Peter Walker
(K=32) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Rene
I definitely lack BO KE and, clearly, my photograohy suffers as a result. Now, if I could only find the mythical source of all BO KE, I am sure that life would be wonderful.
But I do have one question: What the hell are you talking about?
Regards Pet
|
|
|
|
Alan Gibson
(K=2734) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
I'm sure other can explain it better than I can. Roughly, it is the qualities exhibited in the out-of-focus parts of the picture, and is particularly influenced by shape of the aperture and type of the lens. If you photograph two points of light, equally out of focus, one in front and the other behind the plane of focus, they will be different. Some people have characterised the effects under the name 'bokeh'. I have seen a good paper on the web, but I didn't note the URL.
Moderator's note: I won't allow equipment wars.
For my money, the effects of bokeh (from the lens) is swamped by the photographer choosing particular apertures and degrees of out-of- focus, lighting and nature of the background. I'm not convinced that bokeh exists as a noticeable effect, except in specially-constructued situations.
However, discussions of bokeh have made me more aware of what is happening in the out-of-focus parts of my photographs.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Bokeh is only a problem or a concern if you want it to be. Basically, the Japanese feel that an out of focus highlight area should be reproduced in a Gaussian manner. That is, with the brightness increasing from the edges to the center. Highlights, that are reproduced like doughnuts - a bright circle with a dark center are bad bokeh. It is a purely subjective, aesthetic judgement -- and now that you know -- what does that mean to your photographs?
|
|
|
|
Triblett Lunger-Thurd
(K=226) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
I've heard rumors that the bokeh pursuit in Japan have devalued zeiss lenses. Anyone?
|
|
|
|
Ed Buffaloe
(K=235) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
There has been an on-going discussion of bokeh in Creative Camera magazine over the past year or so--some people think its baloney and others think it's the essence of modern aesthetics. I did see a whole series of out-of-focus photographs in a New York gallery last year and I was impressed. They were pleasing to look at and refreshingly different. I have spent so much of my life as a photographer trying to achieve infinite depth of field that it is difficult to think in terms of the aesthetics of blurriness. I'm trying though.
|
|
|
|
Geoffrey S. Kane
(K=173) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
I've always tried to remove distracting elements from my photographs. I feel that if an out of focus spot is two small to distract from my subject, how good/bad/cross-eyed/etc. it's bokeh is doesn't matter (sorry but I don't take pictures so you can examine my 8x10 under a loupe and grade me on bokeh).
I suppose that if there is no way to remove it (compositionally) than good bokeh is better than bad, but I'd rather take a shot with my 50 1.8 at f1.8 1/60 (with bad bokeh), than stop down to f4 and shoot at 1/15 and have better bokeh but suffer from motion blur or camera shake.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Actually the Japanese rather like the bokeh from German lenses. Amen. Brother Creech
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Sure, all lenses portray bokeh differently; it's a fact of life. Some people like to notice it, others do not. I particularly love the bokey of some lenses, and in fact I am currently looking at this picture of my girlfriend sitting across the table from me at a mall. The shot was taken with a 50mm at f/1. With such a shallow depth of field, it has much to offer in the way of "out of focus areas." These out of focus areas display different characteristics, depending on the scene, mood, lens character, lighting, subject, and photographer (exposure, focus, etc.). Personally, I believe the concept of "bokeh" is an interesting and pertinent study. For other examples of photos taken at f/1, see my 50/1 page.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Swauger
(K=60) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Interesting thread, I've been wondering about "bokeh" for some time since hearing it refered to. My understanding of it is limited to the fact that it has to do with the out of focus areas of the image, but what visual characteristics correlate with "good bokeh" or "bad bokeh" have never been made clear (argh, bad choice of words for dealing with out of focus images). From what I've gathered, the determination of good or bad bokeh is entirely subjective based upon what the viewer/photographers personal aesthetic is, yes? No? I know resolution and other optical effects can be easily characterized but I've not seen a definition of bokeh of a quantitative nature. I've looked at some of my images, and the out of focus areas on my Yashicamat look different than my 35mm Minolta, but as to which is better is a wash to me. Of course, my Diana has nothing _but_ bokeh.
|
|
|
|
Kenny Chiu
(K=164) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Bokeh is a valid concern but no big deal. Often I shoot a lens wide open and to see how I like the 'look and feel' of the out of focus area (usually background). If I like it I will shoot it wide open. If not just stop down the aperture a little bit. By doing it, the bokeh will be improved. The Bokeh of the Leica 50/1 looks fine for me. It is a wonderful lens. Thanks Tony.
|
|
|
|
Mike Dixon
(K=1387) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Looking at the character of out-focus-areas in photos taken with different lenses, I can see differences in the "bokeh" of different lenses. Some I like better than others in this regard.
Is bokeh a valid element to consider when evaluating a lens? Yes. So are resolution, contrast, weight, size, cost, build quality, and how good it feels to operate the lens. Am I going to sell all my lenses that have less-than-"perfect" bokeh so I can buy lenses that are better in that respect? No.
Bokeh's role in forming a great picture is similar--it's one of many elements that make up the photo, generally not the most important one.
|
|
|
|
Gary Watson
(K=1665) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Missing the forest for the trees seems symptomatic of the OCD-like ranting about Bokeh--not to say you're afflicted, Rene. It's just a rather insignificant(inconsequential?) element in most photos that draw and hold my attention.Not worth the pondering, methinks.
|
|
|
|
Alan Gibson
(K=2734) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
Steve's comment about Gauss and the doughnuts reminds me of the paper I saw (I wish I could remember where it was). And if that is the definition, then I suppose it can be quantified, and graphed against aperture, and who knows what. I liked Tony's portraits, they certainly illustrate DOF, but the scans don't seem to show the bokeh. Or perhaps they do, and I'm blind to it.
I seem to recall that the Japanese liked Leica lenses for the bokeh. I don't recall Zeiss, Schneider etc being mentioned. The main difference I see between new Schneiders, old Nikkors and even older Leitzes is to do with flare and contrast.
Can anyone provide a pointer to real-world photos that actually show good versus bad bokeh? I suspect it wouldn't work on the web.
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
You're right I think, it wouldn't work that well unless the scans are super duper quality (too large to download in a reasonable time) or unless you got a magnified portion of a shot which shows weak point light sources (weak meaning no flare) which clearly show circles of confusion. I saw a good page on bokeh once but don't recall the url.
|
|
|
|
Richard Newman
(K=850) - Comment Date 1/26/1999
|
The discussion of BOKE(H) sounds very much like old wine in new wineskins. Some one has rediscovered depth of focus and depth of field, and the differential effects of blur and diffraction. Gee, I thought I learned that a century ago. Anyway, this rediscovery seems to have generated a big circle of confusion, and blurred the real issues of photographic aesthetics. But then, I always had a soft spot for Eli Siegel and Aesthetic Realism. My suggestion is - don't go broke worrying about BOKE(H). Richard Newman
|
|
|
|
ray tai
(K=310) - Comment Date 1/27/1999
|
The last roll I shot was all Bokeh - none of it was in focus.
Seriously, I believe in the Bokeh. I shoot at max aperture for PJ work to isolate the subject from its surroundings. Without naming brands, some lenses have more pleasing out of focus area - or Bokeh, then others.
|
|
|
|
Daryl Hiebert
(K=81) - Comment Date 1/27/1999
|
I remembered seeing some things about bokeh on the web so I did a quick search and dug up some things for everybody out there.... A Technical view of Bokeh, written by Howard Merklinger. Yuo can find more of his writings on the web here "Bokeh", by Peter Zimmerman. The front page for this site is here
Having said that much, and read a little bit about it, I still can't say that my skills are refined enough to consider bokeh when I am preparing a shot. I won't deliberately change lenses for more pleasing bokeh, but I will make deliberate changes to adjust DOF.
