearheads and referred to by 'IQ'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leo_papandreou1 Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 ick quality Continuing to ignore replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Cafferty Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Whenever this subject is raised it always gets a response, but without any agreement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 It's not something that can be seen in the viewfinder in most cases, so it's important to know how a lens will render a scene beforehand. While that was definitely not true for DSLR's, where the stopped-down image was too dark for evaluation. Mirrorless cameras with full-time live view are different. You can see the effect in exquisite clarity, at nearly life size, what the bokeh will be, before you take the shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick D. Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 The only measurable and half-way predictable property of "pleasing" in bokeh threads is how much you paid for the lens. It really do be like audiophiles listening to pins drop in the recording studio on their expensive stereos. Regular people listen to *music* -- on cheap radios even. Expensive has nothing to do with it, I just enjoying when I listen music with my Bose 35 headphones, it just sounds way better. If you can't hear difference in sound quality, it's your problem:) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick D. Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 That's why Bose 35 has noice cancellation :) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidTriplett Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) To the point that different lenses offer a variety of bokeh conditions, which can be more or less desirable, depending on the photographer's intent: The image I posted above was made at nearly identical exposure and focal length values as the image below of a Great Grey Owl, from Yellowstone NP. In the owl image, the equipment was a D7100 + a Tamron 150-600. The Tamron has a strange (to me) OOF characteristic. Details, rather than fuzzing out uniformly, take on a "double image" appearance, which then blurs together. In practice, this means it's hard to tell where falls the line between DoF-related OOF, and some weird aberration. Items in focus can be tack sharp, but the slightly OOF features can be distracting, unless they are far enough removed from the plane of focus to be fully blurred. Hence: And: I wish I had one to play with, but I've always been fascinated by the Nikkor "DC" lenses. To reinforce the idea that bokeh matters, and sometimes a lot, these expensive, professional lenses are designed and engineered so the photographer can precisely control the degree and character of OOF elements (the bokeh), and are marketed as specialist portrait lenses, for what should be obvious reasons. Edited February 25, 2019 by DavidTriplett 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 To the assertion that it's directly related to the cost of the lens: I mentioned earlier that I find that the most pleasing to my eye often comes from lenses with good but non-exotic designs. The classic 135mm prime is a good example-I've never seen one, even in f/2.8 varieties, with anything other than what I would call smooth and pleasing bokeh. Nikon's classic 105mm f/2.5, in both the Sonnar and Gauss type designs, is another great example. These are lenses that can be had in many cases for $200 or less used, or about the retail price of your typical crop sensor kit zoom lens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick D. Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 The Tamron has a strange (to me) OOF characteristic. Details, rather than fuzzing out uniformly, take on a "double image" appearance, which then blurs together. Try to turn off VR, VC or IS, whatever they call it on Tamron, doubles should be gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Whenever this subject is raised it always gets a response, but without any agreement. That's the way it should be because the subject is many faceted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidTriplett Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 Try to turn off VR, VC or IS, whatever they call it on Tamron, doubles should be gone So, then what's the point of buying a lens with VR/IS/VC, etc? :mad::confused::( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now