View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16652 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:20 am Post subject: Excellent article on "bokeh" |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
http://bokehtests.com/Site/About_Bokeh.html
Hope you enjoy it - I did. _________________ 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 |
|
|
Maple Wang
Joined: 07 Jul 2009 Posts: 37 Location: Taiwan
|
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maple Wang wrote:
I DO enjoy this article, thank you~ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulC
Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 2318
|
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
PaulC wrote:
Interesting stuff. I haven't read it all yet but the tests he has done at different apertures, in addition to showing the bokeh, provide the best example I've ever seen of the deterioration in sharpness caused by diffraction. _________________ View or buy my photos at:
http://shutterstock.com/g/paulcowan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
very simplistic, it would be nice if lens could be rated only with circle of confusion
bokeh have much more parameters and as I don't want to think to much, I just trust Zeiss engineering who give me the best |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 2167 Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:03 am Post subject: Bokeh |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
poilu wrote: |
very simplistic, it would be nice if lens could be rated only with circle of confusion
bokeh have much more parameters and as I don't want to think to much, I just trust Zeiss engineering who give me the best |
Poilu is correct when he says it would be nice if only one parameter could be used to rate a lens, but is it not equally simplistic to think there can actually be any 'best' aspect of performance in a lens, particularly when we are looking at such a subjective matter? _________________ Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
Stephen wrote: |
but is it not equally simplistic to think there can actually be any 'best' aspect of performance in a lens, particularly when we are looking at such a subjective matter? |
subjective doesn't equal random
our subjective world is mainly build with references from movies we see as bokeh doesn't exist in real world
as most movies and pictures are made with Zeiss lenses, it is logical that the Zeiss look is subjectively considered the best |
|
Back to top |
|
|
djmike
Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 930 Location: Taiwan
|
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
djmike wrote:
Thanks for sharing. This is a great Forum. _________________
DSLR: Canon 400D
SLR: Nikon FM2 + Canon A-1 + Canon AE1-P + Praktica MTL-5B + Pentax Spotmatic F + Fujica ST801 + Voigtlander Bassematic + Voigtlander Vito + Rollei 35S + Rolleiflex SL35 ME + Canon QL17 GIII + Olympus Pen EE-3
Lenses
M42: CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4 + CZJ Flektogon Zebra 35/2.8 + CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 + CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 + CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 Chrome + Pentacon 135/2.8 + Pentacon 50/1.8 + SMC Takumar 50/1.4 + SMC Takumar 55/2 + SMC Takumar 135/3.5 + Fujinon 55/1.8 + Jupiter-9 85/2 + Jupiter-37A 135/3.5 + Helios 44-6 58/2
Nikor: Nikkor 50/1.4 + Nikkor 28/3.5 + Nikkor 35-105 Zoom + 36-72 Series E Zoom
Canon: Canon FD + 28/2.8 + 50/1.8 + Canon 35-105 Macro Zoom
Other: Rollei Planar HFT 50/1.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 2167 Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
poilu wrote: |
subjective doesn't equal random
our subjective world is mainly build with references from movies we see as bokeh doesn't exist in real world
as most movies and pictures are made with Zeiss lenses, it is logical that the Zeiss look is subjectively considered the best |
Indeed, 'bokeh' does not exist outside the photographic image; that is an undoubted truth with which nobody can argue. But it is far from correct to assert it is logical that 'the Zeiss look is subjectively considered the best' on the basis of the effect movie images have in creating a subjective world.
In this context, I see neither safety nor logic for the assertion. Firstly, I would question that the effect of cinema film in creating a subjective world is as great as Poilu, or other students of film would suggest. That is a point on which we may happily agree to differ though.
