Reading mode: Light Dark

Is THIS what you mean by Bokeh?

Go to last post
C

CMalsingh

Senior Member
Messages
1,557
Reaction score
0
Location
Bristol, UK
There's so much discussion about this.

And, also about good bokeh and not so good bokeh.

So is this an example?



Can anyone explain the conditions that lead to the most attractive bokeh?

Anyone got a view on lenses that demonstrate the best examples?

--
Colin Malsingh
-------------------
http://www.pbase.com/cmalsingh
 
CMalsingh said:
There's so much discussion about this.

And, also about good bokeh and not so good bokeh.

So is this an example?
Click to expand...
It is an example. Every photo is an example.
CMalsingh said:
Can anyone explain the conditions that lead to the most attractive
bokeh?
Click to expand...
Can anyone explain the conditions that lead to the most attractive photograph?

Some like smooth boke, some like it harsh, some say that it should match the impression that the photographer is intending to convey (I'm in the last group).
CMalsingh said:
Anyone got a view on lenses that demonstrate the best examples?
Click to expand...
If you take my previous sentence in mind you might say "it depends".
 
I know that this isn't strictly on the same subject, but I took it in the same session.

Is the "star shaped" highlight caused by another combination of light and the aperture (there's no filter in use here)? I've never been able to get this effect before:



--
Colin Malsingh
-------------------
http://www.pbase.com/cmalsingh
 
Usually, you can get the star shaped radiating lines from point sources of light by cranking the aperature down (high f #)

-Suntan
 
You may want to check this link out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
or
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

There are a few good articles on line about this
J_W_D said:
CMalsingh said:
There's so much discussion about this.

And, also about good bokeh and not so good bokeh.

So is this an example?
Click to expand...
It is an example. Every photo is an example.
Click to expand...
Actaully, Bokeh refers to the out focus portions of the picture, right? So that would mean that every photo does not include it.
J_W_D said:
J_W_D said:
Can anyone explain the conditions that lead to the most attractive
bokeh?
Click to expand...
Can anyone explain the conditions that lead to the most attractive
photograph?
Click to expand...
Although this is inevatibly subjective, I think that most photographers would agree that there are very clear conditions that lead to "attractive" bokeh. I don't know the physics of the issue, but you generally want the out of focus portions of an image to be as smooth as possible, thats "attractive" bokeh, right?

--
Peter Waldvogel
 
wupeide said:
wupeide said:
It is an example. Every photo is an example.
Click to expand...
Actaully, Bokeh refers to the out focus portions of the picture,
right? So that would mean that every photo does not include it.
Click to expand...
I'd say that almost every photo I shoot has something out of focus.
wupeide said:
wupeide said:
wupeide said:
Can anyone explain the conditions that lead to the most attractive
bokeh?
Click to expand...
Can anyone explain the conditions that lead to the most attractive
photograph?
Click to expand...
Although this is inevatibly subjective, I think that most
photographers would agree that there are very clear conditions that
lead to "attractive" bokeh.
Click to expand...
Not from what I've seen. Some say the Zeiss lenses have great boke, some say it is too harsh. Some say the 45mm Nikkor has great boke, others say no. There is much disagreement about it.
wupeide said:
I don't know the physics of the issue,
but you generally want the out of focus portions of an image to be
as smooth as possible, thats "attractive" bokeh, right?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is attractive, perhaps not. Boke vaires according to a number of things including spherical correction of the lens, aperture, presence/absense of lens coatings, number of lens elements and lens construction, the background or foreground itself.

Personally, I like the sort of fuzzy look I get from a wide open lens like the 55mm f/1.2 but it may not be pleasing to everyone.



The wierdness in the upper left is a remnant of playing around with the image in Capture NX.
 
Given below is another example - shot at f/18 -



--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta
 
I don't like harsh highlights, I prefer bokeh that is very smooth with different background areas melting into each other.

Taken with my 70-200 f2.8 VR at f4.5



Taken with my 85 f1.4 wide open

 
Seiji said:
I know this lens and it wouldn't look exactly like this out of camera.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right. Contrast is much lower out of the camera especially wide open like this. I was playing around with Capture NX on this one. Just took three quick steps.

Drop the background brightness with a color control point.

USM

A little "S" shape to the curve to deepen the petal coloring.

If you look really closely you can see the color point did a wierd thing in the upper left near the stem, but I could probably brush that out.

Here is the before and after:



I've said before the lens is not "a dog" as is so commonly quoted.
 
Too many people who can't focus the lens and get additional internal flare think the lens is soft. If you shoot and its out of focus in bright sun without a hood, it looks like a dog. Do the same thing with the 58 f1.2 and the pictures won't look any better.

I also have to wonder about the age of most of these lenses. If they haven't been maintained then a 30-40 lens may need cleaning and adjustment. Mine's so sharp, I hate to have it cleaned even with all the oily internal surfaces. It doesn't show up in the photos, I leave it alone.
--
Lens Speed Enables.
http://www.pbase.com/seijikamiya/seiji_kamiya
 
This is called neutral bokeh, where the light forms uniform discs as you can see in the background. So-called bad bokeh looks like rings, and so-called good bokeh looks like spheres.
CMalsingh said:
There's so much discussion about this.

And, also about good bokeh and not so good bokeh.

So is this an example?



Can anyone explain the conditions that lead to the most attractive
bokeh?

Anyone got a view on lenses that demonstrate the best examples?

--
Colin Malsingh
-------------------
http://www.pbase.com/cmalsingh
Click to expand...
 
Hi!

I personally like pictures with a pleasantly rendered background and a silky smooth transition of in focus to defocussed areas - what you want to call it is up to you... ;)

What influences the appeal of OOF areas is the number and shape of the aperture blades as well as the overall optical formula and the light in your frame - if all components come together, you're in for a smooth picture.

I don't like to shoot flowers, but I often do when test driving lenses:



Regards
Alex

--



carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero
 
In other words, ALL LENSES have Bokeh. What you should really be asking is "Is this Good Bokeh?".

In answer to that question, what you have posted is an example of "average to slightly poor Bokeh". While it sounds bad, it's actually a good result for a small format lens.

By the classic definition of "Good" bokeh the out of focus circles in your image should NOT have any defined border. Those blur circles should be blobs with a bright center constantly fading into nothing. Unfortunatley, the requires a lens with rather strongly undercorrected spherical aberation in a symetrical design. Which is usually only practical in a large format lens bacause printing magnifications are low enough to permeit the loss of resolution. In a small format lens (35mm or DX), this amount of undercorrection usually results in a lens that can be classified as a "Soft Focus" lens.

Now, back to your sample. You see those somewhat defined borders? that is what makes it "average" to "slightly poor". Just remember the definition of "average" and also remember there is a very good reason for a lens to be "average". That is so it can take good pictures. The good news is that your sample indicates that your lens has a fairly pleasing Bokeh. So it's a good lens. However, you can't ever call the bokeh "good" by the classic definition because the requirement for achieving that definition is so high that it cannot be achieved with a general purpose small format lens.
 
Hi!

What do you think of this shot?



Regards
Alex

--



carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top