-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Good Example of R1 Bokeh
- Thread starter Fezzer
- Start date
jrdu
Forum Pro
Bokeh describes out of focus blurred areas.
Whether a camera lens produces pleasant or unpleasant bokeh is pretty subjective, in other words, if you like it, that's fine.
On the right side of this image, some of the specular highlights have a doughnut shape. That shape is thought of as a characteristic of unpleasant bokeh. In the left centre and foreground the highlights have an even brightness. That is considered more pleasant. Therefore this example might be described as having mixed bokeh.
If you like donuts but hate car headlights, you might rate bokeh exactly opposite to the way I rated it above. If the out of focus parts of this image look cool to you, then be happy with your photo because your rating of bokeh is as good as anybody's.
--
John Dunn
My show 'Serenity': http://fototime.com/inv/6A04BAB6F082B6C
Whether a camera lens produces pleasant or unpleasant bokeh is pretty subjective, in other words, if you like it, that's fine.
On the right side of this image, some of the specular highlights have a doughnut shape. That shape is thought of as a characteristic of unpleasant bokeh. In the left centre and foreground the highlights have an even brightness. That is considered more pleasant. Therefore this example might be described as having mixed bokeh.
If you like donuts but hate car headlights, you might rate bokeh exactly opposite to the way I rated it above. If the out of focus parts of this image look cool to you, then be happy with your photo because your rating of bokeh is as good as anybody's.
--
John Dunn
My show 'Serenity': http://fototime.com/inv/6A04BAB6F082B6C
John,
Thank you for your explanation and some insight on this aspect of an image. I really didn't know that much about what is considered "pleasant" bokeh. The image itself is not one I find special. But I did wonder about the out of focus dew drops so posted it.
Thank you for your explanation and some insight on this aspect of an image. I really didn't know that much about what is considered "pleasant" bokeh. The image itself is not one I find special. But I did wonder about the out of focus dew drops so posted it.
David A Melges
Senior Member
...quick and simple too!
Its a hard thing to quantize, its like John says more about being "pleasing'
I don't think this picture is a good example, but I do like the picture itself. When I bother to really examine bokeh, I choose a photo with objects very much out of the focus field, and usually objects that appear very large....thats just my personal take.
Thanks for sharing,
dave
--
Amazing what we can do with just three crayons, red green and blue!
http://diamondmultimediagroup.com
Its a hard thing to quantize, its like John says more about being "pleasing'
I don't think this picture is a good example, but I do like the picture itself. When I bother to really examine bokeh, I choose a photo with objects very much out of the focus field, and usually objects that appear very large....thats just my personal take.
Thanks for sharing,
dave
--
Amazing what we can do with just three crayons, red green and blue!
http://diamondmultimediagroup.com
jrdu
Forum Pro
http://www.pinnipedia.org/optics/bokeh.html
--
John Dunn
My show 'Serenity': http://fototime.com/inv/6A04BAB6F082B6C
--
John Dunn
My show 'Serenity': http://fototime.com/inv/6A04BAB6F082B6C
Anil Koshy
Senior Member
I think the example you showed, was more of a demonstration of the R1's shallower DOF (depth of field) than of Bokeh. If you want to test Bokeh, take a shot at say 100 or 120mm at its max aperture and see what comes up. I think the R1's bokeh is very pleasing.
Dew Drop Soup
AAK
Forum Pro
Bokeh has nothing to do with DSLR or digicam or even P&S.
It's about depth of field. Or, more accurately, the non-depth-of-field
When you have a noticeably limited depth of field (less wide-angle, wider apertures, closer subject distance), what happens to the areas that are NOT in the DOF? They get progressively blurrier in front of and behind the DOF.
"Bokeh" is the quality of that blurriness. It can be clumpy and ugly. It can be intrusive or form a beautiful, soft background. It can project just a suggestion of branches or leaves in front of the subject, or produce very distracting slightly-blurred branches.
The primary attraction of Bokeh is to -isolate- the subject. To produce a beautiful backdrop or frame for the subject. Think about some of the best potraits - the subject perfectly in focus, the background just a soft suggestion of something in the distance.
If the background is too "present" so that it distracts from the subject, it is bad bokeh. If the characteristics of the bokeh are obviously visible (such as donuts, or points that are too sharp), it's also bad bokeh, again distracting from the subject.
Yes, your water droplets are bokeh, but, in my opinion, they are bad. They don't enhance the subject, they distract from it. In fact, I can't tell what the subject of your image is, or is supposed to be. The droplets are not sufficiently in focus to be the subject (that might have been more interesting, in fact, with the droplets in focus and the grass out of focus!), nor do they enhance and point you at the subject (the grass?).
Bokeh can be successful across a wide variety of focal ranges, producing a wide variety of bokehs with very different looks.
Here's a couple I took today with the H5 (sorry, I don't have an R1). The first picture has a "medium" bokeh - the background is "almost" recognizable. Not the best bokeh ever, but relatively pleasing and effective in isolating the leaves:
This picture has an almost completely blurred bokeh - the rest of the tree is pretty much wiped out, totally isolating the single branch and berry. There is, unfortunately, almost no color in the Bokeh (all the leaves are gone!), but it's a good example, nonetheless, of a more serious bokeh:
The R1 is a great camera with a great lens.
But I don't believe that Bokeh is the strong suit of this lens, as sometimes occurs with lenses that are extremely sharp.
Remember that Bokeh is entirely subjective, so others will surely disagree, but to my eye, points of light seem to be a problem for this lens. I noted that last Christmas when shots of Christmas lights all had these perfect radial circles on each light that I found too sharp, too distracting, so that the Bokeh becomes part of the subject rather than part of the background. Your picture is another example. Above all, Bokeh needs to be soft and relatively indistinct or it's not Bokeh any more - it's subject.
On the other hand, I've seen some beautiful bokeh from this camera on some portraits and, especially, some macros.
Here's an example of an H5 image with lots of emitted light in the background. The H5's lens is nowhere near as good as the R1s, but it manages to maintain the very soft, translucent quality of good bokeh:
Oh well, that's my take on Bokeh, which I love and try to exploit in many of my pictures. It's one of the reasons I didn't buy the camera (more so, the range was too limited for the kind of shots I do), even though I considered it an excellent offering from Sony.
I check bokeh reviews and samples before I buy any DSLR lens, as well.
Keep in mind, please, that this is just my opinion, not gospel!
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
It's about depth of field. Or, more accurately, the non-depth-of-field
When you have a noticeably limited depth of field (less wide-angle, wider apertures, closer subject distance), what happens to the areas that are NOT in the DOF? They get progressively blurrier in front of and behind the DOF.
"Bokeh" is the quality of that blurriness. It can be clumpy and ugly. It can be intrusive or form a beautiful, soft background. It can project just a suggestion of branches or leaves in front of the subject, or produce very distracting slightly-blurred branches.
The primary attraction of Bokeh is to -isolate- the subject. To produce a beautiful backdrop or frame for the subject. Think about some of the best potraits - the subject perfectly in focus, the background just a soft suggestion of something in the distance.
If the background is too "present" so that it distracts from the subject, it is bad bokeh. If the characteristics of the bokeh are obviously visible (such as donuts, or points that are too sharp), it's also bad bokeh, again distracting from the subject.
Yes, your water droplets are bokeh, but, in my opinion, they are bad. They don't enhance the subject, they distract from it. In fact, I can't tell what the subject of your image is, or is supposed to be. The droplets are not sufficiently in focus to be the subject (that might have been more interesting, in fact, with the droplets in focus and the grass out of focus!), nor do they enhance and point you at the subject (the grass?).
Bokeh can be successful across a wide variety of focal ranges, producing a wide variety of bokehs with very different looks.
Here's a couple I took today with the H5 (sorry, I don't have an R1). The first picture has a "medium" bokeh - the background is "almost" recognizable. Not the best bokeh ever, but relatively pleasing and effective in isolating the leaves:
This picture has an almost completely blurred bokeh - the rest of the tree is pretty much wiped out, totally isolating the single branch and berry. There is, unfortunately, almost no color in the Bokeh (all the leaves are gone!), but it's a good example, nonetheless, of a more serious bokeh:
The R1 is a great camera with a great lens.
But I don't believe that Bokeh is the strong suit of this lens, as sometimes occurs with lenses that are extremely sharp.
Remember that Bokeh is entirely subjective, so others will surely disagree, but to my eye, points of light seem to be a problem for this lens. I noted that last Christmas when shots of Christmas lights all had these perfect radial circles on each light that I found too sharp, too distracting, so that the Bokeh becomes part of the subject rather than part of the background. Your picture is another example. Above all, Bokeh needs to be soft and relatively indistinct or it's not Bokeh any more - it's subject.
On the other hand, I've seen some beautiful bokeh from this camera on some portraits and, especially, some macros.
Here's an example of an H5 image with lots of emitted light in the background. The H5's lens is nowhere near as good as the R1s, but it manages to maintain the very soft, translucent quality of good bokeh:
Oh well, that's my take on Bokeh, which I love and try to exploit in many of my pictures. It's one of the reasons I didn't buy the camera (more so, the range was too limited for the kind of shots I do), even though I considered it an excellent offering from Sony.
