TV producer

focus is sharp but soft and very strange "bokeh" at wide open

diaphragm.

He looks very miserable, but in terms of a portrait I find it quite compelling. The busy, out of focus background with the white of his shirt blending into it serves to give his face real prominence.

Thank you, Paul. Out of focus disorders are different between right and left, you see. It depends upon the shape. Small things such as leaves, flowers, patterns etc. shows more disorder. If you use this unique lens by SLR camera, you may control this "bokeh" to distinguish main subject. But this is a rangefinder camera and no body can foresee the result before developping the film. It's a bet.

I get your drift. Maybe the two sides of the background are appealing to the two sides of the viewer's mind : logical disorder and emotional disorder. Is it also intended to represent the unhappiness of the person? Hey, my mind is in a state of chaos, but not just one chaos, two different sorts of chaos. Ah, but that's got to be some sort of order.

Paul, I'll show you one example by the same lens. This was by f4-f5.6, still you can see certain disorder in the back ground. If fully open the aperture, back ground will be something like a picture of Van Gogh, like a whirlpool. It will take you into another disorder. Thanks.

Yes, I see you have several theories of relative disorder, and included in this photo is alcoholic disorder. But I don't think that this one works so well, as the white disorder in the background keeps pulling the eye away from the main subject. Also, surely with small objects like leaves, the disorder actually becomes a pattern, which can sometimes work very well as a background.

 

I would like to see your Van Gogh vortex, if you have an example.

I have at least one good example, Paul. But unfortunately I can not find the negative. I hope I can show you someday.

Thanks, Yasumasa, I look forward to that. In the meantime, I have an idea to practise your disorder theories in my own work.

Paul, here I found it! This kind of disorder is quite special on leaves or something small. Contrast becomes lower but if you choose appropriate subject, you may enjoy the conbination with disorder. Only problem is Ektra is quite rare. Recently, I found another strange "Bokeh" in other lens. Please enjoy it. Thanks.

Yasumasa: this plant disorder looks like it might come out and eat him, and, from his expression, it seems that he is living on the edge of a precipice, or volcano. The colour neutralises the emotion to a certain extent, I think. But your General Theory of Disorder, coupled with your Investigations into Bokeh, are both very interesting, and should be noted by all aspiring to art in photography.

 

Perhaps it would be possible to produce 'disorder boards' for photographers wishing to do portrait work, so that, instead of the anodyne plain grey background, they could have a choice of disorder: office, alcoholic, riot, festival, plant, city life and so on.

 

I did some small investigations of my own into disorder recently, involving a model, and, if you have no objection to nudes, I will post a small example here.

Any photo is welcome, Paul. I hope we can have a kind of "Bokeh seminar" here.

I found this article very helpful, I don't know whether you have seen it:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

 

I will try and post one of my own images shortly, though my thoughts on bokeh tend to be more about the expressive possibilities rather than the range of different bokeh for different cameras, which I think is a study in its own right.

I have to tell you one thing, Paul, as I became to know you are a Carl Zeiss lens enthusiast. Carl Zeiss lenses were perfect from the beginning, when first issues of Sonnar, Biogon, Tessar came out with Contax cameras in mid 30's. Their performance was perfect in sharpness, contrast, high speed, no distortion, no strange "Bokeh". Especially, Sonnar was dominant in big aperture, the race to overcome Sonnar started by other lens producers including Leitz, Kodak, Schneider etc.. Unfortunately, they could not reach the level of Sonnar for about 20 years untill Leitz issued Summicron. On their way of innovation, however, they made a lot of imperfections , with vignetting, flare, strange Bokeh, low contrast (in wide open aperture).... they are lenses known as "individuals" such as Summar, Summarit, Ektar...etc. On the contrary, C.Z. lenses have been perfect all the way. "Bokeh" is always gentle, soft and natural (one exception I showed you in Biotar/post war Jena). You can not expect any "strange" effect by your C.Z. lens.

This is roughly what I understood from the article by Ken Rockwell. The 'perfect' lens gives an uninteresting bokeh, while some of the 'imperfect' lenses give very interesting bokeh. His analysis uses in particular the way the lens distorts out of focus lights in the background to analyse whether a particular lens has good or bad bokeh, and to a certain extent I would go along with what he is saying. But I have to say there is a general point here about the use of out of focus stuff (as I understand it, 'bokeh' just means fuzziness) as an expressive tool which is largely ignored by photographers, and while your interest seems focussed (8^)) on the different bokeh produced historically by different lenses, your images nevertheless articulate some of the expressive capabilities of using out of focus generally to make a point, particularly your use of background chaos, which, while the nature of the distortion may have something to do with the lens you are using, is not lens specific, but rather a general philosophical concept which can work very well with any lens, particularly for portraits.

 

I had meant to post a photo here, but I don't know where it has gone. If I can find it, I will post it later.

 

Still, none of this theorising makes your TV producer look any happier as he sits here above my text box. Maybe you should buy him a present? A box of cigars? Or take him for a day out to the seaside? According to another photo.net member whose name I forget, Yokohama is very nice.

Paul, I can not show you good example of Bokeh by portraits of beauties like yours, but I have some by my cutey. I hope these will help your quest.

1) Planar 50/1.4 = aperture full open ........Maximum disorder you can get by Planar. Still gentle and natural.

2) Xenotar 105/2.8 = one of the best portrait lens but has individual Bokeh..... Looks quite natural but if I put small things in the back....?

3) Xenotar 105/2.8 = same lens by aperture f4-5.6 ..........With wider open aperture, back ground pattern will show certain disorder which is individual to this lens, usually mild but sometimes ugly.

Any way, beside the shape of back ground, the level of desorder depends upon the distance: 1) to the focused subject, the shorter the more 2) between focused subject and back ground, the longer the more.

Thanks for posting those links, Yasumasa. Very interesting, but ideally to compare the bokeh of different lenses you should be taking the same subject / background, I think. That's why I found the comparison of out of focus background lights very illuminating (no pun intended). I fully intend to have a go with my Zeiss / Contax lenses sometime this winter. But in the meantime, here's one from a recent shoot I did. The chaos in this case is quite well rendered, I think, by the Zeiss 140mm lens at 4.0 combined with the cavorting shapes of those party animals. In fact, looking at your TV producer again, maybe he would like to join in?

This is really a professional work, Paul. Beautiful and natural Bokeh gives a man, main subject, clear prominence though the contrast of his image is not so high. And more I feel certain advantage of medium format lens from this image. It has a kind of surplus? that 35mm can not get. Bokeh of the lens with larger image circle is milder than of small one's. Remind the image of Xenotar 105, the lens originally for 6x9. I hope your quest may find more fruit. Thanks.

Thanks for the compliments, Yasumasa, and you are right, there is a lot in medium format that is absent in 35mm. Fortunately the Contax camera now gives you a medium format that handles like a 35mm.

 

You are right about the low contrast in the image, and it produces an effect that is difficult for the eye to handle.

 

This next example reverses the idea, so the main subject is now out of focus. It gives the impression something like he is haunting the image, quite appropriate when you take into account the skull.

Out of focus effect is quite natural and mild. If it is by other lens such as Summicron, Ektar or Summar, and also Xenotar by medium format, you will have more disorder that will provoke more uneasiness or weirdness in contrast with the skull.

Here I show you one example by Xenotar 105/2.8 -- provoke certain uneasiness?