Is Bokeh over used?

EcoPics · Dec 3, 2016

Now disclaimer, each to their own in Art.

But often I see so many photos where I want to see detail in the background, but of course its got an arperture stopped down to f2.0 and I can only see a cm of focus.

Generally, I like to see a photos entire image sharp. I believe if your forefront subject is strong enough, it holds its value and that everything else compliments it, but its nice to explore to tell the whole story. Clearly this doesnt work for every photo. And typically people only do it in landscapes, which I find a shame.

Perhaps I am alone in my thoughts on this one.

But blur/bokeh/out of focus just seems to be the go to and I feel its often an addiction over an artistic choice.

Just my 2c

J A C S · Dec 3, 2016

It is deep DOF that is overused.

Glen Barrington · Dec 3, 2016

Like every other photo technique, good taste and common sense aren't always used successfully by every photographer, every time!

However there is no better way to develop your photographic eye than by catching other people snickering about your work behind your back! Let's just say, I know that.

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/

jcharding · Dec 3, 2016

Limiting DOF and using pleasing bokeh are essential techniques in some instances.

On these forums, however, these concepts are frequently no more than the platform for claiming one's gear, or one's style, are better than another person's gear or style.

Donald B · Dec 3, 2016

lazy photographers use it a lot more to hide a distracting background rather than plan their shot, then tell everyone what a great photographer they are when it was the camera

cheers don

Glen Barrington · Dec 3, 2016

[No message]

gianstam · Dec 3, 2016

It is the way for the "poor" photographer to isolate his subject from background.

He cannot do it using color, composition, light, other elements in the frame etc.

So just turns the aperture to f2 and voila! All friends are impressed by a wonderfully blurred background.

Donald B · Dec 3, 2016

Your going to laugh at this. the other night a did a school grad shoot and one of the music teachers got a student up in front of the backdrop to do a crazy guitar duo shot. well I took the shot and got heaps of motion blur in the guitars ,I thought it looked great . picked the printed images up yesterday and showed my 13 yo daughter the shot saying what a great look I captured only to be let down as she said it looked blurry :-( LOL

cheers don

Miike Dougherty · Dec 3, 2016

Donald B said:
lazy photographers use it a lot more to hide a distracting background rather than plan their shot, then tell everyone what a great photographer they are when it was the camera

cheers don

FrancoD · Dec 3, 2016

The word ?

Yes it is over used .

Diffraction is starting to take its place but I still fondly remember the good all days of PF (Purple Fringing)

That was discovered one morning (1/4/2003) and was already popular in the afternoon.

Only seven years later we got tired of it and was forgotten.

FingerPainter · Dec 3, 2016

"Bokeh" refers to the quality of out of focus area, not to its mere presence. So your question is akin to asking if flavour is overused in food.

I think what you really meant to ask is whether shallow DoF is overused.

What does "overused" mean? If it means that the percentage of photographs taken with shallow DoF is higher than it should be given the subject matter and framing of all photographs taken, then I'd have to say "no". The frequency of shallow DoF is too low, not too high. Many more photographs are taken with a deeper DoF than is optimal due the limits of either the cellphone taking the picture or the photographer pressing the shutter release, than are taken with too shallow a DoF.

If "overused" means used when it shouldn't be, then the answer is "yes". Some photographs are taken with less DoF than is optimal, due to the limits of the macro lens they were taken with or of the photographer pressing the shutter release.

If "overused" means that your preference for everything in a photo being sharp is aesthetically superior to somebody else's preference for only the subject being in focus, I'd say you are both wrong. Appropriateness of any particular amount DoF is situational.

EcoPics wrote:

EcoPics said:
Now disclaimer, each to their own in Art.

But often I see so many photos where I want to see detail in the background, but of course its got an arperture stopped down to f2.0 and I can only see a cm of focus.

If you want to see detail in the background but the photographer didn't want you to see the detail in the background, who is right?

EcoPics said:
Generally, I like to see a photos entire image sharp. I believe if your forefront subject is strong enough, it holds its value and that everything else compliments it, but its nice to explore to tell the whole story. Clearly this doesnt work for every photo. And typically people only do it in landscapes, which I find a shame.

