Steve Spencer wrote: ShootPDX wrote:
Relax. There was a study conducted and the conclusion was that people preferred more detail. Sure, not everyone does, but the majority of respondents preferred the images with less bokeh. I’ll see if I can find it.
And that’s on top of the several people I’ve personally heard complain about blurry backgrounds, and the many forums posts I’ve read about clients refusing photographs because of the bokeh. It’s all relative of course, I just believe some people are putting too much emphasis on importance of bokeh, and some lens companies are cashing in on it.
GMPhotography wrote:
Who said clients don't care about bokeh. Pros are not saying that trust me. I'm a Pro of over 4 decades they care a ton what's delivered. Please stop listening to people that don't have a freaking clue about what clients want. They are not in our shoes they are not out there pounding doors to make a living. I get so irate by these armchair quarterbacks that never shot a Pro job in there life.
A major problem with this "study" is you can't take 52 people as say that the results from those 52 when you just take whoever fills out your survey describe what the average person thinks. You need more people and you have to select the people to fill out your survey with a lot more care if you want to talk about people in general. It is great he added disclaimers, but the first major disclaimer should have been that doing it the way he did means that he can't say anything about the average person or people in general. He really can only talk about the 52 people he had fill out the survey.
I could say a lot more about how the "study" doesn't test ideas about bokeh and whether people like more or less blur, but suffice it to say the "study" doesn't really say anything about what people in general (or even the 52 people he surveyed) think about bokeh.
Well, there are enough people who give workshops and enough who shoot clients and communicate a lot with clients at a shoot or wedding guests to learn what people think and want (we have many thousand of those experiences made literally).
Our experience is Bokeh is overrated. That doesn't mean they don't like blurry background. But clients don't care as much as people on enthusiast forums do regarding the details: whether you use f1.2 or f1.4 doesn't interest any of them (they would not see a difference), whether the bokeh is a tiny bit smoother or harsher, etc.
They want to see emotion in the images. They want them to look pleasing, to think they were photographed favorably. Whether one used f2 or f1.2 is absolutely irrelevant to them. Everybody who says otherwise should give me some proof not based on cherry picking.
Our most used aperture is f2, for example. I like f1.4/f1.2 for certain situations to bring iso down. But the difference even in the Sigma f1.2 vs. f1.4 is too small to make this a deceisive lens decision in real life. It is more for armchair photographers (;-), my opinion).
Steve Spencer wrote: ShootPDX wrote:
Relax. There was a study conducted and the conclusion was that people preferred more detail. Sure, not everyone does, but the majority of respondents preferred the images with less bokeh. I’ll see if I can find it.
And that’s on top of the several people I’ve personally heard complain about blurry backgrounds, and the many forums posts I’ve read about clients refusing photographs because of the bokeh. It’s all relative of course, I just believe some people are putting too much emphasis on importance of bokeh, and some lens companies are cashing in on it.
GMPhotography wrote:
Who said clients don't care about bokeh. Pros are not saying that trust me. I'm a Pro of over 4 decades they care a ton what's delivered. Please stop listening to people that don't have a freaking clue about what clients want. They are not in our shoes they are not out there pounding doors to make a living. I get so irate by these armchair quarterbacks that never shot a Pro job in there life.
A major problem with this "study" is you can't take 52 people as say that the results from those 52 when you just take whoever fills out your survey describe what the average person thinks. You need more people and you have to select the people to fill out your survey with a lot more care if you want to talk about people in general. It is great he added disclaimers, but the first major disclaimer should have been that doing it the way he did means that he can't say anything about the average person or people in general. He really can only talk about the 52 people he had fill out the survey.
I could say a lot more about how the "study" doesn't test ideas about bokeh and whether people like more or less blur, but suffice it to say the "study" doesn't really say anything about what people in general (or even the 52 people he surveyed) think about bokeh.
Well, there are enough people who give workshops and enough who shoot clients and communicate a lot with clients at a shoot or wedding guests to learn what people think and want (we have many thousand of those experiences made literally).
Our experience is Bokeh is overrated. That doesn't mean they don't like blurry background. But clients don't care as much as people on enthusiast forums do regarding the details: whether you use f1.2 or f1.4 doesn't interest any of them (they would not see a difference), whether the bokeh is a tiny bit smoother or harsher, etc.
They want to see emotion in the images. They want them to look pleasing, to think they were photographed favorably. Whether one used f2 or f1.2 is absolutely irrelevant to them. Everybody who says otherwise should give me some proof not based on cherry picking.
Our most used aperture is f2, for example. I like f1.4/f1.2 for certain situations to bring iso down. But the difference even in the Sigma f1.2 vs. f1.4 is too small to make this a deceisice lens decision in real life. It is more for armchair photographers (;-), my opinion).
