p.10 #3 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
FJR1 wrote:
I hesitate to beat a dead horse, but the Petapixel article about bokeh makes some valid points, and the authors' qualitative study, though imperfect, provides some decent insight. Understand that the survey respondents were non-photographers and the authors indicate that their study was not totally "scientific." However, their 50+ sample size, for a qualitative study, was big enough based on "saturation" theory.
The most widely used principle for determining sample size and evaluating its sufficiency in a qualitative study is that of saturation. The notion of saturation originates in grounded theory – a qualitative methodological approach explicitly concerned with empirically-derived theory development – and is inextricably linked to theoretical sampling. Theoretical sampling describes an iterative process of data collection, data analysis and theory development whereby data collection is governed by emerging theory (saturation) rather than predefined characteristics of the studied population.
In a nutshell, the two authors concluded that bokeh was not a huge issue to non-photographers based on their (the non-photographers') responses skewed heavily toward their preferences for photos of a smaller (slower) aperture. Individuals may disagree, but the article provided some valid and fairly reliable food for thought....Show more →
This is a photography forum and I have it on good authority the "horse" never dies. All opinions and data welcome.
This thread caused me to check out the Petapixel article about bokeh too. I can't comment on the validity of the approach used to collect the data, but seems like you can and you raise some interesting point(s)
OTOH, one of the user comments to the same article also caught my attention:
"...The average person doesn't care about 90% of what "photographers" do. Bokeh is only one part. They also don't care about dynamic range, color science, or any of that other garbage. All that matters is what a photo communicates. Doesn't matter if it's 6MP, 50MP, a 4k still, or 35mm film. When photographers focus on the result they want, they [get] a good photo. That's how it always is."
But I must admit, I always get a thrill all over again, each time when I hear comments about my images like " I really like that blurry background" or my M10 usually gets this kind of response, "what camera did you use to take that picture with?" Apparently some people really do notice "the look".
My point being that I think non photographers some times see things in an image that they like or that catches their attention or appears to be unusually pleasing but they don't really know what it is or how it got there...but we do
p.10 #5 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
I don’t know if sharpness is more overrated than bokeh, but maybe extreme sharpness. If I had to choose between an image with bokeh but little definition and one with a well-defined subject and little bokeh, I’d choose the well-defined subject all day.
There are usually other ways to isolate your subject before the nuclear option of blurring things out.
DaveFP wrote:
In the realm of the overrated I would say that sharpness wins over bokeh.
Never had an image fail over sharpness (assuming the image is in focus) but I have had images let down by ugly or distracting bokeh.
Of course there are two interconnected dimensions to photography:
Commercial work for the masses and fine art photography for the more discriminating.
Since I shoot for me I look at both sharpness and bokeh.
At f/8 my priority is sharpness; at/near wide open it is bokeh.
p.10 #6 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
ShootPDX wrote:
I don’t know if sharpness is more overrated than bokeh, but maybe extreme sharpness. If I had to choose between an image with bokeh but little definition and one with a well-defined subject and little bokeh, I’d choose the well-defined subject all day.
There are usually other ways to isolate your subject before the nuclear option of blurring things out.
Not sure I could actually get away in the commercial world with little definition . I need sharp , does not have to always be biting sharp but especially product stuff, its has to be sharp. I shoot many different things so im not pigeon holed into one style
Dec 08, 2020 at 11:49 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.10 #7 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
ShootPDX wrote:
Bokeh is overrated. That’s from my own experience, and that of others I know. People can waste their money on their f/1.2, but it’s very likely not providing the ROI they think it is. You’re buying a boat anchor, and for what?
I think that is a very reasonable opinion and one I most share. I just don't think the "study" you linked provides much at all in the way of evidence in support of that opinion.
p.10 #9 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
I am of the opinion that it is not so easy to say that bokeh, sharpness, rendering, ... are not important for photographic laypeople.
I tried it out and carried out a few surveys among friends and acquaintances: Just asked, the quality of the bokeh was unimportant for everyone, as was the last bit of sharpness. All generally prefer the sharpness of the whole picture instead of selective sharpness.