I check bokeh reviews and samples before I buy any DSLR lens, as well.
Keep in mind, please, that this is just my opinion, not gospel!
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
phmatsuo
Member
Two examples of R1´s bokeh. Just to illustrate the thread.
f/4.8
71,5mm (120 equiv.)
f/4.8
71,5mm (120 equiv.)
phmatsuo
Member
Sorry, I mean AAK.
Deleted78792
Leading Member
- Messages
- 886
- Reaction score
- 25
Excellent explanation and illustrations, and beautiful photos. Much appreciated.
Like the Original Poster, I'm also just beginning to understand bokeh.
Can you kindly give a few tips on which focus mode to use, and how to set focus when taking an exposure with shallow DOF? In normal, not macro shooting, please. I have an R1 and it isn't exactly a macro camera.
Also, is tripod a factor/consideration for shallow DOF photos?
TIA,
AP
--
TGAITM
'For my part, I travel not to go anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel's sake. The great affair is to move.' - RL Stevenson
Like the Original Poster, I'm also just beginning to understand bokeh.
Can you kindly give a few tips on which focus mode to use, and how to set focus when taking an exposure with shallow DOF? In normal, not macro shooting, please. I have an R1 and it isn't exactly a macro camera.
Also, is tripod a factor/consideration for shallow DOF photos?
TIA,
AP
--
TGAITM
'For my part, I travel not to go anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel's sake. The great affair is to move.' - RL Stevenson
AAK
Forum Pro
Be glad to help.
I wrote a chapter in The White Paper on bokeh. It doesn't strictly qualify for the R1 (the H-Series have a huge telephoto zoom and are excellent macro cameras). But the principles are discussed and illustrated in detail and the principles don't change no matter what camera you use.
The chapter is at:
http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper/part8.htm
It's a bit too complex to cover it all here.
An overview:
To get the most beautiful, smooth, buttery bokeh your camera is capable of achieving:
1) Zoom your lens out to the farthest telephoto focal length.
2) Set your aperture to the lowest f/stop (the widest aperture) available.
3) Walk toward, or away from the subject until you get the framing you want. Keep it tight. If you frame too wide, you'll increase the depth of field too much to get a good background blur.
4) Make sure there is sufficient distance between the subject and the background. If you shoot a person standing right up close to a mountain, both the person and the mountain will be in focus. But if you shoot the same person 10 feet away from you, with the mountain several hundred feet behind and focus on the person - the mountain should blur beautifully.
Same for tripod. The need for a tripod depends on shutter speed and subject motion, not on Bokeh.
Hope this helps.
The chapter in The White Paper gives much more explanation, detail and examples.
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
I wrote a chapter in The White Paper on bokeh. It doesn't strictly qualify for the R1 (the H-Series have a huge telephoto zoom and are excellent macro cameras). But the principles are discussed and illustrated in detail and the principles don't change no matter what camera you use.
The chapter is at:
http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper/part8.htm
It's a bit too complex to cover it all here.
An overview:
To get the most beautiful, smooth, buttery bokeh your camera is capable of achieving:
1) Zoom your lens out to the farthest telephoto focal length.
2) Set your aperture to the lowest f/stop (the widest aperture) available.
3) Walk toward, or away from the subject until you get the framing you want. Keep it tight. If you frame too wide, you'll increase the depth of field too much to get a good background blur.
4) Make sure there is sufficient distance between the subject and the background. If you shoot a person standing right up close to a mountain, both the person and the mountain will be in focus. But if you shoot the same person 10 feet away from you, with the mountain several hundred feet behind and focus on the person - the mountain should blur beautifully.
Focus mode doesn't matter as long as you focus on the subject, and not try to focus on the entire scene.
Same for tripod. The need for a tripod depends on shutter speed and subject motion, not on Bokeh.
Hope this helps.
The chapter in The White Paper gives much more explanation, detail and examples.
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
AAK,
Thanks for your explanation as well as others on this subject.
Regarding your comment on the photo, I only posted it to see whether it was a good example of Bokeh, NOT because I thought it was an image worthy of posting on the grounds of compositon. It is just a snap shot that I took and was then surprised at the effect in the dew drops. I thought it was bokeh, it is not.
Check some of my other image posts if you would like to see what I felt was worthy of critique. I think you'll see that I do know what the subject is in a photo is "supposed to be". If you would like to critique those, they are fair game or I would not have posted them.
And also, thanks again for your "white paper", it is a great resource.
AAK
Forum Pro
Please do not take my comments as criticism of the picture or of yourself.
1) Just to clarify - it IS bokeh, the blurred areas beyong the depth of field. It's just not "good" bokeh.
2) Not personal - There was a good point in what I was saying about "I don't know what the subject is" that has nothing to do with the esthetics of the shot or your talent as a photographer!
The point I was making is that since the "bokeh" is so bright, distinct and distracting, it's impossible to know what the subject is. That's an important point. You wanted to know what constitutes "good bokeh", and what I was trying to say (perhaps not clearly) was that, if the bokeh takes away from the subject, competes with it so that the viewer doesn't know what the subject is supposed to be, it is "bad" bokeh.
That's why I don't think this camera's strong suit is bokeh - at least when there are points of light in the foreground or background. The "disks" caused by the lens are so sharp, bright, opaque and distracting that they tend to become the subject or compete with the subject when they clearly should just be backdrop.
Nowhere in there was I referring to you or how you took this picture. I know you didn't intend it as a work of art, but as a demonstration. I was referring solely to the R1's lens' esthetic limitations (in my eye) in terms of Bokeh.
Sorry if you took that as criticism of you, instead of the lens.
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
1) Just to clarify - it IS bokeh, the blurred areas beyong the depth of field. It's just not "good" bokeh.
2) Not personal - There was a good point in what I was saying about "I don't know what the subject is" that has nothing to do with the esthetics of the shot or your talent as a photographer!
The point I was making is that since the "bokeh" is so bright, distinct and distracting, it's impossible to know what the subject is. That's an important point. You wanted to know what constitutes "good bokeh", and what I was trying to say (perhaps not clearly) was that, if the bokeh takes away from the subject, competes with it so that the viewer doesn't know what the subject is supposed to be, it is "bad" bokeh.
That's why I don't think this camera's strong suit is bokeh - at least when there are points of light in the foreground or background. The "disks" caused by the lens are so sharp, bright, opaque and distracting that they tend to become the subject or compete with the subject when they clearly should just be backdrop.
Nowhere in there was I referring to you or how you took this picture. I know you didn't intend it as a work of art, but as a demonstration. I was referring solely to the R1's lens' esthetic limitations (in my eye) in terms of Bokeh.
Sorry if you took that as criticism of you, instead of the lens.
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
Thanks AAk for your response and perhaps I was a little over sensitive.
Question,
I have a friend who is going on Sarfari in June. He is totally new to photography and wants a camera with good zoom etc. He has been studying consumer reports and I told him about DPReview. I also suggested the H2 or H5 or the Canon S3.
What would you suggest for him? Or would he be overwhelmed with something like the H2/5?
I told him he could just shoot in program mode but that as he learned, he could grow into the camera. He's retired and has lots of time on his hands. He also checked out my R1 and his eyes sparkled when I gave him a quick run down of what new cameras are capable of.
Thanks for any ideas.
Question,
I have a friend who is going on Sarfari in June. He is totally new to photography and wants a camera with good zoom etc. He has been studying consumer reports and I told him about DPReview. I also suggested the H2 or H5 or the Canon S3.
What would you suggest for him? Or would he be overwhelmed with something like the H2/5?
I told him he could just shoot in program mode but that as he learned, he could grow into the camera. He's retired and has lots of time on his hands. He also checked out my R1 and his eyes sparkled when I gave him a quick run down of what new cameras are capable of.
Thanks for any ideas.
Meshwork
Veteran Member
...in your honest opinion, do you think that the bokeh from the H1 was a little better than what can be produced from the H5? If so, I wonder why that would be the case.
Sincerely, just curious.
--
Mesh
Australia
R1, 828
5% lighting, 5% composition. 90% location. Get there.
Sincerely, just curious.
--
Mesh
Australia
R1, 828
5% lighting, 5% composition. 90% location. Get there.
AAK
Forum Pro
I do recommend the H5 heartily for someone who wants to make good pictures. If you're looking for a camera to take snapshots of your family in front of Niagara Falls, any inexpensive point-and-shoot will do the job.
But if he wants to come back from Africa with stunning pictures, and doesn't want to use a DSLR with long, long lenses, then I think the H5 is the perfect solution.
As you said, he can grow into the H5. Easily. And he's got a lot of time to practice. And if he gets the VCL-DH1758, he can shoot wildlife up to 734 mm!! The H5 has the fastest and most accurate autofocus in its class, but it's still not instantaneous, like a good DSLR with a high-end lens with its own ultrasonic motor. It is nice to shoot 5 fps when a gazelle is racing across the scene!
But for a non-professional, I highly recommend the H5 for safari.
