Is strong bokeh over rated?

[IvankoPetro]

Many times i find myself in situations when i set bokeh with fast aperture lens to something like F/4 because F/2 blurs too much background when close focusing wonder if you found similar situations and other than showing off your gear that can blur the hell of the background do you practically use this strong bokeh in daily life photography?

Having brighter lens forces people to open it up lots of the time trying to avoid raising ISO too much, but this is another subject, i mean if lighting is good and you just want to shoot closer focus photo like 3 meters away in landscape would you blur the background to the max just because you can or you try to find compromise somewhere in the middle to separate object from background without completely smearing the rear?

I am not talking about situations when you shoot something and there's some trash cans or random people in the background i mean if you go to forest for example and backgrounds are actually nice you just want put accent on something particular.

 

[ahaslett]

Focus fall off is part of composition. See EXIFs for settings.

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[atom14]

Many times i find myself in situations when i set bokeh with fast aperture lens to something like F/4 because F/2 blurs too much background when close focusing wonder if you found similar situations and other than showing off your gear that can blur the hell of the background do you practically use this strong bokeh in daily life photography?

Having brighter lens forces people to open it up lots of the time trying to avoid raising ISO too much, but this is another subject, i mean if lighting is good and you just want to shoot closer focus photo like 3 meters away in landscape would you blur the background to the max just because you can or you try to find compromise somewhere in the middle to separate object from background without completely smearing the rear?

I am not talking about situations when you shoot something and there's some trash cans or random people in the background i mean if you go to forest for example and backgrounds are actually nice you just want put accent on something particular.

From what you say in the first paragraph, you are NOT talking about "bokeh" but of subject separation vial lens blur. Read a bit about what "bokeh" is in this link .

atom14.

 

[Dem Bell]

According to this poll, the crowd "I always shoot my lenses wide open, because I didn't buy an f/1.2 lens to shoot it at f/4" is not that numerous:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4572114

 

[Tom Axford]

It depends on who you are talking to.

Amongst photographers who mainly use their phone cameras, blur is not something that they worship.

Amongst photographers who disdain phone cameras, blur is often much more important because it is one of the few ways in which users of expensive cameras and lenses can easily distinguish themselves.

 

[yardcoyote]

The right choice is always the choice that serves the photograph. If a smeared or painterly background with no recognizable forms is what you think the image needs, then make the choices that lead to that result. If putting everything in focus down to the garbage cans in the distance gives you the image you see in your head when you look at a scene, then stop down and let the ISO take care of itself. If you want something in the middle, some kind of "broken" background where there is enough blur to define the subject but sufficient recognizable forms remain to place that subject in context, then do that.

 

[Klaus dk]

First, I don't use the word bokeh:
It's widely misunderstood and has at least three different, and mutally exclusive interpretations.

Second, it depends:
Background blur is part of the composition, so if the subject matter and the photographer's vision for the picture calls for it, a wide open aperture is the way to shoot, but in many cases I'll choose the lens for it's field of view and set the aperture to accomodate the DoF that suits the picture.

Third, yes, in some contexts, it's overrated:
It's a misconception that you need f/1.2 for subject isolation in portraits. It's the job of the photographer to select background quality, colour, distance, and lighting to make the portrait work. Blurring the background is just one of the tools in the photographer's toolbox, and IMHO it's often used as an excuse for ignoring the rest.

Fourth, no, it's a tool:
As with any other tool it should be used deliberately. There is a saying, that "when all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails". It's not over- or underrated, but misunderstood.

 

[WilyKit]

Yes, it is. Very much.

 

[ahaslett]

Yes, it is. Very much.

Shallow DoF isn't really my thing but I observe that using it well is really really hard - harder even than using an UWA lens.

Fortunately, using UWA interests me and the type of shots that benefit from very shallow DoF don't, which saves me as much pain as learning how to shoot BIF and surfers with MF lenses (go Danny!).

In my three examples above, I showed how subject distance and composition affect depth of field, if you look at the EXIFs. Now distant subject modest isolation is starting to interest me, and bokeh (as in the appearance of out of focus areas) also.


This is about as extreme subject separation as I'm prepared to use

As you can see, I'm not down the learning curve yet!

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Rodenmg]

I know I’m probably repeating what others have already said but, I think it need’s repeating.

