View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
awa54
Joined: 02 Jun 2018 Posts: 39 Location: VT, USA
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:14 pm Post subject: What makes great bokeh? |
|
|
awa54 wrote:
What, in *your* opinion makes great bokeh... creamy, swirly, smooth, buttery, bubbly, coarse, hashy, glow-y, busy, edgy or some complex, image specific combination of any or all of the above?
So many of the vintage lenses lauded for their bokeh, have *technically* terrible bokeh rendering, but act as a creative effect when used in a way that emphasizes those characteristics. Is this "good" bokeh?
Do you think the current fascination with extreme bokeh like "swirly" bokeh will fade?
Are you a purist (bokeh is *only* created by the optic) or are bokeh-like effects added in post OK?
Is it "bokeh" or "boke"?
Does bokeh quality make or break Images for you?
Images as examples are welcome! _________________ Mostly Minolta (Sony) but Bronica too
https://www.flickr.com/photos/awa54/
Flickr Tamron 04B 200mm f/3.5 close focus group
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3139513@N20/
Flickr Tamron 54B SP 300mm f/5.6 tele macro group
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3051622@N20/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7554 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
The one that suits the scene. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
awa54
Joined: 02 Jun 2018 Posts: 39 Location: VT, USA
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
awa54 wrote:
calvin83 wrote: |
The one that suits the scene. |
Oh man, is that a cop-out
So, my preference in most of my own images is for smooth bokeh that transitions from focus to de-focus in a way that draws the eye to the sharp part of the image, *without* erasing all detail of the OOF part. I find that my Bronica ETR series system has this sort of bokeh by default (even the wide angle glass) and if I had a dedicated darkroom to process roll after roll of 120 film without excessive cost, that would become my main camera system. Next best in my experience is the Minolta 35mm f/1.4 on a FF digital, which has the ability to render images with smooth transitions and that 3D effect that detailed images with this sort of bokeh often display.
I'll confess to being fascinated by "special effect" bokeh as generated by various vintage (or purpose built) optics and many of them are genuinely fantastic, though I feel like there can always be too much of a good thing and right now there's a lot of blown out, bubbly swirling bokeh floating around out there. I also feel like sometimes, this sort of effect is an artistic crutch, an easy way to give an average image an extra degree of "wow", much like the Instagram filters I loathed when *everyone* was slapping them on any image posted to the hip-to-be-square alternative to real photography http://theoatmeal.com/comics/state_web_spring. Yes, Instagram has gotten better since then, but it's still not a favorite of mine.
On the topic of shaped aperture inserts: in my opinion they are the star filter of the 2010s... suitable for use in images you're going to put on your home-made holiday greeting cards. (sorry, yes that was disdain)
I have seen defocus simulations applied in PP that look decent, but on average they're just another effect that makes an image look more contrived (IMO).
The Japanese coined the term, so "boke" is correct, but the common usage variant is fine too.
For me a great image isn't dependent on a particular bokeh character, but it can certainly be enhanced by the right bokeh... and images can be elevated to greatness by creative use of bokeh.
In short it's all subjective... _________________ Mostly Minolta (Sony) but Bronica too
https://www.flickr.com/photos/awa54/
Flickr Tamron 04B 200mm f/3.5 close focus group
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3139513@N20/
Flickr Tamron 54B SP 300mm f/5.6 tele macro group
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3051622@N20/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6627 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
I'm so old fashioned that I never thought about it. In the old days nobody seemed to care. I still can't get the hang of bokeh pictures.
There was focused and unfocused, and though people have been making good use of shallow DOF forever, the nature of the defocused bits was not relevant.
So in my case I can honestly say I have no preference. I still worry much more about the parts that are sharp, or are supposed to be. _________________ I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10541 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
awa54 wrote: |
calvin83 wrote: |
The one that suits the scene. |
Oh man, is that a cop-out
... |
I disagree strongly with the unnecessary judgement. Saving grace is providing an example of the answers sought. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
awa54
Joined: 02 Jun 2018 Posts: 39 Location: VT, USA
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
awa54 wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
awa54 wrote: |
calvin83 wrote: |
The one that suits the scene. |
Oh man, is that a cop-out
... |
I disagree strongly with the unnecessary judgement. Saving grace is providing an example of the answers sought. |
Please take note of the wink emoji... my comment is meant in good fun.
