Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Looking for a good bokeh
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
After visiting those sites I'm not sure that I anymore understand bokeh. There were statements that were quite the opposite of what I believed. For instance, bokeh is most troublesome at wide apertures? What?


PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmm

Well NONE of my lenses nag me to get out my chair and do the washing up! Smile

Doug

woodrim wrote:
By his own admission, the list is limited. I'd love to see our forum members submit tests for evaluation in an effort to rate, or rank, a more comprehensive list of lenses. However, I do recognize it would be difficult gaining consensus, as it is with anything subjective. You might say bokeh is like women. We all might agree that some are ugly, some are beautiful, but those in between will depend on our own particular tastes (and maybe the relationship Very Happy )


PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nemesis101 wrote:
Hmm

Well NONE of my lenses nag me to get out my chair and do the washing up! Smile

Doug

woodrim wrote:
By his own admission, the list is limited. I'd love to see our forum members submit tests for evaluation in an effort to rate, or rank, a more comprehensive list of lenses. However, I do recognize it would be difficult gaining consensus, as it is with anything subjective. You might say bokeh is like women. We all might agree that some are ugly, some are beautiful, but those in between will depend on our own particular tastes (and maybe the relationship Very Happy )


Excellent point, Doug. And don't forget, you can have more than one without getting into trouble. Hmmm, a different one for each night and each mood. Please, don't encourage me.


PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
After visiting those sites I'm not sure that I anymore understand bokeh. There were statements that were quite the opposite of what I believed. For instance, bokeh is most troublesome at wide apertures? What?


When things are put sufficiently out of focus almost any bokeh looks good, so in that light it's easier to get “good” bokeh (or indeed, bokeh) at wide apertures. Also, the number of aperture blades has no significance wide open.

On the other hand, problems in bokeh caused by spherical aberration diminish as the lens is stopped down, so actually stopping down may remove bright outlines and chromatic aberrations from bokeh. As an example, the Trioplan 100mm f/2.8 has quite prominent bright outlines wide open, but at f/4 the bokeh becomes much smoother.


PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, the bokeh gets smoother, but also the images within get more defined. So, is bokeh everything that is not in focus, or is it a more specific blur? Is bokeh and out of focus one in the same, and just renamed to sound more romantic?


PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here are photos all about bokeh:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/bokeh_/discuss/


PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you, MF-addicted, that was interesting. And my apologies to the originator of this post if it seems to have been hijacked. However, if you understand yourself what you want from bokeh, you may be able to answer your own question about what lens will give it. And in fact, maybe only you can answer that question if bokeh appreciation is subjective.

While I do understand how blur can help direct your attention to the subject of a photo, let's remember that the sharpness of the subject also attracts attention, so it's a combination of the two. I see bokeh as part of the photo in many cases and not just a technique to direct attention. I've also seen where the subject was part of the blur and the in-focus area was secondary. Using three of my own photos as talking points, this first one I believe has a style of bokeh that helps frame the flower subject, yet still adds interest with its creamy nature.


This second one was intended to have colorful bokeh as part of the picture. The only reason it doesn't work for me is the blurred flower behind the focused one. Otherwise I accomplished the colorful, dreamy image I wanted.


With this third image the focus definitely brings very quick attention to the crisp area. However, I didn't consider the brick and mortar to be the real subject. The subject to me is depth of field itself. Anything could have been the object; the brick and mortar just offer enough surface detail to illustrate the point.


Please feel free to critique.


PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
After visiting those sites I'm not sure that I anymore understand bokeh. There were statements that were quite the opposite of what I believed. For instance, bokeh is most troublesome at wide apertures? What?


Quote:
Yes, the bokeh gets smoother, but also the images within get more defined. So, is bokeh everything that is not in focus, or is it a more specific blur? Is bokeh and out of focus one in the same, and just renamed to sound more romantic?


Bokeh is the quality by which out-of-focus areas are rendered. Bokeh on any specific lens will be different at various aperture openings -- stopped-down, the number and shape of the iris blades become more visible. Opened-up, the bokeh may become more circular.

Bokeh is not just blur. Blur can come from movement -- the subject or camera are moving; if you pan to follow the subject, the background blurs; you can zoom while exposing, giving a different blur -- but these blurs aren't bokeh. (As I understand it.)

Whether any bokeh is good/pleasing or not depends on what you want from the picture. Many like creamy or invisible bokeh, to make a thin-DOF subject stand out. But I could envision a big, creamy subject starkly contrasted by harsh, jagged bokeh, as another way to 'punch' the subject. "Good bokeh" usually means "I like it".

Number of iris blades can be a factor. Some say, the more blades the better. But I have a 4-blade lens that always gives smooth creamy bokeh, and a 20-blade lens whose bright bokeh looks like xmas ornaments. And the bokeh will look different at different focus distances. With the same lens, same aperture, focusing on a subject at 1 foot will give a different bokeh than focusing on a subject at 8 feet.

All I can recommend is, try it and see.


PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a weirdo, infra-red, macro wide angle screw on lens adapter I found in my friend's bag that, when added to my Yashica ML 28 2.8, makes the bokeh slightly pointy, gives the slight illusion of a snap zoom, turns the lens into I'm GUESSING a 10 mm or so and gives the picture a weird color vingette falloff that fringes from blue-green to a weird cyan color.

Oh, also the glass is bright red and says Panavision "Made in Japan". I should probably post some photos?


PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
Yes, the bokeh gets smoother, but also the images within get more defined. So, is bokeh everything that is not in focus, or is it a more specific blur? Is bokeh and out of focus one in the same, and just renamed to sound more romantic?


I think a suitable analogy would be that if we were speaking of the musical properties of speakers, then the quality of bokeh would be the (subjective) “musicality” of the sound (which might vary by type of music, as bokeh varies by “type” of photo) and the aperture would be the volume. Some speakers might rattle or distort at high volume (large aperture)–a problem that would be fixed by lowering the volume (stopping down)…

So, as with sound, the quality and the amount (volume) are different things, but also inter-related in that larger amounts/volumes are often associated with better quality (both in sound and in bokeh), and of course there should be enough volume/blur to be able to assess the quality in the first place. And some types of music/photos need a certain amount of blur/volume to make sense.

Hopefully this doesn't just confuse things further. =)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2