Until an optical designer alights on this thread, the optical origin of bokeh will remain beyond the grasp of us mere mortals. The smooth blur that any sensible Alt surfer craves seems impossible to attain, especially on both sides of the object plane. The sole exception may be the Minolta 135 STF with its so-called apodization plate. BTW, the proper Japanese term is boke-aji (in Romaji), which means flavor of the blur. Poetic, eh?
mh2000 wrote:
a lot of lenses seem to give better bokeh when stopped down 1/2 stop... even if the lens opening is no longer perfectly round.
You seem to be confusing the circularity of out of focus (OOF) highlights with good Bokeh?...A lens can produce non-circular OOF highlights but at the same time the same lens can still produce good bokeh.
For example, the Helios 40 85mm f1.5 has less circular OOF highlights than the Carl Zeiss 85mm f1.4 Planar T*:
People that say Bokeh cannot be defined and that it is purely subjective are wrong. In fact its very easy to define what good bokeh is and what bad or harsh bokeh is.
The more smooth the blur of the OOF areas of an image and the less obvious the OOF highlights are then the better the bokeh...The more defined detail you can see in the OOF areas of an image AND the more defined the OOF highlights are then the worse or harsh the bokeh is...Or in simple terms, more blur is good, less blur is bad.
In the right hand side of this Helios sample you can clearly see more detail in the grass than in the Zeiss sample, and that shows that the Zeiss has better bokeh than the Helios:
I do think that personal preference of bokeh (busy or smooth or whatever...) is one thing, but there should be an objective definition of what good bokeh should be, or how it can be achieved by a lens' construction.
And, that definition should be known by any lens' designer.
I'm sorry but neither of those two pics shows georgeous blur in the OOF areas, in fact the second one has exceptionally harsh bokeh...Here is a pic that I feel better personifies what could be called "georgeous blur" or, in other words, excellent bokeh: http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/p32649280.html
That was taken with my SD10 and my Mamiya 645 80mm f2.8 N.
Alf Beharie wrote:
I'm sorry but neither of those two pics shows georgeous blur in the OOF areas, in fact the second one has exceptionally harsh bokeh...Here is a pic that I feel better personifies what could be called "georgeous blur" or, in other words, excellent bokeh: http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/p32649280.html
That was taken with my SD10 and my Mamiya 645 80mm f2.8 N.
Again - letīs state the obvious. Completely different backgrounds, a completely different lighting situation, ridiculously different lenses. Itīs a 15mm fisheye lens against an 80mm portrait lens. How is it even possible to compare one to the other...?
And - how does that SD10/Mamiya cat shot have "gorgeous blur"? I think the bokeh/blur style that lens gives is very flat, if anything. Absolutely no 3D effect or shapes. Just a cat face and...increasing softness.
ovredal73 wrote:
And - how does that SD10/Mamiya cat shot have "gorgeous blur"? I think the bokeh/blur style that lens gives is very flat, if anything. Absolutely no 3D effect or shapes. Just a cat face and...increasing softness.
I think I agree with you. The cat shot is not appealing in any way.
ovredal73 wrote:
Again - letīs state the obvious. Completely different backgrounds, a completely different lighting situation, ridiculously different lenses. Itīs a 15mm fisheye lens against an 80mm portrait lens. How is it even possible to compare one to the other...?
If you had bothered to read the context of my reply you would'nt have needed to reply with such a blindingly obvious statement! ...Since you seemed to have missed it here is is again:
I wrote:...A lens can produce non-circular OOF highlights but at the same time the same lens can still produce good bokeh.
Rico replied:...I agree in part. My definition of bokeh includes both OOF rendition and aperture shape. A paradoxical example is the Canon EF 15 fisheye, which has gorgeous blur (images #1 and #2) but also a pentagonal aperture (#2).
He then posted two pics which had anything but georgeous blur...In fact they had virtually no blur whatsover!
I then replied:..."I'm sorry but neither of those two pics shows georgeous blur in the OOF areas, in fact the second one has exceptionally harsh bokeh."
Then to demonstrate what georgeous blur should look like I replied with a pic that does have georgeous blur, which means exceptionally good bokeh:...Here is a pic that I feel better personifies what could be called "georgeous blur" or, in other words, excellent bokeh: http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/p32649280.html
That was taken with my SD10 and my Mamiya 645 80mm f2.8 N.
Then you replied with this idiotic statement:..."And - how does that SD10/Mamiya cat shot have "gorgeous blur"? I think the bokeh/blur style that lens gives is very flat, if anything. Absolutely no 3D effect or shapes. Just a cat face and...increasing softness."
Why is it an idiotic statement?...Simple, because only an idiot would confuse bokeh with a "3D effect or shapes"...Bokeh doesent even have a shape!...Put very simply, Bokeh means blur...The more blurry the OOF areas of an image are the better the bokeh is...The less blurry the OOF areas of an image are the poorer the bokeh is.
If a lens is able to completely blur out fine details in the OOF areas of an image as my Canon FL 55mm f1.2 can then we say the lens has good bokeh...If it is unable to do this and you get the effect you see in this Helios 40 85mm f1.5 sample I posted earlier, eg: http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/1976/heliosvzeiss1kp8.jpg
...then we say is has harsh bokeh...Harsh bokeh = poor bokeh.
The shape of the OOF highlights in an image or the 3D-ness are irrelevant when talking about bokeh.
