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

Excellent article on "bokeh"
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:20 am    Post subject: Excellent article on "bokeh" Reply with quote
http://bokehtests.com/Site/About_Bokeh.html

Hope you enjoy it - I did.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I DO enjoy this article, thank you~


PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:03 am    Post subject: Bokeh Reply with quote
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?


PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for sharing. This is a great Forum.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 !


PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 :)=


PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
i think he was making a little joke there.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excellent reading, thank you for posting the link.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well I never thought that it would yield such emotional discussion.... Wink Wink

@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 (?).


PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 ! Smile

Last edited by spiralcity on Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:05 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
spiralcity wrote:


I know who I'm trying to please. ME ! Smile


Amen to that Exclamation


PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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. Smile
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.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
Page 1 of 1