Steve Spencer wrote: ShootPDX wrote:
Relax. There was a study conducted and the conclusion was that people preferred more detail. Sure, not everyone does, but the majority of respondents preferred the images with less bokeh. I’ll see if I can find it.
And that’s on top of the several people I’ve personally heard complain about blurry backgrounds, and the many forums posts I’ve read about clients refusing photographs because of the bokeh. It’s all relative of course, I just believe some people are putting too much emphasis on importance of bokeh, and some lens companies are cashing in on it.
GMPhotography wrote:
Who said clients don't care about bokeh. Pros are not saying that trust me. I'm a Pro of over 4 decades they care a ton what's delivered. Please stop listening to people that don't have a freaking clue about what clients want. They are not in our shoes they are not out there pounding doors to make a living. I get so irate by these armchair quarterbacks that never shot a Pro job in there life.
A major problem with this "study" is you can't take 52 people as say that the results from those 52 when you just take whoever fills out your survey describe what the average person thinks. You need more people and you have to select the people to fill out your survey with a lot more care if you want to talk about people in general. It is great he added disclaimers, but the first major disclaimer should have been that doing it the way he did means that he can't say anything about the average person or people in general. He really can only talk about the 52 people he had fill out the survey.
I could say a lot more about how the "study" doesn't test ideas about bokeh and whether people like more or less blur, but suffice it to say the "study" doesn't really say anything about what people in general (or even the 52 people he surveyed) think about bokeh.
Well, there are enough people who give workshops and enough who shoot clients and communicate a lot with clients at a shoot or wedding guests to learn what people think and want (we have many thousand of those experiences made literally).
Our experience is Bokeh is overrated. That doesn't mean they don't like blurry background. But clients don't care as much as people on enthusiast forums do regarding the details: whether you use f1.2 or f1.4 doesn't interest any of them (they would not see a difference), whether the bokeh is a tiny bit smoother or harsher, etc.
They want to see emotion in the images. They want them to look pleasing, to think they were photographed favorably. Whether one used f2 or f1.2 is absolutely irrelevant to them. Everybody who says otherwise should give me some proof not based on cherry picking.
Our most used aperture is f2, for example. I like f1.4/f1.2 for certain situations to bring iso down. But the difference even in the Sigma f1.2 vs. f1.4 is too small to make this a deceisice lens decision in real life. It is more for armchair photographers.
Steve Spencer wrote: ShootPDX wrote:
Relax. There was a study conducted and the conclusion was that people preferred more detail. Sure, not everyone does, but the majority of respondents preferred the images with less bokeh. I’ll see if I can find it.
And that’s on top of the several people I’ve personally heard complain about blurry backgrounds, and the many forums posts I’ve read about clients refusing photographs because of the bokeh. It’s all relative of course, I just believe some people are putting too much emphasis on importance of bokeh, and some lens companies are cashing in on it.
GMPhotography wrote:
Who said clients don't care about bokeh. Pros are not saying that trust me. I'm a Pro of over 4 decades they care a ton what's delivered. Please stop listening to people that don't have a freaking clue about what clients want. They are not in our shoes they are not out there pounding doors to make a living. I get so irate by these armchair quarterbacks that never shot a Pro job in there life.
A major problem with this "study" is you can't take 52 people as say that the results from those 52 when you just take whoever fills out your survey describe what the average person thinks. You need more people and you have to select the people to fill out your survey with a lot more care if you want to talk about people in general. It is great he added disclaimers, but the first major disclaimer should have been that doing it the way he did means that he can't say anything about the average person or people in general. He really can only talk about the 52 people he had fill out the survey.
I could say a lot more about how the "study" doesn't test ideas about bokeh and whether people like more or less blur, but suffice it to say the "study" doesn't really say anything about what people in general (or even the 52 people he surveyed) think about bokeh.
Well, there are enough people who give workshops and enough who shoot clients and communicate a lot with clients at a shoot or wedding guests to learn what people think and want (we have many thousand of those experiences made literally).
Our experience is Bokeh is overrated. That doesn't mean they don't like blurry background. But clients don't care as much as people on enthusiast forums, do on the details, whether you use f1.2 or f1.4 doesn't interest any of them (they would not see a difference), whether the bokeh is a tiny bit smoother or harsher, etc.
They want to see emotion in the images. They want them to look pleasing, to think they were photographed favorably. Whether one used f2 or f1.2 is absolutely irrelevant to them. Everybody who says otherwise should give me some proof not based on cherry picking.
Our most used aperture is f2, for example. I like f1.4/f1.2 for certain situations to bring iso down. But the difference even in the Sigma f1.2 vs. f1.4 is too small to make this a deceisice lens decision in real life. It is more for armchair photographers.
Dec 08, 2020 at 04:03 AM
Previous versions of Holger's message #15427478 « Pre-order: Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM ($1,399) »