And contrary to common belief, you dont need to have a really fast lens to get good bokeh, though it can help...I bought my Carl Zeiss Jena 180mm f2.8 "Olympic" Sonnar purely on the basis that I knew it has good bokeh. ...Show more →
Alf Beharie wrote:
If a lens is able to completely blur out fine details in the OOF areas of an image as my Canon FL 55mm f1.2 can then we say the lens has good bokeh...If it is unable to do this and you get the effect you see in this Helios 40 85mm f1.5 sample I posted earlier, eg:
...then we say is has harsh bokeh...Harsh bokeh = poor bokeh.
The shape of the OOF highlights in an image or the 3D-ness are irrelevant when talking about bokeh.
And contrary to common belief, you dont need to have a really fast lens to get good bokeh, though it can help...I bought my Carl Zeiss Jena 180mm f2.8 "Olympic" Sonnar purely on the basis that I knew it has good bokeh. ...Show more →
Again you display your inherent lack of understanding. Give up.
Are you just trolling for an argument? You keep jumping all over these bokeh threads where people have posted loads of interesting images with all kinds of bokeh examples, and use your own images as examples of "good bokeh" together with conclusions that are extremely limiting.
Please read the article Cogitech linked to, because according to your current definition, the only lens able to supply "good bokeh" (of course in addition to your own carefully selected lenses) is the Canon 200L f1.8 shot wide open, but even then only with a clearly isolated subject placed at minimum focus distance in front of a softly lit flat background a minimum of 50 meters away.
To not fully understand all the various aspects of bokeh (which I donīt myself) is perfectly fine, thatīs why these threads are interesting to many people, but you insist you do know all there is to know about bokeh, and throw some simplistic definition of what is "good" and "bad" bokeh right in the face of all the bokeh examples posted here. To me this just appears like trolling. Nobody responding to your aggressive ramblings at Dpreview anymore?
I fail to see how you managed to arrive at that opinion when I have already stated several times, and shown examples, of at least two of my lenses that have good bokeh?
quote]ovredal73 wrote:
To not fully understand all the various aspects of bokeh (which I donīt myself) is perfectly fine,
Its not when you claim that images that have good bokeh have otherwise!...Hopefully I have help you learn what good bokeh really is now.
quote]ovredal73 wrote:
thatīs why these threads are interesting to many people, but you insist you do know all there is to know about bokeh, and throw some simplistic definition of what is "good" and "bad" bokeh right in the face of all the bokeh examples posted here.
Its a simplistic definition purely because bokeh is very simple to define!
quote]ovredal73 wrote:
To me this just appears like trolling. Nobody responding to your aggressive ramblings at Dpreview anymore?
Aggresive?...My "ramblings may appear so but I am merely being defensive when someone attacks what I know to be fact with their mistaken beliefs.
quote]ovredal73 wrote:
And no, I am not an idiot.
I did'nt say you were. All I said was that your previous statement where you slight an image that obviously has excellent bokeh as somehow having otherwise was idiotic so no offense was meant
Edited by Alf Beharie on Jul 16, 2008 at 02:48 PM GMT
Alf Beharie wrote:
No, just trying to educate you and others that obviously have'nt got as clue what good bokeh actually is...When I show a pic with good bokeh and you claim it has otherwise then you will understand why I go off on one!.
I only critisise images with poor bokeh when the person that took them claims, or mistakingly believes, that the bokeh in them is good...Healthy critisism is a good thing and you should welcome it as it helps to keep our feet on the ground and helps us learn how to improve our photography skills...By slighting my comments on the reality of bokeh, you seem to be acting like an Ostrich, burying your head in the sand when someone dares to come along and state something that clashes with your incorrect view of the world. ...Show more →
Well Alf, I find it pretty high handed that you want to educate all of us, especially when you won't accept that others have a different point of view. You can define bokeh anyway you want, just don't tell me that I have to accept your definition because it is fact and reality. From my point of view what makes good bokeh can never be a matter of fact and being right or wrong for two reason. First, good bokeh adds beauty to an image. What is beautiful can never be a matter of fact. Beauty by its very nature is subjective. It is kind of silly if I think something is beautiful for you to say, no it is not you are wrong it is a fact it is ugly. To me it will still be beautiful and you can pontificate about right and wrong and facts all you like and it won't change my subjective point of view. Second, bokeh can be used to achieve different purposes for the photographer. If a photographer has a particular goal in mind, then what makes good bokeh is whether it fulfills the goal or not. So what makes good bokeh can vary with the particular goal for a particular shot. For example a very smooth blur that obliterates the background would be good bokeh, if the photographers goal is to make the subject standout from the background. In contrast, if the photographers goal is capture the subject in relation to the background then very smooth blur that obliterates the background will impede this goal and will in this instance be bad bokeh.
Simply put from my point of view photography is art, and when discussing bokeh it makes very little sense to divorce the idea of what makes good bokeh from its artistic purpose. Further because photographers differ both in their conceptions of beauty and in their artistic goals what makes good bokeh will vary depending on these conceptions of beauty and artistic goals. So please get off your high horse and quit telling us that you need to educate us because you are the one who knows what makes good bokeh and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong and doesn't know the facts.
Alf obviously equates bokeh to the amount of (soft) background blur. In that case good = much, because a lens that doesn't blur the background much, isn't very good at blurring it.
Many people use a wider definition of the term 'bokeh' than that though, which includes things like how suggestive the OOF background is of the subjects in it. Different lenses have different drawing styles, like different brushes make different paintings.
Alf, language is a flexible thing and often people attribute different meanings to one and the same word, especially if it concerns an un-scientific term like bokeh (there is no fixed physical definition of it, but everyone chooses his own).
...Since you seemed to have missed it here is is again:
