Can bokeh be achieved with film/analog cameras?

[dxqcanada]

惚け, 呆け, ぼけ, ボケ, boke, boke - Nihongo Master

idiot,fool,touched in the head (from),out of it (from),space case,funny man (of a comedy duo) - Meaning of 惚け, 呆け, ぼけ, ボケ, boke, boke. See complete explanation and more examples and pronunciation.

www.nihongomaster.com

Hmm, reminds me in my youth hearing the elders saying baka a lot, never heard the word boke.

 

[hooray4mo]

I'm still here. I've read through some of the replies here and there, and apparently I shouldn't have added the word "effect" to bokeh. Now I know.
From my understanding you use a really low aperture, is that correct? Also, I was kinda referring to the bokeh where there's twinkling lights in the background.
I believe my telephoto lens was able to achieve the look, but my subject wasn't at all "exposed" properly, if that's even the right word. Though I still kind of like the end result.

Would I need better lightning, such as lighting from the front? Or would I be able to adjust the settings and meter for proper exposure of my subject?
(first picture is a reference photo I found online, the 2nd one is mine that I took with my Minolta XG-1 and a Qauntaray Auto Zoom 1:4.5 80~205mm lens)

 

[Hardus Nameous]

Now I know.

And knowing is half the battle...........

Looks like you metered for the background. You'll have to meter for the subject or add light to it.

A wide aperature is one way to get a shallower depth of field; how shallow you need depends on your subject and its distance from the background. As long as you're under the hyper-focal length (infinity focus) of the lens there should be some out of focus area behind the subject regardless of aperature.

 

[smoke665]

I've never heard of "bokeh effect," and hopefully no one else has

You need to get out more, LOL Using the bokeh effect to make a bokeh background - Adobe If you follow the more traditional definition then Bokeh is the pleasing or aesthetic quality of out-of-focus blur (foreground and background) in a photograph. I know this won't sit well with purists, but that quality can be created in camera by the lens/aperture or post by software. I've done both, its easier in camera with the right lens, and under the right lighting conditions you get a bonus "Bokeh Balls".

 

[RAZKY]

I'm still here. I've read through some of the replies here and there, and apparently I shouldn't have added the word "effect" to bokeh. Now I know.
From my understanding you use a really low aperture, is that correct? Also, I was kinda referring to the bokeh where there's twinkling lights in the background.
I believe my telephoto lens was able to achieve the look, but my subject wasn't at all "exposed" properly, if that's even the right word. Though I still kind of like the end result.

Would I need better lightning, such as lighting from the front? Or would I be able to adjust the settings and meter for proper exposure of my subject?
(first picture is a reference photo I found online, the 2nd one is mine that I took with my Minolta XG-1 and a Qauntaray Auto Zoom 1:4.5 80~205mm lens)

Your picture demonstrates how that lens, at that focal length, focused distance, aperture and distance, renders out-of-focus highlights. For such testing you don't need a foreground subject.

 

[RAZKY]

You need to get out more, LOL Using the bokeh effect to make a bokeh background - Adobe If you follow the more traditional definition then Bokeh is the pleasing or aesthetic quality of out-of-focus blur (foreground and background) in a photograph. I know this won't sit well with purists, but that quality can be created in camera by the lens/aperture or post by software. I've done both, its easier in camera with the right lens, and under the right lighting conditions you get a bonus "Bokeh Balls".
View attachment 269272

"Bokeh balls"?? Hilarious!! (And utterly ridiculous.)

 

[480sparky]

"Bokeh balls"?? Hilarious!! (And utterly ridiculous.)

Bokeh dots.

 

[smoke665]

Bokeh balls"?? Hilarious!! (And utterly ridiculous.)

Always a good idea to read through links before posting. You might want to reread the link you posted earlier Bokeh - Wikipedia it refers to the "Bokeh Effect", and describes the creation of Bokeh Balls or Bokeh Circles with examples of same.

All Bokeh is not created equal, which I assume is why the word "effect" came into use.

A Visual Guide to the Different Types of Bokeh

We've reviewed tons of lenses and have seen all the different types of bokeh you can think about. Here are some of the most common.

www.thephoblographer.com

 

[RAZKY]

It's been humorous - nothing wrong with that!

 

[Grandpa Ron]

If you work with Large Format you will certainly discover Bokeh.

A standard 4x5 lens is about 150mm. The depth of field of a 150mm lens is far less (lots of Bokeh) than the 55mm lens on a 35mm camera. Remember what happens when you put a 155mm telephoto on a 35mm camera.

Using large format with low light apertures, can require very shallow DOF or very long exposures.

 

[RAZKY]

If you work with Large Format you will certainly discover Bokeh.

A standard 4x5 lens is about 150mm. The depth of field of a 150mm lens is far less (lots of Bokeh) than the 55mm lens on a 35mm camera. Remember what happens when you put a 155mm telephoto on a 35mm camera.

Using large format with low light apertures, can require very shallow DOF or very long exposures.

There is no such thing as "lots of bokeh." As has been said over and over, it is not a "thing" that can be quantified. The format or lens focal length is immaterial.

 

[480sparky]

Out of focus ≠ bokeh.

 

[IanG]

Out of focus ≠ bokeh.

The word Bokeh is not ideal as there's no real definition of the word.

The way the out of focus areas are rendered depends on 5 factors, how far an area is out of focus, the lens design, followed by the focal length, the aperture used, and then shape of the aperture which depends on the number of aperture blades, the rounder the better.

The first how far out of focus is the most important and increasing Focal Length, and using wide apertures gives the greatest increase.

So back to the OPs question, you won't get much with smaller digital sensor sizes, Full frame Digital and 35mm cameras are going to give similar results, MF far better, Large format fantastic.

As for lenses, older lenses like the CZJ 58mm f2 Biotar is better than a modern 50mm lens in this respect, the 75mm f1.5 Biotar even better still,

A dream lens for these effects is my 1864 Dallmeyer 2B 8" f4 Fast Acting Portrait Petzval, it's not a swirly Petzval Dallmeyer corrected the spherical aberrations.

Ian

 

[CherylL]

I'm still here. I've read through some of the replies here and there, and apparently I shouldn't have added the word "effect" to bokeh. Now I know.
From my understanding you use a really low aperture, is that correct? Also, I was kinda referring to the bokeh where there's twinkling lights in the background.
I believe my telephoto lens was able to achieve the look, but my subject wasn't at all "exposed" properly, if that's even the right word. Though I still kind of like the end result.

Would I need better lightning, such as lighting from the front? Or would I be able to adjust the settings and meter for proper exposure of my subject?
(first picture is a reference photo I found online, the 2nd one is mine that I took with my Minolta XG-1 and a Qauntaray Auto Zoom 1:4.5 80~205mm lens)

To get lights in the background focus on something in the foreground. For this photo I had fairy lights hanging on a white board a few feet away from the parfait. My aperture was at f1.4


Winter parfait by Cheryl, on Flickr

To get just lights I focused on an object closer than the lighted tree and then recomposed to the tree to take the photo


Twist lights by Cheryl, on Flickr

 

[AlanKlein]

Parfait looks scrumptious.