bokeh 'leading lines'

angelo_lightning · Jul 4, 2015

Hi. I'm pretty new to photography.

I've been studying bokeh pretty in depth, as I'm mostly doing portaits, and bokeh is extremely important in portraits.

What I've noticed, is that in a lot of 'good' examples of bokeh, they basically have a foreground and then a bokeh background. Sure, the background is blurred out. But the sharp difference between the super in focus person or object, and the creamy blur of the background around it makes it look like a cutout to me. I really just flat out do not like this look at all.

What I LOVE is when there is an object, like a rail, or a hill, the side of a persons face, or even a street, that gradually recedes into the distance. Creating a gradient of bokeh. This is what I think looks good. I was wondering what the official take on this is. I hear about leading lines and diagonal lines all the time in composition, but never in reference to bokeh.

Designer · Jul 4, 2015

angelo_lightning said:
I was wondering what the official take on this is.

Official?

I'm afraid you'll have to talk to the supervisor about that.

dennybeall · Jul 4, 2015

Other than in forensic photography there are no RULES like that. You can establish rules that you personally follow to create your personal style and others may or may not follow.
Do it - if you and others like it then it's right!!
There are techniques that are known to be well liked by more people and you can call them rules if you want.
I'd like to see an example of leading lines and bokah - don't know - it may be great???
Do some and share.

bratkinson · Jul 4, 2015

angelo_lightning said:
I've been studying bokeh pretty in depth, as I'm mostly doing portaits, and bokeh is extremely important in portraits.

What I've noticed, is that in a lot of 'good' examples of bokeh, they basically have a foreground and then a bokeh background. Sure, the background is blurred out. But the sharp difference between the super in focus person or object, and the creamy blur of the background around it makes it look like a cutout to me. I really just flat out do not like this look at all.

From your post, I get the impression that you have learned that great bokeh is part of -every- portrait, or else it's ho-hum. True, 'setting off' the subject from the rest of the picture is a more or less 'standard' way of making portrait shots. Repetition is the best way to learn anything. However, following this train of thought, any 'bokeh-heavy' portraits you produce will look exactly like the portrait styles of countless millions of photographers. Even YOU will get bored after taking 200 or more portrait shots all with the same look...someone elses' style. Where's YOUR creativity? What separates you from the crowd?

And what about situations where your subject wants to be photographed in front of a particular building, for example? While someone could likely identify blurry-bokeh Eiffel Tower a good distance behind your subject, what about when they are standing in the doorway to some really great café or coffee house? How can that location be identifiable if it's too blurry?

In short, one size does NOT fit all. Nor is a single style interesting in similar situations. There's a lot about photography that has to be learned before deciding on one very specific niche.

KmH · Jul 4, 2015

Bokeh is not adjustable, and is an inherent, not adjustable quality of a lens.
In other words, the only way to alter bokeh one needs to change lenses.
What you are referring to is depth-of-field (DoF). Specifically, a shallow depth of field.

A shallow depth of field is determined by several factors - lens focal length, point of focus (PoF) distance, and lens aperture.
If a background that is close to a subject is likely to be within the DoF and not blurred.
Understanding Depth of Field in Photography

AlanKlein · Jul 5, 2015

I think you will change the look of "bokeh" with the same lens by changing the aperture. While you're basically changing the DOF, the appearance of what people call bokeh changes as well.

Samples of what you're talking about. The 3rd has a background that you would want identifiable. It provide context to the foreground, the person. The first 2 pictures, the background is secondary and being more out of focus is better than the 3rd.

Janet fence by Alan Klein, on Flickr

Janet Flowers by Alan Klein, on Flickr

Julie NYC and WTC by Alan Klein, on Flickr

dennybeall · Jul 5, 2015

I would only call the second one bokah in that the lights in the background are shaped by the iris in the lens. For me the others are just DOF blurs.

vintagesnaps · Jul 5, 2015

The bokeh is the quality of the out of focus parts of the photo - get a decent quality lens if you want that to look good. I've been a photographer for years and that seems to be a concept that's all over the place online which seems to over emphasize the importance.

The ones that look like the person is a cardboard cutout to me seem to have been way overprocessed. To me the processing should just be enough to enhance the image not overpower it.

As mentioned a larger aperture gives you more out of focus backgrounds and is related to the depth of field (less of the area behind and in front of the subject is sharply in focus the more you open up the lens).

Go take some sample practice photos of an object or subject (a plant, a tree, whatever) at different apertures so you can see how that changes the background. Try it with different lenses and different distances between you and the subject and the background and see what you get and how it changes.

KmH · Jul 5, 2015

Bokeh and depth of field are 2 different, but discrete, properties of a lens. If a photo does not have any blurring of the background the bokeh the lens used cannot be seen.

