Is a super-fast lens necessary? or Is bokeh overrated?

Gerald · Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil

I think this guy made a point here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp9UvIYyT70

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

What else is new? Wink

Seriously, that's not at all new for me. Out of my experience most (non photography educated) persons prefer the background with more details. I quite often received already comments like e.g. "too un-sharp picture", when I presented (for me very nice) background isolated pictures.

Luckily I don't need to make a living out of photography, therefore it's more important for me that I like my pictures which I make primarily for myself. Wink

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

Many points there; thanks Gerald for the link.

I too noticed something when other people see my photos. I've been able to isolate one factor - if the entire subject is not within DOF, they most often say the photo is out of focus. Others use their eyes and brain differently. The out of focus background is disturbing to them. When they look at a scene they expect everywhere they look to be in focus as in real life.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

kypfer · Joined: 27 Sep 2017 Posts: 515 Location: Jersey C.I.

My "take" on the subject of "bokeh" is not so much how well separated the subject is from the background, but the quality of the out-of-focus background itself. Are the background details simply "soft" but discernible or have they taken on some kind of optical distortion, the "Helios-44 effect" for instance or even the jaggedness seen with some lenses. I like the subject to be distinct, but not by so much as to not be in context.

Gerald · Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil

I don't think that the appreciation of bokeh is what separates good photographers from non photographically educated people. Until a few decades ago, most great photographers never viewed bokeh as an "artistic" tool. On the contrary, there was even a very important photographic movement, the Group f/64, which had as an ideal that everything should be in focus in a photograph.

The main motivation for the design of very fast lenses has traditionally been to collect more light so as to allow shooting in poor lighting conditions, or using higher shutter speeds in sports photography.

jmkmva · Joined: 25 Nov 2010 Posts: 78 Location: MidAtlantic US

Gerald wrote:

“I don't think that the appreciation of bokeh is what separates good photographers from non photographically educated people.”

Well said, Gerald. Interesting video that emphasizes balance.

IMO bokeh is the side show of photographic composition. Not the subject.

DConvert · Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 902 Location: Essex UK

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

wolan · Joined: 30 Jun 2015 Posts: 576 Location: Zurich

I am not sure what is point he is trying to make.
He did a social experiment and found out that in most of the cases most of the people do not care or even dislike bokeh, or at least bokeh WO. So what? The remaining people do not have the right to enjoy bokeh because the majority do not pay attention to it? Also, who on earth is saying that bokeh means shooting WO with a very fast lens? One of my preferred lenses is the Jupiter 11 135mm f4, and I love it because of its bokeh, although it is slow by common standards.

Gerald · Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil

Sjak · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 696

Bokeh is no fix for poor composition, but we already knew that Wink

Also, it is interesting that e.g. Leica spends a lot of R&D effort on the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus area on their modern lenses, and not on how the bokeh looks.

Bille1 · Joined: 23 Nov 2018 Posts: 7

That´s an interesting video. Most people "out there" dont care about bokeh, as I would have expected. Here is another truth: Most people "out there" dont care about your photos at all. Pictures have become throw-away commodities with a life-span of about 2 seconds. Seen, liked, next. Laugh 1

jamaeolus · Expire: 2015-08-20

To me bokeh is there to enhance the subject, not distract from it. The shapes, colors and patterns should meld with the subject to form a cohesive whole. It should be part of the process of composition. If you want everything in focus use a cell phone camera.

dnas · Joined: 14 Nov 2008 Posts: 488 Location: Japan

There's a couple of things that were done in the video that could/should be redone.

In most cases, there is actually an identifiable background. This biases the survey because people want to know more about the background as well.

e.g. The cartwheel. At F1.2, the cartwheel is blurred and many people want to see that cartwheel. So in fact, if you're taking a portrait, you wouldn't ordinarily have a distracting background like a cartwheel, you would generally have no distinct background, if the person is the subject. Indistinct backgrounds (with or without large apertures) lend themselves more to portraits, where the attention is focused on the subject, without a distracting background. (which why "bad bokeh" is not liked because it can be distracting)

....OR, you plan to contextualize the portrait with a "barn" background, in which case you would go for smaller apertures, and give a bigger context, in which case it's less of the classical portrait, and more of a portrait within a scene.

So I contend that the video is less about bokeh, and more about composition, because the background is distracting.

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary

The take away from the video, don't shoot at fast apertures just because you can, because sometimes it helps sometimes it detracts.
I was on an f1.2 kick for a while, I still shoot at f1.2, but only wen it helps the scene/subject.

D1N0 · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2494

Most men don't care about how their wives haircut looks. Are hair cuts overrated?

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7554 Location: Hong Kong

It will be necessary if you want one.

I don't rate the bokeh but I do love the bokeh.

Badr12 · Joined: 06 Apr 2014 Posts: 81

In artistic terms, I think,there shouldn’t be black and white, these are tools after all and it helps a lot to have choices, I would like to think that we celebrate these differences rather than restricting ourselves to one or another way

e6filmuser · Joined: 12 Nov 2010 Posts: 580 Location: Reading UK

In several years of photography, I think I have yet to take a shot at full aperture.

DConvert · Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 902 Location: Essex UK

Badr12 · Joined: 06 Apr 2014 Posts: 81

Teemō · Joined: 07 Apr 2016 Posts: 586 Location: Australia

Take out an SLR from the 1960's and you quickly learn why fast lenses were never made 'for the bokeh'. Wink

I've seen plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that people who are not familiar with photographic principals prefer more in focus, but it's still interesting to see it backed up by a decent survey.

I have to say, I am really over the trend of massive bokeh in every shot: entire people out of focus at weddings, shots taken through bushes just because the large aperture will blur out the ugly, distracting surround (they think it's framing the subject), half a head in focus, no context to the event/environment because they'd rather use a telephoto, bokeh at 6m with a 50/1.2 in broad daylight for a group shot. Rolling Eyes

Yes, it can be used as a creative choice but a good photographer will still consider the impact of the background. Ultimately, does it improve the photo at all? If not then it's probably detracting.

Nordentro · Expire: 2015-01-29

Wasn't this video more about blured background than bokeh? Bokeh is more than comparing wide open to stopped down IMHO.
Different lens designs simply draws differently Wink

It would be fun to see the same test done with different classic lens design with say... stopped down to f/3.5.

KEO · Joined: 27 Sep 2018 Posts: 761 Location: USA

I don't care what most people think.