But when I showed them pictures taken for this purpose and asked them which portrait they prefer, the 35mm portrait at f1.2 of a person about 5 meters away with a slightly blurry background that looks three-dimensional, or the portrait with f4 or f11, then almost everyone liked the f1.2 best (f11 worst).
I tried the same thing with the Voigtlander 40mm: Most preferred the image of a building at f1.2 to that at f8, probably because of this (in my eyes) magical plasticity of the Voigtlander (have a look at Helena's pictures).
In terms of sharpness, on the other hand, the result was contrary, hardly anyone saw the difference between the A7RIII and the A7III, which I believe that I can see.
Whether it is f1.2 or f1.4 doesn't necessarily have to make a difference, but it can make a difference. In contrast, with a 35mm lens, there is a big difference between f1.2 and f2, depending on the idea behind a image.
I have found that very often laypeople like exactly the same ones of my pictures as I do, they just don't know the reason, why they prefer some pictures.
My conclusion is that if I use the large aperture well, I will get results that my customers like more (photography is just a second part time job for me). And if customers like something more what another photographer offers them, ...
Of course, the more I process my pictures (the background for a certain look), the less important the effect of the lens and the aperture becomes.
Sharpness/resolution, on the other hand, only plays a role for my stock photography.
p.10 #10 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
LBJ2 wrote:
This is a photography forum and I have it on good authority the "horse" never dies. All opinions and data welcome.
This thread caused me to check out the Petapixel article about bokeh too. I can't comment on the validity of the approach used to collect the data, but seems like you can and you raise some interesting point(s)
OTOH, one of the user comments to the same article also caught my attention:
"...The average person doesn't care about 90% of what "photographers" do. Bokeh is only one part. They also don't care about dynamic range, color science, or any of that other garbage. All that matters is what a photo communicates. Doesn't matter if it's 6MP, 50MP, a 4k still, or 35mm film. When photographers focus on the result they want, they [get] a good photo. That's how it always is."
But I must admit, I always get a thrill all over again, each time when I hear comments about my images like " I really like that blurry background" or my M10 usually gets this kind of response, "what camera did you use to take that picture with?" Apparently some people really do notice "the look".
My point being that I think non photographers some times see things in an image that they like or that catches their attention or appears to be unusually pleasing but they don't really know what it is or how it got there...but we do ...Show more →
After 45 years I NEED something to get excited about or I could close the lid now.
Seriously I think one really needs that in there head or its just another boring day. Id kill to shoot a 76 in golf and will do just about anything to do that . No different if your passionate about photography there will always be a challenge that you not only NEED or WANT. You know how many times I went into burnout, you honestly dont want that to happen or you will quit it as a hobby. Folks Ive been through this and burnout is seriously depressing. I can count 3 really bad times it happened. Keep it FUN
p.10 #11 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
ShootPDX wrote:
I don’t know if sharpness is more overrated than bokeh, but maybe extreme sharpness. If I had to choose between an image with bokeh but little definition and one with a well-defined subject and little bokeh, I’d choose the well-defined subject all day.
There are usually other ways to isolate your subject before the nuclear option of blurring things out.
Fortunately it is not necessarily one or t'other.
Aim for adequate sharpness where desired and great bokeh where it adds to the image.
In the hands of an experienced operator there are plenty of lenses that can provide both.
p.10 #12 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
I agree that fast apertures have value at full-body distance where you want to have context and also subject separation. I think that’s why 85 1.4/1.8 is such a popular portrait lens. You can shoot tight portraits or wider portraits w/ a little more enviro and still get decent bokeh.
HelBen85 wrote:
I am of the opinion that it is not so easy to say that bokeh, sharpness, rendering, ... are not important for photographic laypeople.
I tried it out and carried out a few surveys among friends and acquaintances: Just asked, the quality of the bokeh was unimportant for everyone, as was the last bit of sharpness. All generally prefer the sharpness of the whole picture instead of selective sharpness.
But when I showed them pictures taken for this purpose and asked them which portrait they prefer, the 35mm portrait at f1.2 of a person about 5 meters away with a slightly blurry background that looks three-dimensional, or the portrait with f4 or f11, then almost everyone liked the f1.2 best (f11 worst).
I tried the same thing with the Voigtlander 40mm: Most preferred the image of a building at f1.2 to that at f8, probably because of this (in my eyes) magical plasticity of the Voigtlander (have a look at Helena's pictures).
In terms of sharpness, on the other hand, the result was contrary, hardly anyone saw the difference between the A7RIII and the A7III, which I believe that I can see.
Whether it is f1.2 or f1.4 doesn't necessarily have to make a difference, but it can make a difference. In contrast, with a 35mm lens, there is a big difference between f1.2 and f2, depending on the idea behind a image.
I have found that very often laypeople like exactly the same ones of my pictures as I do, they just don't know the reason, why they prefer some pictures.
My conclusion is that if I use the large aperture well, I will get results that my customers like more (photography is just a second part time job for me). And if customers like something more what another photographer offers them, ...
Of course, the more I process my pictures (the background for a certain look), the less important the effect of the lens and the aperture becomes.
Sharpness/resolution, on the other hand, only plays a role for my stock photography....Show more →
p.10 #13 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
The Sigma can generate very three-dimensional images at f1.2, if the object is a little further away, take a look at the images from JohnDizzo15.
If the Sony can do the same with f1.4 or a smaller aperture, then I'll replace the Sigma.
Some lenses can do this even with small apertures, for example the Loxia 35mm at f2.8 can produce extremely three-dimensional images. So for me it's not about a specific aperture, but rather the look that a lens can create without processing. With some lenses (in my opinion with the Sigma at f1.2) a very open aperture is absolutetly necessary otherwise the lens would louse its look.
I think that to say in general that f1.2 is not necessary and the quality of the bokeh does not matter or is irrelevant for customers is wrong. And if you think so, then you should just buy the Sony 35mm f1.8.
Another aspect for me as a hobbyist is that I can see the difference (maybe I just believe that) and since I can afford it, I will.
A forum like this one is about nuances and if you downplay differences here, then it somehow contradicts the sense of such a forum.
p.10 #14 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
One thing of note as well. Usually when your grabbing a fast 1.4 lens you also grabbing one of that companies best optics as well. Ive seen it time and time again on tests . I think Sony's 50mm 1.4 is maybe the best AF lenses you can buy in that focal length.
p.10 #15 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
That’s exactly what I did, bought the 35 1.8, and I love it! There are times I wish I had a 1.4, but the portability of the 35 1.8 means I’m more likely to have it with me and also I am able to more enjoy holding the camera up to my eye for periods of time.
I never meant to say 1.2 was useless, but I was responding to someone who said the GM had to be 1.2 to match Sigma, implying it would otherwise be inferior. I just don’t think that’s true.
HelBen85 wrote:
The Sigma can generate very three-dimensional images at f1.2, if the object is a little further away, take a look at the images from JohnDizzo15.
If the Sony can do the same with f1.4 or a smaller aperture, then I'll replace the Sigma.
Some lenses can do this even with small apertures, for example the Loxia 35mm at f2.8 can produce extremely three-dimensional images. So for me it's not about a specific aperture, but rather the look that a lens can create without processing. With some lenses (in my opinion with the Sigma at f1.2) a very open aperture is absolutetly necessary otherwise the lens would louse its look.
I think that to say in general that f1.2 is not necessary and the quality of the bokeh does not matter or is irrelevant for customers is wrong. And if you think so, then you should just buy the Sony 35mm f1.8.
Another aspect for me as a hobbyist is that I can see the difference (maybe I just believe that) and since I can afford it, I will.
A forum like this one is about nuances and if you downplay differences here, then it somehow contradicts the sense of such a forum.
p.10 #16 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
LBJ2 wrote:
This is a photography forum and I have it on good authority the "horse" never dies. All opinions and data welcome.
This thread caused me to check out the Petapixel article about bokeh too. I can't comment on the validity of the approach used to collect the data, but seems like you can and you raise some interesting point(s)
OTOH, one of the user comments to the same article also caught my attention:
"...The average person doesn't care about 90% of what "photographers" do. Bokeh is only one part. They also don't care about dynamic range, color science, or any of that other garbage. All that matters is what a photo communicates. Doesn't matter if it's 6MP, 50MP, a 4k still, or 35mm film. When photographers focus on the result they want, they [get] a good photo. That's how it always is."
But I must admit, I always get a thrill all over again, each time when I hear comments about my images like " I really like that blurry background" or my M10 usually gets this kind of response, "what camera did you use to take that picture with?" Apparently some people really do notice "the look".
My point being that I think non photographers some times see things in an image that they like or that catches their attention or appears to be unusually pleasing but they don't really know what it is or how it got there...but we do ...Show more →
All great images invariably have two signature traits:
They are emotive and they are memorable.
As you stated, the typical viewer doesn't care how that happens; they just know when it does.
Hard for most of us to accept but both a phone and a GFX 100 can produce such images.
p.10 #17 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
GMPhotography wrote:
One thing of note as well. Usually when your grabbing a fast 1.4 lens you also grabbing one of that companies best optics as well. Ive seen it time and time again on tests . I think Sony's 50mm 1.4 is maybe the best AF lenses you can buy in that focal length.
The combination of sharpness, f1.4 and quality of the bokeh creates an image impression that can hardly be created by post-processing. If somebody would take the same picture with the Sony 50mm f1.8 at f2, then I am sure, every amateur would prefer the Sony Zeiss picture.
And of course, nobody needs an f1.2 lens... 50 years ago there were also great photos... An iphone would also be sufficient.
Of course, emotions, framing, light, ... are the most important.
But I rarely get all that together, which makes it all the more important that I can turn only mediocre pictures into very beautiful picutres using technical means, the perfect use of a certain lens at a certain aperture for exampel. A large aperture in particular helps a lot for that.
Then even on a bad day I can deliver pictures to my customers, friends or family that they like and that have something special or sell pictures well on the Internet.
p.10 #18 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
GMPhotography wrote:
One thing of note as well. Usually when your grabbing a fast 1.4 lens you also grabbing one of that companies best optics as well. Ive seen it time and time again on tests . I think Sony's 50mm 1.4 is maybe the best AF lenses you can buy in that focal length.
The FE 50 f1.4 wide open ! That's exactly where I use the FE 50 1.4 with Eye AF for moving/dancing street and events portraits.
Same with :
Batis 85 f1.8 wide open
GM 135 f1.8 wide open
The combination of sharpness, f1.4 and quality of the bokeh creates an image impression that can hardly be created by post-processing. If somebody would take the same picture with the Sony 50mm f1.8 at f2, then I am sure, every amateur would prefer the Sony Zeiss picture.
Excellent example. Bling, Bling right there on the lake!
p.10 #20 · Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399)
HelBen85 wrote:
The Sigma can generate very three-dimensional images at f1.2, if the object is a little further away, take a look at the images from JohnDizzo15.
If the Sony can do the same with f1.4 or a smaller aperture, then I'll replace the Sigma.
Some lenses can do this even with small apertures, for example the Loxia 35mm at f2.8 can produce extremely three-dimensional images. So for me it's not about a specific aperture, but rather the look that a lens can create without processing. With some lenses (in my opinion with the Sigma at f1.2) a very open aperture is absolutetly necessary otherwise the lens would louse its look.
I think that to say in general that f1.2 is not necessary and the quality of the bokeh does not matter or is irrelevant for customers is wrong. And if you think so, then you should just buy the Sony 35mm f1.8.
Another aspect for me as a hobbyist is that I can see the difference (maybe I just believe that) and since I can afford it, I will.
A forum like this one is about nuances and if you downplay differences here, then it somehow contradicts the sense of such a forum.
Agree this is where you can geek out and people understand what your geeking about. Heck I've posted some bokeh test here with a variety of lenses and you would be surprised that some 1.4 lenses actually have nicer bokeh or more preferred at 2.8. You dont know this stuff unless you test for it and see what you like or dont. This is not just about bokeh but also heavily related to that magic word mojo and 3d look. God forbid I said those curse words.
Let the war start. Just kidding
No all of this is totally related to the final image. You cant ignore one without affecting the other.