The 'look' of bokeh is determined by lens construction, not the lens aperture.
The quality of the optics, the type and number of light baffles inside the lens (if any), the number and spacing of air gaps, the number and shape of lens aperture blades - all determine the bokeh a make/model of lens will produce.

In general the number and shape of the lens aperture blades has the biggest influence. The more blades there are, the rounder the blade edges, and the more curved each blade is make bokeh smoother and more pleasing (cream cheese bokeh).

Bokeh that produces very round specular light blurred elements is known as Hollywood bokeh.

Catadioptric lenses produce Donut bokeh some find appealing, but more find odd looking and distracting.

Canon's inexpensive, low build quality, EF 50 mm f/1.8 II lens is well known for the very jittery, nervous looking bokeh iot produces as a result of the lens low build quality and 5, sharp edged, straight, lens aperture blades.

Derrel · Jul 5, 2015

Bokeh is an interesting topic. The work was introduced to the English-speaking world in the early 1990's by Darkroom techniques magazine, and a series of articles, under editor Mike Johnston, who is now chief cook and bottle washer of his own blog, The Online Photographer. A couple years ago, he conducted an on-line, multi-day exploration of the word bokeh, as well as definitions of the word, ways to use the word, and so on; Mike Johnston is THE actual, real,living and breathing MAN responsible for adding the "h" to the end of the Japanese word. There are now at least two definitions of the word, as well as a third type of use for the word, and there are many people who mistakenly insist that there is just one, single meaning or use of the word--they are incorrect.

Anyway...if you wanna look into bokeh, look into TOP's multi-day post in the TOP archives, and read the comments form the actual person (the editor), and his original article writers, who brought this Japanese concept to the English-speaking world some 25 years ago.

To the OP: apparently, what you like is deeper depth of field, with a more gradual blurring of the background. There is a wide range of background defocus, and a wide range of background recognizability, ranging from things like headshots done from close-range with a FF d-slr with a 300 f/2.8 lens from close distances, to full-length shots done with a short lens from 30 feet with a m/4/3 size sensor, and in the middle, things shot with 35 and 50mm lenses on APS-C cameras. The degree of "recognizability" of the background is something that the photographer can affect quite a bit, and there' no,one,single perfect level of recognizability for every photo or for every subject. At one time, the absolutely blown-out background look, as it was called then, made the 300/2.8 popular for a lot of images, especially things like swimwear, catalogue, and editorial fashion/lifestyle uses. On the popular end, there is the 50mm f/1.8 crowd that shoots a lot of portraits with a 50mm on APS-C cameras and shoots at f/1.8 or f/2 allllll the time: often not the best way to shoot many subjects or scenes.

KmH · Jul 5, 2015

Bokeh - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

unpopular · Jul 6, 2015

Derrel said:
Anyway...if you wanna look into bokeh, look into TOP's multi-day post in the TOP archives, and read the comments form the actual person (the editor), and his original article writers, who brought this Japanese concept to the English-speaking world some 25 years ago.

I am uncertain if the Japanese "Boke" describes any more the concept of "Bokeh" as our own word for "blur", and I suspect that the use of Japanese was a deliberate attempt to give some sort of exotic weight or "eastern wisdom" to the article in a time when The West idealized Japanese culture.

Bokeh is a "real" thing, OOF regions have different qualities depending on different lens design - largely, I believe, due to that an ideal lens is impossible and varied artifacts become exaggerated as the circles of confusion are enlarged. However, what "good" bokeh entails is a less predictable and in many ways pretty subjective.

I have no idea what creates a sharper apparent boundary between what is and is not OOF. If I were to guess, it would be how distinct the individual "bokeh balls" - specifically, how defined the edge is. And if this is so, then it would be highly variable depending on the background's contrast.

Derrel · Jul 6, 2015

This forum can in no way do the topic of bokeh justice. It's a discussion that a lot of people are clearly not ready to deal with from a position of knowing even the most basic facts, let alone the advanced psychology that deals with how different cultures deal with visual information. Seriously...if you don't actually KNOW much about the topic, then don't even venture into it with utter nonsense. As I wrote...the discussion dealing with bokeh, and depth of field, and selective focus is a week-long kind of thing...

Waiting with bated breath for your North American "thoughts" on Shinto...

unpopular · Jul 6, 2015

As I said, I am "uncertain" - this uncertainty comes from the fact I have never seen a citation that the term was used as such prior to the article in 1997. I found a few other early claims to the word, all from English speakers. From this uncertainty, you seem to conclude I am some sort of wannabe Japanese scholar?

I said nothing of Japanese culture at all.

At least that is what I am assuming this idiotic rant about "advanced psychology" is all about, being that the remainder was technical conjecture. Maybe this is another Fred Picker/Fred Parker snafu.

You know what they say about people who assume, don't you.