In response to one of the questions about bokeh being a valid concern, I think it is, especially when comparing reflex lenses vs. straight glass. However, most i think issues are related to absolute DOF, rather than the quality of the out of focus areas.
|
|
|
|
Kenny Chiu
(K=164) - Comment Date 1/27/1999
|
The keyword about good bokeh is imagination which is used widely in water color paintings or the paintings in the Impression period. In Chinese painting often the painters creates white areas which also serves the purpose of imagination.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 1/27/1999
|
My earlier comment wasn't meant to offend, but rather to sum up the entire concept...it wasn't meant as a follow up to the earlier post...but as a stand alone (can you think of a word that stands alone better?) condemnation of the whole "new" idea..if you want bokeh...buy a cheap 500mm mirror lens, load the camera with 1600 ISO B&W and take pictures of point light sources....or just stop by Dunkin' Donuts. To sum up..."much ado about nothing"
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 1/27/1999
|
I really do not see why people who see Bokeh as a useless or old-wine in-new-skins concept, are responding to this question at all. It costs me a lot of time scanning all these reactions, which do not enhance my photographic or artistic judgement, which this web-site is all about. Personally, I think Tony Rowlett's contribution is valuable, his picture of Mimy demonstrates clearly that Bokeh is an important aspect of fine photographic images.
|
|
|
|
Alan Gibson
(K=2734) - Comment Date 1/28/1999
|
Moderator's note: regular readers will notice that eleven posts have vanished from here, and I have removed a paragraph from a post of my own.
If you are offended by anything that is left, or my actions, mail me.
Among the deletions, there were actually one or two useful points about bokeh. If the repondents want to re-make those points (without slagging each other off), that is fine.
|
|
|
|
Richard Newman
(K=850) - Comment Date 1/28/1999
|
Since I am the one who used "old wine in new wineskins", I guess that Lot Woudas question is for me. The answer can be summarized by paraphrasing philosopher George Santayana, who said "Those who fail to learn from history will be condemned to repeat it." It is hard to know what direction you are going in if you dont know where you are. It is almost impossible to determine whether your movement is progress or going in circles. Any new concept in art, science, or anywhere else needs to be evaluated in terms of what "value added" it provides to the subject. If, in fact Bokeh is a rediscovery of existing concepts, then it should be so identified. If it is a new concept, then this needs to be said. If it is a new take on old concepts this is also in need of identification. Once we know where we have been, and how the issue -Bokeh- fits into the larger structure of photographic aesthetics, perhaps we can determine just how much Bokeh contributes. A new take on old concepts may be very valuable, even more so than a totally new idea. On the other hand, the reinvention of old concepts - useful or discarded- may just represent lack of knowledge on the part of the discoverer. I dont know how much Bokeh will or will not add to photography, but I do know that new concepts need to be grounded in existing reality as part of their evaluation. I hope this answers your question, Lot, but if not add any other questions to the forum, and if I can, Ill try to answer.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 1/29/1999
|
At this point in the discussion, why don't we just quantify the concepts and then let it go?
1. Bokeh is about the out-of-focus areas of a photograph and how they will be rendered.
2. Bokeh is an effect of the lens corrections and the iris in the lens.
3. Good or bad bokeh is an aesthetic judgement since so formal metric exists for measurement of bokeh.
4. Aesthetics are personal judgements. As such, it is up to the photographer to recognize that bokeh (or an optical effect) exists and use his or her personal aesthetic to decide whether it is relavent to one's work.
5. Those interested in this effect should reference the web pages cited earlier in the thread and study examples of "good" and "bad" bokeh.
6. After studying the examples, photographers interested in the effect should form their own opinions as to its relevance and application to their work.
7. I would submit that, at this point, we need not bokeh further.
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 1/30/1999
|
Bokeh is essential for photography. Photography is, more than painting, the medium to express the emancipation from a figure out of its background. Some sculpters, like Rodin, have expressed this process in some sculptures.
Background can support or hinder figure-liberation. Bokeh, to my opinion, is about background-support for figure-development.
Some photographers, like Ansel Adams, did not pay attention to this subject; at least I can't remember any Adams picture in which there is anything functionally unsharp.
