Is Bokeh over used?

[kodakrome]

Short answer - it is overused, sometimes.

Longer answer - it all depends on what you're talking about. Everybody knows why blurred areas are important to many photos. But a lot of people these days seem to think that shooting wide open and completely blurring out backgrounds is always such a great thing to do. I have seen that overdone, If you're going to totally obscure the background with maximum blurring, then you might as well hang a sheet behind your subject.

 

[gollywop]

As FingerPainter says, Bokeh is not blur, or the amount or quantity of blur. It is the quality of the out-of-focus areas. So it really cannot be overused. One may overuse the quantity of blur (a narrow DoF), but if it's decided that blur is wanted, it is better to have it high quality than not (better to have good Bokeh than bad).

The term is definitely misused, as witnessed most recently by a couple of threads.

Meanwhile, the DoF of a given image, if consciously established, is what the photographer wants, and is really nobody else's business.

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

 

[FrancoD]

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!

 

[Mark S Abeln]

My oldest digital cameras had a ton of purple fringing, but I recently looked at some of those photos recently, and it's all gone.

 

[EcoPics]

Short answer - it is overused, sometimes.

Longer answer - it all depends

Lovely use of BOKEH ! See I have nothing else Im interested in with these pics so its a good choice.

Yes I know Bokeh is the variance of quality, I was just throwing it around lazily like most do. My apologies, I think most understood what I meant (hope).

I agree. I dont have a tendency for any DOF. It is exactly as said here. I just find it frustrating when I see a subject in the foreground with so much to look at in the mid and background only I cant make them out, landscape photography for me IMO is a subject which the majority of time if composed well should have more than 1 element of subject and IMO should most often all be in focus. Just my opinion.

I know a lot feel DOF makes subjects more isolated, but to my eye it often doesnt, it just makes a blurry mess behind them.

For example a motorcycle against some reallt gnarly Graffiti, now I know most would say isolate the bike with DOF, but for me the Graffiti may make the bike more desirable and the photo more interesting. Now if it was a macro of a part of the bike, I would be thinking differently, but even then I would be thinking focus stacking. Again it depends.

I just get a little over it, like I do with the overuse of saturated HDR pics, everyone has the right to express how they want, Im just feeling its over used instead of thinking composition, subjects, etc first. Its too easy to use an f1.4 lens and just slam a portrait.

This is not a jab at anyone who loves using their DOF in this fashion, if you love it, rock on. Just sometimes Id love to see what that old classic car thats a smudge in the background looks like as well as the main subject.

 

[EcoPics]

People prefer the convenience/versatility of the mini zooms however you can still buy a prime 50mm F 1.8 for around $100.

Who has the time for small focal point zooms to be sharpened in LR afterward? Especially with the quality of kit lenses, eeek.

I agree. Give me a 25mm f1.7 and let my legs do the zoom any day of the week.

 

[J A C S]

As FingerPainter says, Bokeh is not blur, or the amount or quantity of blur. It is the quality of the out-of-focus areas.

You can keep repeating as much as you want but if enough people use bokeh to indicate blur, it becomes blur.

 

[nofumble]

they don't show or tell how many pictures were scrapped because of off-focus due to narrow DoF.

 

[Paul B Jones]

As FingerPainter says, Bokeh is not blur, or the amount or quantity of blur. It is the quality of the out-of-focus areas. So it really cannot be overused. One may overuse the quantity of blur (a narrow DoF), but if it's decided that blur is wanted, it is better to have it high quality than not (better to have good Bokeh than bad).

The term is definitely misused, as witnessed most recently by a couple of threads.

Meanwhile, the DoF of a given image, if consciously established, is what the photographer wants, and is really nobody else's business.

 

[Glen Barrington]

As FingerPainter says, Bokeh is not blur, or the amount or quantity of blur. It is the quality of the out-of-focus areas.

You can keep repeating as much as you want but if enough people use bokeh to indicate blur, it becomes blur.

Yeah, I've given up on trying to 'educate' people on the differences between a macro lens and a close focusing lens as well. The only good out of these situations is that these people will have a similar thing happen to them in 20 years! Though I'll likely be too dead to notice and get much enjoyment out of their discomfort!

 

[Brev00]

As FingerPainter says, Bokeh is not blur, or the amount or quantity of blur. It is the quality of the out-of-focus areas.

You can keep repeating as much as you want but if enough people use bokeh to indicate blur, it becomes blur.

Well, no. It remains the quality of out of focus areas. What you are saying is that the lowest common denominator determines truth and education is pointless. If so, I will still prefer the facts over popular agreement. Popularity is not much of a barometer for truth or quality. Blur really is a fine word and is not used enough in these sorts of threads.

 

[tko]

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

And when the shot doesn't wait for your brilliance? When the city or mountain doesn't move? When the spectators refuse to leave?

Oh bow to those who have the ability and brilliance to set up every scene perfectly, for thy galleries must be impressive indeed.

 

[David Pavlich]

As FingerPainter says, Bokeh is not blur, or the amount or quantity of blur. It is the quality of the out-of-focus areas.

You can keep repeating as much as you want but if enough people use bokeh to indicate blur, it becomes blur.

Well, no. It remains the quality of out of focus areas. What you are saying is that the lowest common denominator determines truth and education is pointless. If so, I will still prefer the facts over popular agreement. Popularity is not much of a barometer for truth or quality. Blur really is a fine word and is not used enough in these sorts of threads.

 

[J A C S]

As FingerPainter says, Bokeh is not blur, or the amount or quantity of blur. It is the quality of the out-of-focus areas.

You can keep repeating as much as you want but if enough people use bokeh to indicate blur, it becomes blur.

Well, no. It remains the quality of out of focus areas. What you are saying is that the lowest common denominator determines truth and education is pointless.

The truth is that there is no "truth" in language. If enough people use a certain word with a certain meaning, it becomes "true" just because of the fact that is being used that way.

If so, I will still prefer the facts over popular agreement. Popularity is not much of a barometer for truth or quality. Blur really is a fine word and is not used enough in these sorts of threads.

 

[M H S]

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

 

[techjedi]

As FingerPainter says, Bokeh is not blur, or the amount or quantity of blur. It is the quality of the out-of-focus areas.

You can keep repeating as much as you want but if enough people use bokeh to indicate blur, it becomes blur.

Well, no. It remains the quality of out of focus areas. What you are saying is that the lowest common denominator determines truth and education is pointless.

The truth is that there is no "truth" in language. If enough people use a certain word with a certain meaning, it becomes "true" just because of the fact that is being used

that way.

I agree with you, but that doesn't mean you abandon any attempt to educate. I don't think the meaning of bokeh has changed. The average person doesn't even know it exists. Its a niche term.

 

[Goethe]

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 (for me).

David

There, fixed it for you. But here are some images you wont like. And whats all this f/2, f/1.4 stuff that everybody keeps keeps mentioning? I shoot wide open at f/1.2 a LOT.

OH NOSE!!!!....blurry nose.

Blurry hairs!!

Ahhhhhh!!!! Blurry EVERYTHING!!

Blurry bridge!!

Blurry Vampyre!!!

Blurry Electro!!

Blurry all the things!!

Blurry bicyclist!!



(The rest of this isnt directed directly at you Dave).



This is sort of ridiculous really, this whole concept of 'is Bokeh over used' when the question is really 'is selective focus with wide open fast lenses over used'.



No. Its not overused at all. Artists and photographers can use whatever trick in the book they want to create whatever image they want. Also, shooting in this manner, with a narrow DOF and lots of blur (and any other manner as well) is an artistic discipline. If one devotes time and study and practice to a discipline then one can become quite accomplished in that style. Look up Ralph Eugene Meatyard and his No Focus style. He used camera shake and completely out of focus shots for artistic purposes. My last two shots above are examples of my own no focus style.



Anybody who claims 'there to much of this' or 'this technique is over used' or 'this is used to hide a lack of skills' is just whining about nothing and are lacking in any type of fundamental understanding of what Art is.



You know what is overused? Forums....for stupid stuff like this.



For any young artist or beginning photographer out there reading stuff like this on forums my advice to you would be to ignore opinions that in any way limit you. Explore the medium, experiment with every possible thing, make mistakes, practice, get better...then do it all again.



If you find something that works for you...USE IT. Own it. Make it your signature style. Dont listen to others say it is over done. Even if it IS over done. Just get better at it than anyone else. Then your work will be all the more amazing because it stands head and shoulders above many, many others doing the same.

--
Straylightrun- "Are you for real?"
Goethe- "No, I'm a unicorn. Kudos for seeing thru the disguise."
While I suppose I could be considered a natural light photographer I prefer to think I am a natural shadow photographer...

Photo Lumiere

Powered by SmugMug

photolumiere.smugmug.com

 

[timo]

Yes, but it if it were not for the blurry bits, how could people justify the cost of full-frame cameras?

 

[Spotted Cow]

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.

I never understood this. Why is this necessarily not good? Do you really need the ears on focus for it to be a good portrait?

 

[Paul B Jones]

As FingerPainter says, Bokeh is not blur, or the amount or quantity of blur. It is the quality of the out-of-focus areas.

You can keep repeating as much as you want but if enough people use bokeh to indicate blur, it becomes blur.

Well, no. It remains the quality of out of focus areas. What you are saying is that the lowest common denominator determines truth and education is pointless. If so, I will still prefer the facts over popular agreement. Popularity is not much of a barometer for truth or quality. Blur really is a fine word and is not used enough in these sorts of threads.