Reading mode: Light Dark

I don’t give a damn about bokeh quality.

Go to last post
Yes, that’s the theory.

Thing is, I never once experienced that. Messy backgrounds, sure. Being distracted by ”swirly bokeh”, never. And as I said, no real physical person, photographer, exhibition visitor, you name it, ever did either.

So is it a real issue or is it an internet forum phenomenon?
 
Tim Reidy Productions said:
bokeh is an artistic effect that ususlly does not occur in the real world.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, our eyes are very imperfect instruments and no doubt everyone has their own bokeh in their heads they just don't think about it. The near infinite dof that we see in mobile phone shots or consumer video cameras is totally unnatural as is the sometimes busy bokeh of lesser lenses.
Tim Reidy Productions said:
if you do not shoot for the out of focus you wont need it.
Click to expand...
 
Nice response, and you even gave examples where! bokeh rendering can make a difference (particularly the blue lights).

Respect.

I never shot those kinds of portraits though. And if you had used the 25mm f1.2 at the same aperture, would it have looked appreciably different? Enough to make difference in how you’d appreciate the portrait of the woman? That’s the station where I step off the train.

Also, I assume that you wanted the lights there, or you wouldn't have included them? If so, was the specifics of the bokeh rendering (rather than DOF) somthing you considered when shooting?
 
Last edited:
Jonas Palm said:
Yes, that’s the theory.

Thing is, I never once experienced that. Messy backgrounds, sure.
Click to expand...
The messy background is often"bad" bokeh. If it were "good" bokeh it would n't be a distraction.


Being
Jonas Palm said:
distracted by ”swirly bokeh”, never. And as I said, no real physical person, photographer, exhibition visitor, you name it, ever did either.

So is it a real issue or is it an internet forum phenomenon?
Click to expand...
 
Jonas Palm said:
Yes, that’s the theory.

Thing is, I never once experienced that. Messy backgrounds, sure. Being distracted by ”swirly bokeh”, never. And as I said, no real physical person, photographer, exhibition visitor, you name it, ever did either.

So is it a real issue or is it an internet forum phenomenon?
Click to expand...
So, in the photo posted by whumber on this thread, you would not be distracted by the awful bokeh of OOF background?

I would.
 
Poor bokeh is the one drawback of the 40-150mm f/2.8. I have been shooting a lot of birds in flight with it recently and OOF trees at certain distances behind the target can look very nasty like yours.

I am afraid that I don't understand the opinions being expressed on this thread. For certain types of photography that I do, especially wildlife photography with "difficult" backgrounds, bokeh is very important. Poor bokeh can ruin an image and really great bokeh can certainly enhance an image. I am travelling at the moment and can't post any images, but I certainly have a plenty of examples.
 
Chris R-UK said:
Poor bokeh is the one drawback of the 40-150mm f/2.8. I have been shooting a lot of birds in flight with it recently and OOF trees at certain distances behind the target can look very nasty like yours.
Click to expand...
Chris R-UK said:
I am afraid that I don't understand the opinions being expressed on this thread. For certain types of photography that I do, especially wildlife photography with "difficult" backgrounds, bokeh is very important.
Click to expand...
Chris R-UK said:
Poor bokeh can ruin an image
Click to expand...
I think whumbers is a perfect example of that. I don't understand how that background would not detract from the image overall.
Chris R-UK said:
and really great bokeh can certainly enhance an image.
Click to expand...
Chris R-UK said:
I am travelling at the moment and can't post any images, but I certainly have a plenty of examples.

--
Chris R
Click to expand...
 