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
But if he wants to come back from Africa with stunning pictures, and doesn't want to use a DSLR with long, long lenses, then I think the H5 is the perfect solution.
As you said, he can grow into the H5. Easily. And he's got a lot of time to practice. And if he gets the VCL-DH1758, he can shoot wildlife up to 734 mm!! The H5 has the fastest and most accurate autofocus in its class, but it's still not instantaneous, like a good DSLR with a high-end lens with its own ultrasonic motor. It is nice to shoot 5 fps when a gazelle is racing across the scene!
But for a non-professional, I highly recommend the H5 for safari.
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
AAK
Forum Pro
OK, here's my dishonest opinion!!
Mesh, why would I give and opinion that wasn't honest?
I find the bokeh to be about the same in both. However, keep in mind that there are more pixels, more detail in the H5 than the H1, which means that the bokeh may be a slight bit grainier.
But I haven't seen enough difference between the two to alter the way I shoot or process my images.
Here's another H5 picture to demonstrate. Not a great picture, but it's a very interesting Bokeh because of the contrast between the light and dark.
There is no difference in DOF between the two cameras. They produce the same DOF (and OOF areas) because they have the same focal lengths. The only difference would be the quality of the Bokeh, and I find that both cameras produce a lovely, buttery bokeh at the same settings. In some ways the H5 is better: in darker backgrounds, it produces less noise in the bokeh shadows at a given ISO, so that the Bokeh looks smoother. In bright light, I doubt it would make much difference.
Hope this helps...
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
I'm posting a sample that I thought was very good bokeh but reading some of the comments concerning circular shapes I'm no longer convinced that this is so. I'd appreciate some comments on the quality of bokeh in this shot. Shot with the H5.
AAK
Forum Pro
... isn't bokeh.
Those circles are fine. There's nothing wrong with circles unless they are obtrusive. These are quite translucent, not too sharp, they look like soft "bubbles", which is as it should be from this distance.
However, there are other problems with this picture.
1) The bird and the branch are seriously overexposed, wiping out detail.
2) Did you brighten this shot in post-processing? The reason I ask is that there was quite a bit of noise - more than I would expect at ISO 200. That often comes from adjusting the exposure in post-processing - for every stop of brightening, the image goes up at least one stop of ISO. So, a brightened ISO 200 will "raise" noise to the same level you'd normally get at ISO 400.
3)The other thing is that I suspect this is a crop (well, because of the aspect ratio, I know it's a crop. The question is: how much did you crop it? The reason I ask is that there appears to be way too little detail for a 7 mp image.
One important thing about Bokeh. To get a really creamy bokeh, you have to be closer to the bird, and the background has to be further away.
Now here's where I'm stymied: you appear to have lots of depth of field, even though you're at f/3.5 and Focal length of 67 (402 equivalent). But were you using the telephoto adapter? And how far from the bird were you? The distance from the bird seems to be the limiting factor - the subject distance is too far to get a really creamy bokeh. But what you got was not bad, truly!
In any case, I cleaned up your picture a little bit, and brought out a little more detail in the bird, removed a little noise and sharpened a touch. Not as good as working on a full-size picture, but it's not that bad. More detail on the bird would have helped.
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
Those circles are fine. There's nothing wrong with circles unless they are obtrusive. These are quite translucent, not too sharp, they look like soft "bubbles", which is as it should be from this distance.
However, there are other problems with this picture.
1) The bird and the branch are seriously overexposed, wiping out detail.
2) Did you brighten this shot in post-processing? The reason I ask is that there was quite a bit of noise - more than I would expect at ISO 200. That often comes from adjusting the exposure in post-processing - for every stop of brightening, the image goes up at least one stop of ISO. So, a brightened ISO 200 will "raise" noise to the same level you'd normally get at ISO 400.
3)The other thing is that I suspect this is a crop (well, because of the aspect ratio, I know it's a crop
. The question is: how much did you crop it? The reason I ask is that there appears to be way too little detail for a 7 mp image.One important thing about Bokeh. To get a really creamy bokeh, you have to be closer to the bird, and the background has to be further away.
Now here's where I'm stymied: you appear to have lots of depth of field, even though you're at f/3.5 and Focal length of 67 (402 equivalent). But were you using the telephoto adapter? And how far from the bird were you? The distance from the bird seems to be the limiting factor - the subject distance is too far to get a really creamy bokeh. But what you got was not bad, truly!
In any case, I cleaned up your picture a little bit, and brought out a little more detail in the bird, removed a little noise and sharpened a touch. Not as good as working on a full-size picture, but it's not that bad. More detail on the bird would have helped.
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum