I don’t give a damn about bokeh quality.

[Jonas Palm]

I guess it’s a sign of where photography has moved (off cameras, to cell phones), and the level of performance of pretty much all ILCs that for those that do stay around on dedicated hardware, fringe issues get attention. But after decades of shooting, I have never in any of my shots been bothered by lacking bokeh quality. Ever.

Nor have I, talking with people at exhibitions, photographers, you name it, heard anyone voicing concern about the quality of the bokeh. Ever.

And I have heard a lot ridiculous niggles.

So for me this is a pure internet phenomenon. While I’ll concede that there is a reality behind the concept, I can’t help feeling that it is a concept given attention only by people who want to project an air of superioriority over the peasants (whoever it may be that they feel that they need to distance themselves from), originally popularized by wannabes who shot with leica glass.

There. I said it.

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

I guess it’s a sign of where photography has moved (off cameras, to cell phones), and the level of performance of pretty much all ILCs that for those that do stay around on dedicated hardware, fringe issues get attention. But after decades of shooting, I have never in any of my shots been bothered by lacking bokeh quality. Ever.

Nor have I, talking with people at exhibitions, photographers, you name it, heard anyone voicing concern about the quality of the bokeh. Ever.

And I have heard a lot ridiculous niggles.

So for me this is a pure internet phenomenon. While I’ll concede that there is a reality behind the concept, I can’t help feeling that it is a concept given attention only by people who want to project an air of superioriority over the peasants (whoever it may be that they feel that they need to distance themselves from), originally popularized by wannabes who shot with leica glass.

There. I said it.

** applauding **

 

[Chris666666]

That is fine as far as I am concerned. I don't really care if you do or don't.

I don't suppose you have ever used a mirror lens then?

 

[Great Bustard]

I guess it’s a sign of where photography has moved (off cameras, to cell phones), and the level of performance of pretty much all ILCs that for those that do stay around on dedicated hardware, fringe issues get attention. But after decades of shooting, I have never in any of my shots been bothered by lacking bokeh quality. Ever.

Nor have I, talking with people at exhibitions, photographers, you name it, heard anyone voicing concern about the quality of the bokeh. Ever.

And I have heard a lot ridiculous niggles.

So for me this is a pure internet phenomenon. While I’ll concede that there is a reality behind the concept, I can’t help feeling that it is a concept given attention only by people who want to project an air of superioriority over the peasants (whoever it may be that they feel that they need to distance themselves from), originally popularized by wannabes who shot with leica glass.

There. I said it.

That should save you some money on lenses, then! I mean, it costs a small fortune for that "feathered bokeh". ;-)

 

[Jonas Palm]

That is fine as far as I am concerned. I don't really care if you do or don't.

I don't suppose you have ever used a mirror lens then?

LOL, no. I love donuts though. :-D

 

[Dan_168]

I don't give a damn if anyone else care about Bokeh quality or not. I do.

 

[Jonas Palm]

I don't give a damn if anyone else care about Bokeh quality or not. I do.

Good for you. But...er...why?

 

[jalywol]

Why advertise your lack of sophistication on a forum?

Glad that Coke bottle lenses are all you need.....the $ savings will be HUGE for you!

-J

 

[CharlesB58]

Well, I don't give a damn that you don't give a damn...and I don't give a damn if you don't give a damn that I don't give a damn. Nor do I give a damn if you don't give a damn that I don't give a damn if you don't give a damn that I don't give a damn that you don't give damn. ;-)

 

[Androole]

Why advertise your lack of sophistication on a forum?

Glad that Coke bottle lenses are all you need.....the $ savings will be HUGE for you!

He didn't say that he didn't care about resolving power, or chromatic aberrations, or corrections for coma, or astigmatism, or distortion.

He didn't even say that he didn't care about the amount of background blur that he could produce.

All he said was that he never found a situation where an otherwise good shot was let down by poor bokeh characteristics.

There's a million miles between that statement and the Coke bottle lenses you've somehow jumped onto.

 

[Jonas Palm]

The most commonly used tools for imaging is iPhones. And as many/most of us know, Apple has added a portrait mode that digitally attempts to replicate short DOF. And rumours say that they will add 3-D sensing to the rear camera, which will improve results, and we are going to be flooded with images with digitally synthesized short DOF that actually looks OK, and will improve over time, probably eventually letting you dial in the DOF you want.

Which of course will lead to endless discussions about the superiority of real DOF vs. fake DOF.

I propose that if you want to successfully argue the case for dedicated camera hardware, you need to get away from the fringe concerns.

 

[ahaslett]

My nervous bokeh is feeling bad that someone doesn't care!

 

[Okapi001]

Exactly. A blur is a blur. 30, 40 years ago I read hundreds of lens reviews in various photo magazines and not once was the "quality" of the blur or out of focus parts mentioned or discussed. A complete non-issue for me, too.

Even mirror lens' donuts were not regarded as something bad or ugly, just as a curious side effect of the technology.

 

[tt321]

I don't give a damn if anyone else care about Bokeh quality or not. I do.

Good for you. But...er...why?

He did not ask you why you did not care.

 

[Androole]

Exactly. A blur is a blur. 30, 40 years ago I read hundreds of lens reviews in various photo magazines and not once was the "quality" of the blur or out of focus parts mentioned or discussed. A complete non-issue for me, too.

Even mirror lens' donuts were not regarded as something bad or ugly, just as a curious side effect of the technology.

To be honest, I'm going to put my foot down when it comes to mirror lens donuts. At that point, a blur not just a blur. It's a distraction that draws your eye to it, doing the exact opposite of what people are (generally) trying to do when they defocus the background.

 

[Okapi001]

I don't give a damn if anyone else care about Bokeh quality or not. I do.

Good for you. But...er...why?

He did not ask you why you did not care.

So what? Does that mean we cannot ask more questions?

 

[whumber]

Would you be cool with that? I agree that it's mostly a photographer only thing but this particular shot was the first time a non-photographer ever mentioned anything about the bokeh (or in their words 'the weird background donuts').

 

[tt321]

I don't give a damn if anyone else care about Bokeh quality or not. I do.

Good for you. But...er...why?

He did not ask you why you did not care.

So what? Does that mean we cannot ask more questions?

Of course you can, but it does seem rather unlikely to get an answer as they said they did not give a damn.

And there is an obvious contradiction in the OP right here. If they did not give a damn, why would they want to know the reason of the damned thing? Just does not add up.

 

[Cagey75]

Why advertise your lack of sophistication on a forum?

Glad that Coke bottle lenses are all you need.....the $ savings will be HUGE for you!

-J

God forbid anyone would express an opinion! Down off your high horsie there

OP is right to some degree, nobody gave a rat's about 'bokeh' 10+ years ago, now it's all some gear heads rant about. I blame crappy channels like Digital Rev.

 

[tt321]

Exactly. A blur is a blur. 30, 40 years ago I read hundreds of lens reviews in various photo magazines and not once was the "quality" of the blur or out of focus parts mentioned or discussed. A complete non-issue for me, too.

Even mirror lens' donuts were not regarded as something bad or ugly, just as a curious side effect of the technology.

That probably works on light spots. But what about branches and other things that are not spots? Donuts are one thing, churros are something else.