In a large proportion of of photos, the photographer does not have sufficient control of the subject, the background and/or the shooting vantage point to make a photograph in which everything in the background compliments the subject. The photographer is then left with a few choices, which include not taking a photograph at all, using shallow DoF to isolate the subject from unwanted elements, using extensive photoshop work to hide/remove unwanted elements, or taking a photo in which background elements detract from the image.

EcoPics said:
Perhaps I am alone in my thoughts on this one.

I doubt it.

EcoPics said:
But blur/bokeh/out of focus just seems to be the go to and I feel its often an addiction over an artistic choice.

It can be. So can getting everything sharp.

David Pavlich · Dec 3, 2016

It certainly has its place and can be used to good affect. While I'm sure that some use it to hide bad choices, we can't always control the sorrounding environment.

Where I see it going off the rails is when someone sacrifices their subject's sharpness for the "holy grail" of great blur. In other words, focus is lost due to depth of field. Example; a well focused portrait on the near eye, but because the shot was take at f1.4, the ears are out of focus. Not good.

David

Brev00 · Dec 3, 2016

Sounds like you have a preference for deep dof. That doesn't mean you are addicted to deep dof any more than shallow dof shoiters are addicted to blur. One of the key benefits of shooting with a dslr is dof control. When I shot with my Kodak compact years ago, all my shots had a deep dof. Now, I have a choice. If you don't care for blur, you are free to shoot as you please. But, you may find yourself fighting against the current as even cellphone designers are finding ways to give thise tiny sensors some blur potential.

MediaArchivist · Dec 3, 2016

Since when is f/2 a wide aperture?

Glen Barrington · Dec 3, 2016

It seems to be pretty wide for digital camera manufacturers! IN the film era it was common for kit lenses to sport f/1.8 and f/1.4 aperture lenses. Today, kit lenses seem to be coming in at f/3.5 and f/4!

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/

techjedi · Dec 3, 2016

EcoPics said:
Now disclaimer, each to their own in Art.

But often I see so many photos where I want to see detail in the background, but of course its got an arperture stopped down to f2.0 and I can only see a cm of focus.

Generally, I like to see a photos entire image sharp. I believe if your forefront subject is strong enough, it holds its value and that everything else compliments it, but its nice to explore to tell the whole story. Clearly this doesnt work for every photo. And typically people only do it in landscapes, which I find a shame.

Perhaps I am alone in my thoughts on this one.

But blur/bokeh/out of focus just seems to be the go to and I feel its often an addiction over an artistic choice.

Just my 2c

What you have described here is not bokeh.

Bokeh is the quality of out of focus areas, not the presence of them. The issue you have is with shallow depth of field.

My answer to your question is that sometimes shallow DoF is over used and sometimes it is not. You can open up to f 1.4 and depending on the focal length and subject distance, still have plenty of depth of field. Additionally, a subject whose plane of focus is mostly parallel to the sensor will have less issues with shallow depth of field than a subject that is at an angle.

At the end of the day, each picture stands on its own. Some photos use shallow depth of field well and some poorly. I don't think we can make a sweeping generalization here.

I think that the sticking point with wide apertures is that it is less forgiving when focus misses or distance is wrong, so it tends to be remembered more when there is a technical or aesthetic failure.

tex · Dec 3, 2016

[No message]

MediaArchivist · Dec 3, 2016

Glen Barrington said:
It seems to be pretty wide for digital camera manufacturers! IN the film era it was common for kit lenses to sport f/1.8 and f/1.4 aperture lenses. Today, kit lenses seem to be coming in at f/3.5 and f/4!

In the "film era" kit lenses were primes.

J A C S · Dec 3, 2016

techjedi said:
What you have described here is not bokeh.

Bokeh is the quality of out of focus areas, not the presence of them.

If he says it is, then it is. You cannot legislate language.

MediaArchivist · Dec 3, 2016

techjedi said:
What you have described here is not bokeh.

Bokeh is the quality of out of focus areas, not the presence of them.

I think a lot of people are tossing around the term "bokeh" because it has acquired a buzz as hipster/artsy lingo, like "per se" or "meta".

"Dude, check out the foam on my cappuccino... the bokeh is awesome, per se!"

Then there's the "how dare you tell me how to properly use photography terms" people, who use telephoto to describe any long lens or macro to refer to anything shot closer than three feet. If words don't mean anything in particular, why bother using words at all?

Is Bokeh over used?

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Donald B

Guest

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Donald B

Guest

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts