Brainiac; I posted some unprocessed Leica images for you in the very first reply at page 1. I think it was in the Siggy50 thread you commented on the Leica bokeh to be too soft, or too little edgy. Do the posted samples make you happier?
This is from the Zeiss N 100mm f2.8 Marko Sonnar. It reverses what you would normally or conventionally choose to have in focus and what you would have out of focus. http://boncratious.com/images/Allium2.jpg
brainiac wrote:
Zeiss 35 f1.4 at f2. Most people won't like the octagonal highlights, but it doesn't bother me at all, because the bokeh still manages to be alluring
It's not that the highlights are octagonal, it's the hard edges they have that distract my attention from the subject. Is the subject of the photo the bokeh? If so the photo is a smashing success because I can't keep my eyes off the background. If the subject of the photo is the person, the photo is not as successful because the hard edges of the octagons keep drawing my eye away from the subject. Same for the Oly 28/2 photos.
brainiac wrote:
In the case of the bluebell images, it may just be the contrast, or the fact that they are quite small. I would like to see them a bit bigger.
I'm sorry. I missed your earlier reply, I had no intent to nag you. Anyway; contrast and processing are of course changing everything. I took the blubell f/4 image and applied a fairly normal, maybe overdone, routine for web display and then it came out this way: http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fmforumsmonthly/fmforums2008/586_blubell_90Cron_f4.jpg
Blotchy noise and such is down to the small Olympus sensor, the crop is around 60-70% size. Regards,
See thats the kind of bokeh I'm not particularly keen on for general use, this neutral, corrected, super butterry Canon/Sigma bokeh. BUT: d-a-m-n does it suit these two images very well or what?
Thats why I agree with someone who mentioned previously that there's no one-size-fits-all bokeh to suit every image... Every lens is just another paintbrush.
edit: I cant see Brainiac's photos, is it just me?
Cheers,
Spyro
Edited by Spyro P. on Jul 06, 2008 at 11:00 AM GMT
Edited by Spyro P. on Jul 06, 2008 at 11:00 AM GMT
voeboe wrote:
What about these? Is this a good bokeh?
Good or not obviously depends on your taste. To me the bright rings are there and as usual they distract me. They catch my eye when looking at the image and that way they detract from the idea behind taking the image at the first place. But they are not far off and I can image a lot of image I would like a lot more taken with the lens.
The are to the left of the strawberrie is OK, the on to the right is not. The second image is not. I hope that explains my take on it - but remember anyone is entitled to their own opinion.
And - you should let us know what lens you have used here.
Daniel Buck wrote:
here's some that will be difficult on 35mm, a 145mm f2.0 petzval type lens on a 4x5 camera.
Difficult but not impossible if the motif is static and you have the time to make a mosaic and stitch it. The 145/2 has a signature for sure but personally I'm not that keen on the way it draws.
To the left one can see that this lens should be able of making the circular background pattern if the distance and background are right.
Right now I am playing with a Canon 450D, sort of the opposite.
Jonas B wrote:
Good or not obviously depends on your taste. To me the bright rings are there and as usual they distract me. They catch my eye when looking at the image and that way they detract from the idea behind taking the image at the first place. But they are not far off and I can image a lot of image I would like a lot more taken with the lens.
The are to the left of the strawberrie is OK, the on to the right is not. The second image is not. I hope that explains my take on it - but remember anyone is entitled to their own opinion.
And - you should let us know what lens you have used here. ...Show more →
