Sparrow
Mentor
As an analogy to music surely Harmony and Dissonance would be a better choice? Silence to me would imply an absence a blank area void of graphic elements.
However I must confess I am influenced by joe's earlier observations, and conclusions.
However I must confess I am influenced by joe's earlier observations, and conclusions.
Neare
Well-known
Can someone clarify for me.
When we're talking about 'Bokeh', are we refering to the slightly OOF areas around our subject, or when the world turns to cream in a photo and all the lights turn into balls as such?
I think OOF plays a major role in photography, even when it is ever so slight. Having an entire image in focus is not good on the eyes of the viewer. There attention darts around the picture taking everything in instead of being lead to the subject.
Turning the world to cream on the other hand can produce some nice effects. It's probably overrated yes... but you have to be kind to the people who sold their car to pay for the noctilux. It is over used, many times when it was not necessary. People have started to make it the most important factor of the image, and the subject second. As I said earlier, people do what sells. Bokeh is 'in' at the moment, just like iphones.
Anyhow, lets be honest with ourselves. We're all completely bias, this is RFF! Rangefinders... Our role models are from a time when no one used fast lenses in general photography. Everything was mostly sharp. Everyone here in in love with what is called 'street photography', bokeh doesn't exist in that world.
My mother doesn't like rock music, she didn't grow up with up. I like rock music, I did grow up with it. Many of you don't like bokeh, you didn't grow up with it. Those recent to photography may like bokeh... Welcome to the future. Great photography is probably doomed forever. Digital started it, it bokeh'd every damn flower from here to anywhere.
When we're talking about 'Bokeh', are we refering to the slightly OOF areas around our subject, or when the world turns to cream in a photo and all the lights turn into balls as such?
I think OOF plays a major role in photography, even when it is ever so slight. Having an entire image in focus is not good on the eyes of the viewer. There attention darts around the picture taking everything in instead of being lead to the subject.
Turning the world to cream on the other hand can produce some nice effects. It's probably overrated yes... but you have to be kind to the people who sold their car to pay for the noctilux. It is over used, many times when it was not necessary. People have started to make it the most important factor of the image, and the subject second. As I said earlier, people do what sells. Bokeh is 'in' at the moment, just like iphones.
Anyhow, lets be honest with ourselves. We're all completely bias, this is RFF! Rangefinders... Our role models are from a time when no one used fast lenses in general photography. Everything was mostly sharp. Everyone here in in love with what is called 'street photography', bokeh doesn't exist in that world.
My mother doesn't like rock music, she didn't grow up with up. I like rock music, I did grow up with it. Many of you don't like bokeh, you didn't grow up with it. Those recent to photography may like bokeh... Welcome to the future. Great photography is probably doomed forever. Digital started it, it bokeh'd every damn flower from here to anywhere.
gliderbee
Well-known
I began photography about 40 years ago, was quite serious about it until I more or less lost interest in photography as a hobby and I just had a camera and zoomlens, like everybody else around (if memory serves me, around 1995). At that point, I wasn't reading much anymore about photography (and of course, there was much less info on the internet).
That camera and lens (Oly OM-2 and Zuiko 35-105mm) were stolen in 2003 in Italy. I then bought a Nikon D70, got more interested in photography again and became again more serious, reading etc ...
Only THEN did I first read the word "Bokeh". There was never any discussion about it before, as if nobody ever realized this could be called a characteristic of the lens ... Still, pictures made in those times were not all bad, right ?
Who came up with that notion anyway (never mind the word itself; it must have a name one or another) ? Who started to find it "important" ?
Stefan.
That camera and lens (Oly OM-2 and Zuiko 35-105mm) were stolen in 2003 in Italy. I then bought a Nikon D70, got more interested in photography again and became again more serious, reading etc ...
Only THEN did I first read the word "Bokeh". There was never any discussion about it before, as if nobody ever realized this could be called a characteristic of the lens ... Still, pictures made in those times were not all bad, right ?
Who came up with that notion anyway (never mind the word itself; it must have a name one or another) ? Who started to find it "important" ?
Stefan.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
I have never seen a beautiful or pleasing or good bokeh save a bad picture. but I have seen terrible bokeh have a bad (not devastating) impact on an otherwise good picture.
Pico
-
This topic is like a Roshak test for opinions.
Much ado
Much ado
Gumby
Mentor
Did anyone pass the test?
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Opinions are overrated...
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
yea but you ask about foreground bokeh or background bokeh?
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
Neare, I think you really hit it right on the head when you said that some RFF shooters might be somewhat biased. And while your perception is that mostly everything was sharp when you were growing up, I remember a different type of image from my youth. I still remember pouring over my father's National Geographic and not everything was in focus. And same was true for some most excellent large-format portraiture I remember seeing from the local professional Albert Tigersted.
Furthermore, I disagree that bokeh doesn't exist in street photography. Well, I can't/won't speak for anyone else, but I can say bokeh exists in "my" street photography.
Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D on D3
Last edited:
David Hegar
Established
@ bokeh lovers:
So when you're looking at the photos in galleries and museum... you were searching for good/bad bokeh? Is that what you were focusing your mind on?
So what do you think of HCB bokehs? Or Alex Webb's? Or Capa's? Or Mary Ellen Mark's? Did they have good bokehs or bad ones ?
So when you're looking at the photos in galleries and museum... you were searching for good/bad bokeh? Is that what you were focusing your mind on?
So what do you think of HCB bokehs? Or Alex Webb's? Or Capa's? Or Mary Ellen Mark's? Did they have good bokehs or bad ones ?
Sparrow
Mentor
@ bokeh lovers:
So when you're looking at the photos in galleries and museum... you were searching for good/bad bokeh? Is that what you were focusing your mind on?
So what do you think of HCB bokehs? Or Alex Webb's? Or Capa's? Or Mary Ellen Mark's? Did they have good bokehs or bad ones ?
It's the first thing I look for in Playboy ... well after the crossword
Neare
Well-known
Don't NatGeo photographers all use 1000mm's anyway?
You're absolutely right, this is something that is changing. Bokeh is in all forms of photography now. Rather, it did not use to be so. Mainly because lens designs weren't capable for the most part, at least the common person could not afford one.
The canon 7 with the f0.95 cost $1000USD in 1961. So ummm.. a lot. But either way, at the time, the standard people were using was 2.8 lenses on 35mm. 'Bokeh' as a fad didn't exist, it was only OOF areas.
I don't hate bokeh at all. I think if used correctly I can do wonders for an image. Used incorrectly and well... whatever.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hiromi-photograph/3852794523/
Damn I love that nokton.
tlitody
Well-known
Since I posted the poll here's my take on it.
I think selective focus is a powerful tool in the photographers pallette of options. Bokeh is from the japanese and I don't beleive their is a direct translation which is why I suspect there is so much discusion about it. No one really knows what it means but everyone has an opinion.
I've been following the bokeh thread and personally the summilux images with strong bokeh really turn me off compared to sonnar images. Funnily enough my favourite lens is a contax 135 sonnar for slr. It gives dreamy bokeh. BUT, only when I'm looking for bokeh do I notice whether its soft or hard or swirly. When I'm looking for the main subject I'm more conscious of whether the subject is separated from the back/foreground rather than the quality of the bokeh. So is it over rated? Well I used to be indecisive but I'm not so sure anymore.
I think selective focus is a powerful tool in the photographers pallette of options. Bokeh is from the japanese and I don't beleive their is a direct translation which is why I suspect there is so much discusion about it. No one really knows what it means but everyone has an opinion.
I've been following the bokeh thread and personally the summilux images with strong bokeh really turn me off compared to sonnar images. Funnily enough my favourite lens is a contax 135 sonnar for slr. It gives dreamy bokeh. BUT, only when I'm looking for bokeh do I notice whether its soft or hard or swirly. When I'm looking for the main subject I'm more conscious of whether the subject is separated from the back/foreground rather than the quality of the bokeh. So is it over rated? Well I used to be indecisive but I'm not so sure anymore.
Finder
-
Someone must know. The Japanese optical engineer who gave me his definition seemed pretty convincing. He was discussing a lens specifically design for the quality of bokeh it would render. That is how I view the meaning.
tlitody
Well-known
Excuse me, I should have the japanese know becuase it's engrained in their culture but not in western culture.
dnk512
Well-known
Overated or underated is a function of one's perception vs the perceptions of others. Given the numbers of this poll (about even), my perception is in accord with the average. So, no it is not overated.
Not more than sharpness anyway... It is one aspect of the image (some times) and a prudent photographer may use it to their advantage. I have seen simple photographs ruined by bad bokeh as well as saved by a good lens. True, it is not substitute for content, lighting, composition, timing, etc. But, to say that it has no merit is simply not true.
Not more than sharpness anyway... It is one aspect of the image (some times) and a prudent photographer may use it to their advantage. I have seen simple photographs ruined by bad bokeh as well as saved by a good lens. True, it is not substitute for content, lighting, composition, timing, etc. But, to say that it has no merit is simply not true.
Finder
-
I am sure there are Japanese photographers that are a little fuzzy with the meaning of the term. The language of a technical term is not important, just its definition. Terms like "depth of field" and "perspective" seem to misunderstood by native English speakers, for example.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Don't NatGeo photographers all use 1000mm's anyway?
You're absolutely right, this is something that is changing. Bokeh is in all forms of photography now. Rather, it did not use to be so. Mainly because lens designs weren't capable for the most part, at least the common person could not afford one.
Now you're talking about shallow DOF, which is not what bokeh means. Bokeh is important at all apertures where something is out of focus, in either the foreground or the background. Even with a 35mm lens, that means at least to f/5.6 or f/8 in most cases. The effects of poor bokeh are very often more visible at middle apertures (f/4, say) than at wide apertures.
Bokeh has been with photography from the beginnings; not a new phenomenon. It's just that this term for it is recent, and somewhat misunderstood. The word in the photo context has no implications of attractiveness or quality, just fuzziness. We can then discuss the nature of the bokeh.
Interesting to see bokeh introduced into photo-realistic paintings.
Interesting to see bokeh introduced into photo-realistic paintings.