But I also doubt whether Zeiss has had such a large sustained share of the movie-industry's business over time as he suggests. It is regretable that the importance of Zeiss, both quantitatively and qualitatively, is often over-stressed by those who admire the firm's products, because that distorts the more accurate picture of a large, diverse and highly competent international optical industry. And even if Zeiss used to have, or still has, a substantive monopoly in movie optics, I fail to see why the quality of its lenses' unfocused images should be considered 'best'. Normal, on the basis of familiarity, would perhaps be a safer assessment then.
I suspect that lens users will always be as partisan as they have in the past, which continues to make for lively and interesting discussions but, unfortunately, sometimes gets in the way of scholarship and understanding. 'To each his own' I think a famous saying goes ... which applies to bokeh as well as anything else ! _________________ Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spiralcity
Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 1207 Location: Chicago, U.S.A
|
Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
spiralcity wrote:
poilu wrote: |
Stephen wrote: |
but is it not equally simplistic to think there can actually be any 'best' aspect of performance in a lens, particularly when we are looking at such a subjective matter? |
subjective doesn't equal random
our subjective world is mainly build with references from movies we see as bokeh doesn't exist in real world
as most movies and pictures are made with Zeiss lenses, it is logical that the Zeiss look is subjectively considered the best |
The point you make refers to the optics of the lens. Our eyes are what makes the final decision. We as individuals will decide what pleaes our eyes.
Subjuctive refers to the individual. Art is subjective, what we view is subjective, therefor opinions on bokeh are subjective.
subjective
sub·jec·tive [ səb jéktiv ]
adjective
Definition:
1. not impartial: based on somebody's opinions or feelings rather than on facts or evidence _________________ Nikons : F4-EM-FG-FE2-FA-EL-FTN-N2020-N70-F Nikkorex
Fujica: ST605N-ST701-ST705-ST705W-ST801-ST901-AZ1-AX-3
Chinon: CE4s-CM4s-CM5
Pentax: ME-Soptmatic
Ricoh:XR6
Pentax- K10D
Lenses- M42's-Nikon F mount, Pentax PK
FREE PHOTOGRAPHY COURSE |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rick_oleson
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 386 Location: Lexington Kentucky USA
|
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
rick_oleson wrote:
That's a surprisingly good article. Surprising, I guess, because I had pretty much given up hope of seeing anyone discuss it intelligently. Far from a simplistic "circle of confusion is the only attribute" discussion, he explains very clearly the major factors that cause some lenses to render backgrounds more or less harshly than others, and provides excellent, clear and accurate illustrations to demonstrate how the root cause produces the result. I was prepared to be happy if it didn't blame Bokeh on aperture shape, but this goes much further than that.
If you didn't think it was good, I think maybe you should go back and read it more carefully.
rick :)= _________________ I don't know what I want to be when I grow up |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Well, I actually tend to agree at least partially with poilu's judgement of "simplistic" when I read the following words:
Quote: |
Spherical aberration can also be reduced by stopping down the lens, thus not having as many rays hit the edge of the lens. But if you are reading this article, then chances are you cringed when you read the words “stop down.” This is a BOKEH thread. Open those lenses up, baby! |
Now there is nothing farther from the truth than assessing that a lens' bokeh is only relevant at wide open aperture. Bokeh comes into play whenever there is a part of the picture that is out of focus and it contributes to build the feel of an image even at smaller apertures (except when you're using super wide lenses).
I actually have always found that the most important characteristics of focus blur are for me not the "wash" you get with the lens wide open, but the quality of the transition from focused to blurred that you get at intermediate apertures and which contributes a lot to the construction of the dimensional feel of a picture ("3D").
A wise and effective use of aperture in still photography takes precisely advantage of that transition's quality and becomes a real tool in the hand of the expert photographer, much beyond the simple "blur the background to make auntie's face stand out.
So, yes, the article is informative at the description of what it basically talks about - the whereabouts of spherical aberration - but the treatment of the topic seems too restricted to me to the wide open / circle of confusion and highlights issue.