I'm familiar with Calvin's Flickr stream and he uses many vintage lenses with many differing bokeh characters, frequently using that character to the advantage of his compositions. I have to assume that there is some personal preference or other deeper thought behind his body of work. _________________ Mostly Minolta (Sony) but Bronica too
https://www.flickr.com/photos/awa54/
Flickr Tamron 04B 200mm f/3.5 close focus group
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3139513@N20/
Flickr Tamron 54B SP 300mm f/5.6 tele macro group
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3051622@N20/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7554 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
Thanks David for giving me a credit on my photos!
I don't define bokeh as either good/bad/great as it won't help me to take better photos. I do observe how the bokeh change at different focus distance, different lighting, different objects and etc. The more you know the lens, the better you use make use of the bokeh.
There is one important thing to remember: the front bokeh(bokeh in front) of a lens can be very different to the back bokeh. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you.
Last edited by calvin83 on Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eno789
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 Posts: 159 Location: California
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eno789 wrote:
Bokeh definitely is personal taste. But I think most people agree that it should be from the lenses, not from post-processing.
To me especially lately, I've been enjoying those with painterly quality.
My reason being:
* Smooth/buttery bokeh is kind of easy to achieve (long focal length, or wide aperture, or focus very close). It often enhance the picture, but in terms of bokeh, what's there to see?
* Swirly or bubbly are fun once in a while, kind of like fisheye pictures.
Painterly bokeh has the most variety and potential to add flavor to or even to become part of the picture. Think about it this way, what kind of pictures involving bokeh would you like to print and hang on the wall? I just started a flickr group (not limited to manual focus lens)
https://www.flickr.com/groups/painterly_bokeh
Feel free to drop by, join, and enjoy each other's work.
BTW, great pictures can have NO bokeh at all. _________________ Sharpness from lenses; Softness from me.
Nikon DSLR, Sony Mirrorless, Panasonic mu-4/3 - Having fun with MF lenses
https://www.flickr.com/groups/painterly_bokeh |
|
Back to top |
|
|
awa54
Joined: 02 Jun 2018 Posts: 39 Location: VT, USA
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
awa54 wrote:
eno789 wrote: |
Bokeh definitely is personal taste. But I think most people agree that it should be from the lenses, not from post-processing.
To me especially lately, I've been enjoying those with painterly quality.
My reason being:
* Smooth/buttery bokeh is kind of easy to achieve (long focal length, or wide aperture, or focus very close). It often enhance the picture, but in terms of bokeh, what's there to see?
* Swirly or bubbly are fun once in a while, kind of like fisheye pictures.
Painterly bokeh has the most variety and potential to add flavor to or even to become part of the picture. Think about it this way, what kind of pictures involving bokeh would you like to print and hang on the wall? I just started a flickr group (not limited to manual focus lens)
https://www.flickr.com/groups/painterly_bokeh
Feel free to drop by, join, and enjoy each other's work.
BTW, great pictures can have NO bokeh at all. |
I stated that smooth bokeh is something I like and strive for in my images, but realize that it isn't the right ingredient in all cases! It's also not practical to achieve on a regular basis, since many lenses can't render that sort of bokeh under any conditions and even many of the optics which do create super-smooth transitions can't do so in every image.
Probably the only bokeh character that I actively dislike and attempt to avoid (and which can actually spoil an image for me) is the really jittery, sharply outlined type that I've gotten from the Sigma 90mm f2.8 macro and Minolta AF 24mm f2.8, this look can rear its ugly head in complex zooms as well. I feel that it distracts from the subject, a visual dissonance if you will (though I often enjoy dissonance in music), that throws the mood of the image off.
And I totally agree that fully sharp focus can make an image better! _________________ Mostly Minolta (Sony) but Bronica too
https://www.flickr.com/photos/awa54/
Flickr Tamron 04B 200mm f/3.5 close focus group
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3139513@N20/
Flickr Tamron 54B SP 300mm f/5.6 tele macro group
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3051622@N20/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:30 pm Post subject: Re: What makes great bokeh? |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
awa54 wrote: |
What, in *your* opinion makes great bokeh... creamy, swirly, smooth, buttery, bubbly, coarse, hashy, glow-y, busy, edgy or some complex, image specific combination of any or all of the above? |
I've seen good use of all types of bokeh and I've seen bad use, so it really depends on the scene, for me the situation dictates what works best, sometimes I want an interesting effect, other times I want the background obliterated, and yet other times I want everything in focus...
I sometimes use it as the subject, other times I use it as a Yang to my subject's Yin, it's my vision for the image that dictates to me what should be there.