To steve's last contribution: Because you do not want to profit from the Bokeh concept you fall back in general statements like esthetics and subjective judgement. Bokeh however, is an aspect of esthetic judgement, which is worth mentioning as such.
To Richard Newman's last contribution: Your explanation of old wine in new sacks was not necessary. You seem to work with a model of linear progression in photographic history. I doubt if this is always an adequate model. In the artistic sense a daguerrotype is a 'higher' developed form of art than a landscape by Ansel Adams or a portrait by Mapplethorpe, because the last two are more close to sheer reproduction of reality than to creation of a new reality. Bokeh was brought up by a photographic magazine last year. Photographic magazines are circular in bringing up ideas and topics in photography by definition because they address to an audience which consists of thousands of new (amateur) photographers every year. This applies to an Internet web-page also.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 1/30/1999
|
Richard & Steve...good work. Mr. Wouda, I am not sure that I understood your point...if we don't agree that Bokeh is important then we are amateurs? Or is it if you think Bokeh is important that makes you an amateur? I am assuming that since ALL of us are participating in this forum (on Mr. Greenspun's excellent website) that we must all be amateurs...is that a bad thing or a good thing?
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 1/31/1999
|
My statement about the succession of topics in photographic magazines being circular was not meant as on offense to anyone. It's just pointing to a matter of fact. I do not use the word amateur as a negative qualification also. I only meant to say that it was a useful initiative of one of these magazines to introduce the Bokeh discussion.
|
|
|
|
Richard Newman
(K=850) - Comment Date 1/31/1999
|
Lot, No, I didn't mean to imply that I use a linear model for progress, or aesthetics. Hardly. If I were to use any mathematical description, I would probably call my model a non-monotonic fuzzy model (yes there is a real math area called "fuzzy"). As to the aesthetics of photography, I would tend towards the Levinian Gestalt approach, where figure and ground relationships are central. Again, let me mention Siegel's Aesthetic Realism as of interest. Finally, I would say that not only is aesthetics an emotional response, as much as a rational one, but it clearly is subject to radical changes, with one aesthetic not necessarily displacing the other. I think Steve has made good points. Now its up to the individual to determine if, when and how bokeh should be used. Art is a process and the art object (photo) is the result. We usually judge and admire the object. The process is generally secondary or not relevant. But that's another thread.......
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 2/1/1999
|
Dear Richard, 1. I agree with steve up to his sixth point. 2. If you want to determine if, when and how you want to use Bokeh, you have to know the concept first. 3. Process and result: why couldn't a photographer use the Bokeh notion deliberately while composing (process) to create succesful images (result)?
As far as I can see the Bokeh discussion has been centered for a great deal on expensive (Leica) lenses who have this often mystified property of Bokeh: a Japanese (!), untranslatable (!) concept... There are even people who think the worse performance of Summiluxes compared to Summicrons (given the fact they are more expensive) can be justified by their excellent Bokeh! I can understand the resistance to the Bokeh-concept from these mystifications. Watching the easy, sceptical and cynical purport of this thread on Bokeh I just wanted to say: don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Your non-monotonic fuzzy model seems interesting; does it allow circularity, returning vogues, etc.? (Maybe Alan will throw us out to another thread now).
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 2/2/1999
|
No. 7 was in reference to this thread - not the concept of bokeh. The use, non-use, or applicability of bokeh is for each photographer to evaluate in relationship to his/her own work.
--steve
|
|
|
|
Arturo
(K=17) - Comment Date 2/5/1999
|
I have seen much in the way of photos that are completely out of focus (or pure bokeh) lately. The work of Uta Barth comes to mind. I like it, although I'm not so sure whether the out of focus look is created in the field or in the darkroom. All of us are stuck with the quality of bokeh that our lenses give us. Some lenses are better than others, some still render bright, punchy colours in those out of focus areas; but I wonder if all this is just a matter of being proficient with the apature ring, knowing precisely the gradiations of bokeh that is optimum for a particular composition. Indeed, some compositions, pure bokeh.
Arturo
|
|
|
|
