I don’t give a damn about bokeh quality.

Jonas Palm said:

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.

Click to expand...

Interesting point regarding DOF. It used to be argued that it was good for a portrait lens to be slightly soft, but today the idea is that it is better to have a sharp lens and add softness in post.

If GIMP could do it, of course not.

Peter

As long as its out of focus and doesnt distract from the main subject im happy...although in saying that i can understand if its all blotchy and out of focus to one side or just uneven then there is obvious room to improve it.

Okay, but according to some experts doesn't the word "bokeh" refer to the quality of the background blur in a photo?

So you don't give a damn about the quality of the quality?

But Kai? ᕙ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ᕗ

In that case you misunderstand the word 'quality' in that context.

Nice

Well, I'm not sure there's no difference but I do think that many of the technical image quality debates, arguments, brand and format bashing, etc. are drastically overblown. I've been watching some instructional videos from Bob Krist, a National Geographic Photographer. He was talking about aperture and bokeh. He was talking about the quantity of blurring and changes in depth of field. He then said something to the effect that there's lots of arguments on the internet about the quality of bokeh of this lens or that lens. He went on to say just forget about it, no one could really tell. He also uses Sony 1" sensor cameras for quite a bit of his work these days because of the smaller size and portability. In another segment he said that NatGeo still only required a 6mp file. He said, that's really all that's needed for anything they do. I've also seen Bill Fortney talk about how sharp the images were that he was getting from an older 6mp Nikon body. He was using Nikon FF at the time of his comments but pulled out a fairly large printed image that had been done with a much earlier generation body. He said something like I think this is the sharpest image I've ever made. New technology is great. But the mental anguish lots of photographers go through in the quest for better images is insane. I'm pretty sure that as soon as I buy new golf clubs I'll be shooting in the 70s. Well, maybe I'll have to wait till the next technological revolution in golf clubs before I can do that.

Can someone please post or link an otherwise really good photo, but with a bad/ugly/distracting bokeh. So that we, who don't give a damn about bokeh, can perhaps change our minds.

That is really cool! Beautiful images. It is a case where the OoF part is as important as the focussed part!

Jonas, while I liked your post I'll have to admit as a painter who occasionally photographs stuff, I pay close attention in my paintings to the different degree of sharpness in the main area of interest and the supporting elements. By the way, I never learned the proper pronunciation of bokeh

See above: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60430137

Given that all smartphones can take photographs, and the iphone does not have a majority share of smartphones worldwide, then your statement is without doubt, flat wrong.

Why spend all that money on one lens that only does "bokeh" one way?

There is plenty of software on the market that can manipulate Bokeh to look however you want. And unless someone is printing unprocessed RAW files, EVERY image is post-processed, so don't fall for that ignorant excuse.

A while back someone posted an image of a friend running in the NY marathon. It had nice Bokeh and a VERY blurred background.

The only problem? It could have been taken in his driveway or backyard! There was a guy who looked like he might be running and no details in the background whatsoever.

I have nothing against people who spend their lives trying to get nice "bokeh balls" for their backgrounds. But for me, I much rather see the details of the background to better understand the scene. And too often people at LAZY and can't find a pleasing background that adds to the content, so instead they obliterate it...those lazy people I do have a problem with.

Thats a great idea. I'm sure I wouldn't know "bad " bokeh if it smacked me in the eye.

JJoyce4699 said:

See above: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60430137

Click to expand...

If you think this is a really good photo then worrying about the bokeh should be the last of your concerns.

Okapi001 said:

JJoyce4699 said:

See above: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60430137

Click to expand...

If you think this is a really good photo then worrying about the bokeh should be the last of your concerns.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about the quality of the composition? You asked for a picture with distracting background & I provided a link.

Those trees in the background pull my eyes from the cyclists... My brain is saying WTH is that?

JJoyce4699 said:

Okapi001 said:

JJoyce4699 said:

See above: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60430137

Click to expand...

If you think this is a really good photo then worrying about the bokeh should be the last of your concerns.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about the quality of the composition? You asked for a picture with distracting background & I provided a link.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about the quality of the composition? Okapi001 did. Specifically.

"Can someone please post or link an otherwise really good photo, but with a bad/ugly/distracting bokeh."

And lets be realistic, if bokeh quality has a spectrum, mirror lens donut bokeh is firmly anchoring the "ugly" side of that spectrum. It is downright difficult to come up with a refracting lens that can accomplish a similar feat.

Okapi001 said:

Can someone please post or link an otherwise really good photo, but with a bad/ugly/distracting bokeh. So that we, who don't give a damn about bokeh, can perhaps change our minds.

Click to expand...

Here's the Olympus 50-200/2.8-3.5 from Photozone's review:




I'm not sure you could call it a brilliant photo, but if you were to imagine it as a rare bird colony rather than a flock of seagulls, this might give some indication of what is possible...