Quote: |
So many of the vintage lenses lauded for their bokeh, have *technically* terrible bokeh rendering, |
I disagree with that statement, you'll have to show me the rules for good bokeh, of which there are none, and since what you may consider terrible, others will consider it interesting, it's not as simple as in-focus vs out-of-focus.
Quote: |
but act as a creative effect when used in a way that emphasizes those characteristics. Is this "good" bokeh? |
Bokeh IMO isn't about good or bad, more or less, it's about the texture or feel it provides, does that texture help or hinder the picture/subject?
The only "Bad" bokeh IMO is when it looks busy or nervous.
Quote: |
Do you think the current fascination with extreme bokeh like "swirly" bokeh will fade? |
No, it's always been there in photography and even in paintings, we're just more aware of it as a thing now.
It's just another tool in the repertoire of the photographer.
Quote: |
Are you a purist (bokeh is *only* created by the optic) or are bokeh-like effects added in post OK?
|
It depends on if it looks natural or not, if no one can tell, does it matter? I don't think so, unless it's reportage, then it does matter.
Quote: |
Is it "bokeh" or "boke"? |
I honestly don't care how it's spelt or how it's pronounced, it's what it does to a picture that counts.
Quote: |
Does bokeh quality make or break Images for you? |
It can.
Quote: |
Images as examples are welcome! |
http://forum.mflenses.com/bring-forth-the-wonder-that-is-flare-t70815.html _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3693 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
Thick glass, also cemented elements (Sonnar) and of course large glass / speed are the factors. _________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
awa54
Joined: 02 Jun 2018 Posts: 39 Location: VT, USA
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:57 pm Post subject: Re: What makes great bokeh? |
|
|
awa54 wrote:
Well Said Lightshow!
in reference to:
Quote: |
Quote: |
So many of the vintage lenses lauded for their bokeh, have *technically* terrible bokeh rendering, |
I disagree with that statement, you'll have to show me the rules for good bokeh, of which there are none, and since what you may consider terrible, others will consider it interesting, it's not as simple as in-focus vs out-of-focus. |
In stating that a lens might have "technically bad" bokeh, I'm using the criteria that a laboratory lens test might, in that those lenses display artifacts of uncorrected optical aberrations that are strongly evident in the out of focus areas. ...not saying that those lenses can't have visually pleasing bokeh. _________________ Mostly Minolta (Sony) but Bronica too
https://www.flickr.com/photos/awa54/
Flickr Tamron 04B 200mm f/3.5 close focus group
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3139513@N20/
Flickr Tamron 54B SP 300mm f/5.6 tele macro group
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3051622@N20/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
awa54 wrote: |
eno789 wrote: |
Bokeh definitely is personal taste. But I think most people agree that it should be from the lenses, not from post-processing.
To me especially lately, I've been enjoying those with painterly quality.
My reason being:
* Smooth/buttery bokeh is kind of easy to achieve (long focal length, or wide aperture, or focus very close). It often enhance the picture, but in terms of bokeh, what's there to see?
* Swirly or bubbly are fun once in a while, kind of like fisheye pictures.
Painterly bokeh has the most variety and potential to add flavor to or even to become part of the picture. Think about it this way, what kind of pictures involving bokeh would you like to print and hang on the wall? I just started a flickr group (not limited to manual focus lens)
https://www.flickr.com/groups/painterly_bokeh
Feel free to drop by, join, and enjoy each other's work.
BTW, great pictures can have NO bokeh at all. |
I stated that smooth bokeh is something I like and strive for in my images, but realize that it isn't the right ingredient in all cases! It's also not practical to achieve on a regular basis, since many lenses can't render that sort of bokeh under any conditions and even many of the optics which do create super-smooth transitions can't do so in every image.
Probably the only bokeh character that I actively dislike and attempt to avoid (and which can actually spoil an image for me) is the really jittery, sharply outlined type that I've gotten from the Sigma 90mm f2.8 macro and Minolta AF 24mm f2.8, this look can rear its ugly head in complex zooms as well. I feel that it distracts from the subject, a visual dissonance if you will (though I often enjoy dissonance in music), that throws the mood of the image off. |
Even though it's my least favorite type of bokeh, I've seen good use of this bokeh type...
There was a thread on good use of nervous bokeh, I can't seem to find it right now.