Jonas Palm said:
But after decades of shooting, I have never in any of my shots been bothered by lacking bokeh quality. Ever.
Click to expand...
If you look carefully for different blur styles, you learn that some people will prefer some and other doesn't like some. Like some loves a mirror lenses donut shapes, while other likes "cat eyes" shapes and some wants a more traditional ones and some likes "soap bubble" etc.
Jonas Palm said:
Nor have I, talking with people at exhibitions, photographers, you name it, heard anyone voicing concern about the quality of the bokeh. Ever.
Click to expand...
Some do say they like specific ones, but it ain't such concern that some could think about people talking so vocally about "bokeh" (usually about not understanding what the "bokeh" means). But the main thing is simply how to get the interesting background and foreground colors and shapes, and you can't do that by blurring them out, nor sometimes change the blur style to make them better.
Jonas Palm said:
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.
Click to expand...
It becomes easily nitpicking thing of minimal differences. It is like the DOF thing, some just want to get blurry background and foreground regardless that most important part, the subject, is out of focus.
 
Jonas Palm said:
Nice response, and you even gave examples where! bokeh rendering can make a difference (particularly the blue lights).

Respect.

I never shot those kinds of portraits though. And if you had used the 25mm f1.2 at the same aperture, would it have looked appreciably different? Enough to make difference in how you’d appreciate the portrait of the woman? That’s the station where I step off the train.
Click to expand...
I've changed my mind and decided your OP wasn't just the kind of irritating flame bait we see so often at the moment.

Unless you are shooting something fairly flat then most of your image is outside the zone of critical focus. If you only view small images with very gradual focus transitions you may not notice or care. Equally you can deliberately choose to have a harsh transition to a very blurred background. You can even shoot against darkness or a neutral background, as portraits often are.

I've spent some time watching discussions between people who see bokeh as part of their composition technique. I'm a fan of environmental shooting, where you can see the background but it's not in critical focus. I've also admired compositions where donut bokeh was intentionally used to make specular highlights and point light sources part of the composition. ProfHankD has some nice examples with shaped apertures.

I see focus transition as part of composition:

78e986a9b05f4046b91f1af31501d3cb.jpg

feebfe946f2a46fa920e9a853627f22e.jpg



26691a56c21048ff9da80c592dec36b7.jpg



7c4e97e235e34102bda7191bd4b26196.jpg



7943fdae3de54a22a5c7dd66b5b5cec6.jpg

3be09dfeabd34be9b1596c6ec0e1806b.jpg

Sometimes the out of focus areas are recognisable and part of the narrative. Sometimes they are just hints and sometimes you hardly notice that they are out of focus at all.

I can understand why some people are interested in STF lenses and why images with artefacts like doubled branches etc look ugly.

I'm not claiming to be a good photographer, far from it. You can see above where I made poor choices.

Photographic bokeh is closely related to the landscape painting technique where different sized brush strokes are used to bring out more detail in parts of the scene. It is part of some people's composition technique. Mind you there are some people who use blur in a way that I find very unappealing but their artistic choices don't need my approval.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
 

Attachments

  • fc4335eb20834d01bd203d748d2b9205.jpg
    fc4335eb20834d01bd203d748d2b9205.jpg
    3.6 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Chris R-UK said:
Poor bokeh is the one drawback of the 40-150mm f/2.8. I have been shooting a lot of birds in flight with it recently and OOF trees at certain distances behind the target can look very nasty like yours.

I am afraid that I don't understand the opinions being expressed on this thread. For certain types of photography that I do, especially wildlife photography with "difficult" backgrounds, bokeh is very important. Poor bokeh can ruin an image and really great bokeh can certainly enhance an image. I am travelling at the moment and can't post any images, but I certainly have a plenty of examples.

--
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. I shoot long tele, both for birds and for flowers (with extension tubes). Nasty looking bokeh is a distraction from the subject, whereas good bokeh will enhance the image.

If the OP doesn't shoot any of this type subject, perhaps he is just simply has never seen the difference himself.

One of the factors in my switching back to M43 from my A7 system was, believe it or not, the really nasty bokeh in the FE mount 70-300mm. It was to be one of my most used lenses, and after working with it for a couple of days, I realized its output was not going to be suitable for what I preferred to shoot. (A reviewer, a few months later, commented on it also, so I know I wasn't the only one who noticed it...) . But it really jumped out, on that lens.