DOF is just another tool that the photographer can use to get the look they want. A very useful tool. Lenses with big apertures have more flexibility of how this tool can be used. Bokeh is the subjective quality that the lens can give to the out of focus areas. People might feel extremely shallow dof might be overused but at the other extreme shooting everything at f11 can be terribly flat and boring.







--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

 

[GonnaSnap]

I would think the correct aperture is the one that serves your composition the best. Using max aperture might be appropriate in an outdoor headshot when you want the background to be abstract so as not to detract from the subject. Or, using the same lens in my street scenes, I use f/4 or smaller because I like the background to lend context.

It's nice when I can have one lens handle it all.

 

[IvankoPetro]

The right choice is always the choice that serves the photograph. If a smeared or painterly background with no recognizable forms is what you think the image needs, then make the choices that lead to that result. If putting everything in focus down to the garbage cans in the distance gives you the image you see in your head when you look at a scene, then stop down and let the ISO take care of itself. If you want something in the middle, some kind of "broken" background where there is enough blur to define the subject but sufficient recognizable forms remain to place that subject in context, then do that.

I got that its a tool, however i find myself personally rarely feel need to go below F/4 it feel like sweet sport for most of the shots i take up close, not too much, and not too little BG blur.

However i do found that when taking photo outdoors and background is same color as object i focus setting extreme blur helps to make BG color brighter so object contrasts more (stands out more).

Now distant subject modest isolation is starting to interest me

Further you set the focus larger the DoF and less separation of BG you get, especially with wide aperture lenses. If you use 80mm lens you get much stronger BG separation, there's DoF calculators that explain exactly the size of DoF based of focus distance of particular focal length lens.

 

[ahaslett]

The right choice is always the choice that serves the photograph. If a smeared or painterly background with no recognizable forms is what you think the image needs, then make the choices that lead to that result. If putting everything in focus down to the garbage cans in the distance gives you the image you see in your head when you look at a scene, then stop down and let the ISO take care of itself. If you want something in the middle, some kind of "broken" background where there is enough blur to define the subject but sufficient recognizable forms remain to place that subject in context, then do that.

I got that its a tool, however i find myself personally rarely feel need to go below F/4 it feel like sweet sport for most of the shots i take up close, not too much, and not too little BG blur.

However i do found that when taking photo outdoors and background is same color as object i focus setting extreme blur helps to make BG color brighter so object contrasts more (stands out more).

Now distant subject modest isolation is starting to interest me

Further you set the focus larger the DoF and less separation of BG you get, especially with wide aperture lenses. If you use 80mm lens you get much stronger BG separation, there's DoF calculators that explain exactly the size of DoF based of focus distance of particular focal length lens.

I understand, see EXIFs.

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[AWG_Pics]

Call it Bokeh or out of focus background or unfocused but suggestive background -- all are part of what makes me happy about some of my compositions:

































It can be independent of aperture.

 

[IvankoPetro]

Call it Bokeh or out of focus background or unfocused but suggestive background -- all are part of what makes me happy about some of my compositions:

Even though there's color left from BG and some vague shapes some could say this two photos looks almost as if its too empty on the sides with so much BG smeared.

It can be independent of aperture.

What do you mean?

 

[AWG_Pics]

These three photos were shot at f11 and f8. For my purposes they render fine out of focus backgrounds. Many people confuse shooting wide open, or nearly so, with 'good bokeh'.

 

[Tom Axford]

These three photos were shot at f11 and f8. For my purposes they render fine out of focus backgrounds. Many people confuse shooting wide open, or nearly so, with 'good bokeh'.

For the last two shots at 700mm and f/11, the entrance pupil is 700/11=64mm and this determines the size of the blur (for a distant background). 64mm measured against the size of those two birds is huge (more than half the length of the bird, I would guess).

It's easy to get lots of blur when you are photographing small objects with a very long focal length. However, if you were photographing an elephant with a normal lens, things would be very different.

 

[AWG_Pics]

It's easy to get lots of blur when you are photographing small objects with a very long focal length. However, if you were photographing an elephant with a normal lens, things would be very different.

Very true. Also applies to whales!

 

[GonnaSnap]

… However, if you were photographing an elephant with a normal lens, things would be very different.

Yes, and potentially dangerous! lol