Bokeh is more. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rick_oleson
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 386 Location: Lexington Kentucky USA
|
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
rick_oleson wrote:
i think he was making a little joke there. _________________ I don't know what I want to be when I grow up |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esox lucius
Joined: 26 Aug 2008 Posts: 2441 Location: Helsinki, Finland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Esox lucius wrote:
Excellent reading, thank you for posting the link. _________________ Vilhelm
Nikon DSLR: D4, D800, Nikon D3, D70
Nikon SLR: Nikon F100, Nikon FM2n
Nikkor MF: 20/2.8 Ai-S, 24/2 Ai-S, 24/2.8 Ai-S, 28/2 Ai-S, 28/2.8 Ai-S, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 Ai-S, 45/2.8 GN, 50/1.2 Ai, 50/1.2 Ai-S, 50/1.4 Ai, 50/1.4 Ai-S, 50/1.8 AI-S "long", 50/1.8 AI-S "short", 55/1.2 Ai, 85/1.4 Ai-S, 85/1.8H, 105/2.5 Ai, 135/2.8Q, 135/3.5 Ai, 180/2.8 Ai-S ED
Nikkor AF/AF-S FX: 14-24/2.8G, 16/2.8D Fisheye, 16-35/4G VR, 17-35/2.8D, 24/1.4G, 24/3.5D PC-E, 24/2.8D, 24-70/2.8G, 28/1.4D, 28/1.8G, 35/1.4G, 35/2D, 50/1.4D, 50/1.4G, 50/1.8G, 60/2.8 Micro, 60/2.8G Micro, 70-200/2.8G VR, 70-200/2.8G VR II, 80-400/4.5-5.6D VR, 85/1.4G, 85/2.8D PC-E Micro, 105/2D DC, 105/2.8G VR Micro, 135/2D DC, 200/2G VR, 200-400/4G VR, 300/2.8G VR, 300/4D ED, 400/2.8G VR, 800/5.6E VR
Nikkor AF/AF-S DX: 10.5/2.8G Fisheye, 12-24/4G, 18-70/3.5-4.5G
Topcor: Auto-Topcor 58/1.4,
Voigtländer SL: 40/2 Ultron, 58/1.4 Nokton, 75/2.5 Color-Heliar, 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar, 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar, 180/4 APO-Lanthar
Zeiss ZF: Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF
M42 SLR: Voigtländer Bessaflex TM
M42: Flektogon 20/4, Flektogon 35/2.4, Tessar 50/2.8 T, Super-Takumar 55/1.8, Biotar 58/2 T, Pentacon 135/2.8, Sonnar 135/3.5
Medium format: several Zeiss Super Ikonta 532/16 Opton-Tessar 80mm f/2.8, Zeiss Ikonta 524/16 Opton-Tessar 75mm f/3.5
Leica: R7, M4, Super-Angulon-R 4/21, Elmarit-R 2.8/28, Summicron-R 2/35, Summicron-M 2/35, Summicron-M 2/50, Elmarit-R 2,8/180 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16652 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
Well I never thought that it would yield such emotional discussion....
@Orio: your further (very valuable btw.) comments reach max x% of the photographers, right (no clue how small "x%" is btw.)? Most will not go beyond that "make auntie stand out" effect (?). _________________ 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 |
|
|
spiralcity
Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 1207 Location: Chicago, U.S.A
|
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
spiralcity wrote:
Orio wrote: |
Well, I actually tend to agree at least partially with poilu's judgement of "simplistic" when I read the following words:
Quote: |
Spherical aberration can also be reduced by stopping down the lens, thus not having as many rays hit the edge of the lens. But if you are reading this article, then chances are you cringed when you read the words “stop down.” This is a BOKEH thread. Open those lenses up, baby! |
Now there is nothing farther from the truth than assessing that a lens' bokeh is only relevant at wide open aperture. Bokeh comes into play whenever there is a part of the picture that is out of focus and it contributes to build the feel of an image even at smaller apertures (except when you're using super wide lenses).