You know, when people first start shooting, they don't always see all the components of an image. It takes time and experience to recognize the less obvious lens characteristics that influence the final appearance of a photographic image. I just don't understand why someone would want to broadcast this as a point of pride instead of trying to learn why bokeh matters, and maybe improving their images as a result.

-J
 
Then you are not very fussy. You also okay with CA, lens flare, moire, field curvature and dust on sensor?

It sounds very much like you are in denial..
 
Jonas Palm said:
Bokeh concerns the properties of the out of focus rendering.

If for instance you shoot a portrait, you might want to use a short depth of field to isolate and emphasize the subject. So the bokeh concerns the areas which the photographer has deemed distracts from the subject, it is not the subject itself.
Click to expand...
Except when it is meant to emphasize or direct attention to the subject. A good photographer that has the ability to control the composition will still be worrying about the out of focus areas and how they complement the subject.

Certainly in some cases shallow DoF is just used to deal with an option uncontrolled background. In other cases though the background is both controlled and out of focus.
Jonas Palm said:
So if you find bokeh to be important it implies that you are studying the areas that the photographer had intended you not to, meaning that either

a, the photographer failed to achieve their goal, or

b, you’re weird.
Click to expand...
As stated above your conclusions are drawn from a wrong premise. If you myopically view composition as "subject" and "everything else" you'll probably not come up with very many compelling compositons.
Jonas Palm said:
It’s a bit like listening to a live recording of music and only paying attention to scrapes and coughs.
Click to expand...
No, it's more like making sure in a studio recording the mic setup is appropriate. The live recording cough is again based of the myopic premise that there is "in focus subject" and "out of focus everything else.
Jonas Palm said:
The people I’ve listened to that talk about their portrait photography discuss lighting, more lighting, posing the subject and establishing a connection, lighting, controlling the background, the merits and problems of environmental context in portraiture, and so on. Bokeh? Never once.
Click to expand...
well maybe that's because all the things you list are things you control at the time of the shot while bokeh quality is something you can only control at the time of purchase. Why discuss something you can't change?

If you are just objecting to endless instagram photos with tired razor thin DoF well you are preaching to the choir. The obsession with that is tiresome.

But don't overdo it and miss the importance of considering every part of the composition - including the out of focus parts. A "busy" vs "smooth" bokeh are obvious and give a very different photo and reaction from the viewer.
 
RED i said:
To me that just look like atmospheric disturbance from the heat coming off the asphalt.

Would people care about bokeh if they were never told about it? I never even think about it anymore, it was one of those things when you first hear about out and it starts to distract you from looking at the whole image.
Click to expand...
Definitely not atmospheric disturbance, that will also cause strange bokeh issues but not the donut shapes in the picture I showed. The donuts are just an unfortunate side effect of the optical design used by Olympus in many of their Pro lenses.
 
Jonas Palm said:
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.
Click to expand...
Since it pre-dates the Internet, it is clearly not an Internet phenomenon.

Why did you feel the need to throw in a dig at people who do care about bokeh quality?

I find it interesting when people cannot simply have an opinion without denigrating others.
 
Jonas Palm said:
Thing is, I never once experienced that. Messy backgrounds, sure. Being distracted by ”swirly bokeh”, never. And as I said, no real physical person, photographer, exhibition visitor, you name it, ever did either.

So is it a real issue or is it an internet forum phenomenon?
Click to expand...
Go to the library or a used book store and dig up some old photo magazines with portrait lens reviews. They may not use the term, "bokeh," but they'll certain discuss the quality of out-of-focus details that a lens produces. It's a real aspect of lens quality. If you want to ignore it, then go ahead. But for some people, they care about it and it's not an "internet phenomenon."
 
You sure write a lot for someone who doesn't care.
 
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