Quote: |
And I totally agree that fully sharp focus can make an image better! |
_________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16544 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
A good photographer _________________ Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7554 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
kds315* wrote: |
A good photographer |
_________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2926 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
I like smooth bokeh. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
I do love bokeh, but it is like saying I love food. Liver tastes good - others will disagree. Add onions and it's even better, or is it worse?
While maybe there is not an accepted definition or consensus view on what is perfect bokeh, I think a creamy version is what was in mind when the term bokeh was coined. I don't remember the funky, unusual types being so appreciated until recent years. I do happen to like the funky stuff in most of its forms. The busy, nervous type, if I'm thinking of the same as others, is one I do not care for very much.
Some kinds of bokeh are more appropriate for certain photos and not others. While people do use swirly and bubble bokeh for portraits, I think a creamy type is best for formal portraits. When it comes to flowers, I like interesting blur effects. You see, it is both a judgment and a matter of taste.
I have over the past year (plus) taken an interest in mirror lenses. Few lenses are criticised more for bad bokeh than mirrors. However, even with mirrors, both pleasing and horrible bokeh can occur. But sometimes the bad bokeh in one photo can be good - or suitable bokeh in another picture.
I've always pronounced the word as bo-ka. I hear some people pronouncing it bo-kay. While I do use the word when speaking of blur, I still wonder if we are misusing or overusing the term. My initial understanding was that the word was meant to describe background blur. Today, I hear it used as a substitute for the word blur. If it was meant to describe a type of blur, wouldn't saying good bokeh be redundant? We could say good blur. I wonder if its true meaning has been lost in translation. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/02/26/a-word-or-ten-on-bokeh/
Quote: |
The term is a derivative of the Japanese word boke, which doesn’t really have a good translation into English. The closest we can get is ‘the nature/ character of blur’. It’s certainly not quantitative in any way |
I use it in the same way I would use the word texture to describe something. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7554 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
Quote: |
And I totally agree that fully sharp focus can make an image better! |
I don't think so for certain scenes. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Braddanman
Joined: 13 Aug 2012 Posts: 94 Location: UK
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Braddanman wrote:
Some interesting background reading on the term Bokeh, especially how it became common usage in photography.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/01/what-is-bokeh.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
awa54
Joined: 02 Jun 2018 Posts: 39 Location: VT, USA
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
awa54 wrote:
calvin83 wrote: |
Quote: |
And I totally agree that fully sharp focus can make an image better! |
I don't think so for certain scenes. |
On a side note, I find good or better sharpness in the subject focus area to be enough in most cases (though some images are definitely best when they exhibit maximum sharpness), however moderate to poor sharpness is a huge disappointment for me... areas that are *supposed* to be out of sharp focus are a whole other subject. _________________ Mostly Minolta (Sony) but Bronica too
https://www.flickr.com/photos/awa54/
Flickr Tamron 04B 200mm f/3.5 close focus group
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3139513@N20/
Flickr Tamron 54B SP 300mm f/5.6 tele macro group
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3051622@N20/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tromboads
Joined: 29 May 2012 Posts: 1782 Location: Melbourne AU
Expire: 2015-10-01
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
tromboads wrote:
What makes good Bokeh? About 2 bottles of red. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wolan
Joined: 30 Jun 2015 Posts: 576 Location: Zurich
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
wolan wrote:
kds315* wrote: |
A good photographer |
_________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/149089857@N03/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
How about a couple of examples? Bokeh I like and bokeh I don't care for. In the following examples, the same lens was used for both shots, and in both examples, it was wide open. The lens is a Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical. The images are dupes of Kodak Elite Chrome slides, taken with a Canon F-1.
Bokeh I like:
Bokeh I don't like:
In the first photo, I was close to the subject and the closest background items were several feet away In the second photo, obviously there is little or no separation between the subject and the background. So totally ineffective bokeh. Even the stuff in the deep background is giving way too busy bokeh for my tastes. Thus, a shot I really don't care for.
More examples of bokeh I like:
Canon FL 55mm f/1.2:
Canon FD 300mm f/4:
Bokeh created by panning. Canon FD 200mm f/2.8 IF:
Vivitar S1 28-90mm
Tamron SP 80-200mm f/2.8 LD
Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 Macro (the tan colored background is actually a brick wall)
Tamron SP 60-300mm
_________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tromboads
Joined: 29 May 2012 Posts: 1782 Location: Melbourne AU
Expire: 2015-10-01
|
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
tromboads wrote:
Ok gotcha, so you like long focal lengths shot at large apertures, or short focal lengths with great subject distance from the background.
I can dig it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|