I actually have always found that the most important characteristics of focus blur are for me not the "wash" you get with the lens wide open, but the quality of the transition from focused to blurred that you get at intermediate apertures and which contributes a lot to the construction of the dimensional feel of a picture ("3D").
A wise and effective use of aperture in still photography takes precisely advantage of that transition's quality and becomes a real tool in the hand of the expert photographer, much beyond the simple "blur the background to make auntie's face stand out.
So, yes, the article is informative at the description of what it basically talks about - the whereabouts of spherical aberration - but the treatment of the topic seems too restricted to me to the wide open / circle of confusion and highlights issue.
Bokeh is more. |
I dont understand the fuss about this article. I just say take it for what it's worth.
What it boils down too is controlling your depth-of-field, and understanding what is sharp and what isnt sharp.
The distance we call depth-of-field is the distance in front and in back of the plane of focus in which all points will reproduce as small enough and round enough, or square enough when referring to pixels, to be perceived as points when viewed by the naked eye.
This is sharp.
How we use this is up to us as shooters, and how people perceive it is alll subjective.
Example:
What you may call a great photo I may think is only average, and someone else may think it's awful.
We can use all the technical jargon we want, and it dosent make a difference. In the long run people viewing the photo will decide on a one-to-one bases as to what pleases their eye's.
Bokeh is precieved in the same manner. A normal individual with no knowlege of bokeh is not going to let this affect their judgement on a photo. We who shoot may, but what is the percentage of indviduals who actually understand many of these terms?
So who are we trying to please?
I know who I'm trying to please. ME ! _________________ Nikons : F4-EM-FG-FE2-FA-EL-FTN-N2020-N70-F Nikkorex
Fujica: ST605N-ST701-ST705-ST705W-ST801-ST901-AZ1-AX-3
Chinon: CE4s-CM4s-CM5
Pentax: ME-Soptmatic
Ricoh:XR6
Pentax- K10D
Lenses- M42's-Nikon F mount, Pentax PK
FREE PHOTOGRAPHY COURSE
Last edited by spiralcity on Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:05 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 2167 Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
spiralcity wrote: |
I know who I'm trying to please. ME ! |
Amen to that _________________ Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Farside
Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 6557 Location: Ireland
Expire: 2013-12-27
|
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Farside wrote:
poilu wrote: |
subjective doesn't equal random
our subjective world is mainly build with references from movies we see as bokeh doesn't exist in real world
|
Bugger me, you're right.
Wearing my normal specs, I held up a finger at arm's length, in front of an item with clearly delineated figures some metres away and both were sharp.
Otoh, with my computer specs on I can see Zeiss bokeh everywhere in the background, but that's to be expected. _________________ Dave - Moderator
Camera Fiend and Biograph Operator
If I wanted soot and whitewash I'd be a chimney sweep and house painter.
The Lenses of Farside (click)
BUY FRESH FOMAPAN TO HELP KEEP THE FACTORY ALIVE ---
Foma Campaign topic -
http://forum.mflenses.com/foma-campaign-t55443.html
FOMAPAN on forum -
http://www.mflenses.com/fs.php?sw=Fomapan
Webshop Norway
http://www.fomafoto.com/
Webshop Czech
https://fomaobchod.cz/inshop/scripts/shop.aspx?action=DoChangeLanguage&LangID=4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
Dave wrote: |
Otoh, with my computer specs on I can see Zeiss bokeh everywhere in the background, but that's to be expected |
lucky you |
|
Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008 Posts: 6950 Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
Good article!
I think a lot of the comments here are more valid; there is more to bokeh than making auntie's face stand out and using lenses only wide open. We, as photographers, often get caught up in the effects of bokeh, but I suspect that the average person does not consciously notice it (Helios swirlies excepted), taking more interest in the subject matter and the photo as a whole. _________________ Casual attendance these days |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|