Is bokeh overrated?

mfrankpdx · Jan 12, 2011

Shortly after I got my first DSLR, I just had to go out and get the 35mm f1.8 that got so many rave reviews. I wanted to get rid of all that distracting clutter behind my subjects that, in my mind, really made my photos weak. After I got it, it never left my camera, and I went around shooting everything wide open, or f2.8 at a minimum. I really liked how it blurred the background of the photos compared to my kit lens, but there was still something missing. My photos were still pretty darn boring. "What's gives?" I asked myself.

After the frustration of not seeing any improvement in my photos, I read a book on photography to see if it would shed any light on my situation. After reading it, and filling my brain with more info than it could really handle, I became inspired again and gave it another go. With the new concepts (the ones I could retain) fresh in my mind, I grabbed my kit lens, set my camera to aperture priority f8, and went out shooting. Much to my delight, my photos seemed markedly improved.

So what was my mistake the first time around? What were my photos missing despite having the faster, sharper lens? My mistake was that I was using bokeh as a catch-all to isolate my subject. Bokeh obviously is one of many great tools for getting a good composition, but when used alone, with not other composure techniques, it creates a pretty weak image. When I went out shooting at f8 all day, I used new-to-me techniques to eliminate distracting "clutter" from the frame. I crawled on the ground, climbed up in the trees, made my way through brush and other obstacles in order to get just the right angle. After doing all this, I didn't even need any bokeh to create more pleasing images.

Everyone seems to want to run out and get the fastest lens possible! Not necessarily because of light issues, but because they create that "beautiful creamy background". What if, instead, we went out and bought a speedlight and learned how to compose without needing to turn the background to mush? Would we better off? Is using bokeh, often just taking the easy way out of getting a good composition? So, the question is... is bokeh overrated?

[Flame suit on] :lol:

Light Artisan · Jan 12, 2011

Eh, it's photography's buzzword at the moment. The word is used like it's a type of photography, when in reality it's one small aspect.

I like it best when it isolates a subject from the background, but used 'just because it's bokeh photography' is something you do the first month or two you get a DSLR - everyone goes through it. You'll read tons of it every year from December 24th through around February, then it dies off until tax return season.

sobolik · Jan 12, 2011

Bokeh is quite often an excuse to help justify the large sum of money spent on a fast lens. The vast majority of photos do not require such a lenses bokeh. I have photos all over my house and I see one that has a well done bokeh. And 2 that probably would have benefited by a better bokeh but no one has ever mentioned it. The large number being the rest have no need for bokeh good or bad.

"This quality is of special importance to portrait photographers who almost always want soft backgrounds. In their case, any sharpness will detract from their subjects and so many of these photographers demand lenses with uncorrected spherical aberration for their work."

i.e. Bokeh is actually the result of a lenses flaws.

"The rendering of out-of-focus points by a camera lens is called "bokeh" and it is commonly ignored by lens users and lens designers for the simple reason that "good bokeh" (the images on the right) is created by imperfect lenses, or lenses that exhibit "spherical aberration"."

Bokeh - the least understood lens property | Andre Gunther Photography

Derosa · Jan 12, 2011

No, not overrated. Simply one of many tools at our disposal. I am very much a beginner, but it is pretty easy to see that there are times when bokeh is desirable and times when it is confining.

white · Jan 12, 2011

It's a stupid buzzword. But defocusing the background to place emphasis on the subject is still a valuable technique.

Sounds like your tastes have changed. You prefer nice clean compositions. Some don't.

Is using bokeh, often just taking the easy way out of getting a good composition

Nonsense. A defocused b/g can be just as distracting. Nothing like a huge, blurry hotspot to call attention away from the subject.

Boomn4x4 · Jan 12, 2011

"Bokeh" has only been around since 1997, its a fad. It gets tossed around in books and the Internet because its fun to say. Since its fun to say, it must be fun to use.... who dosen't want to say, "Check out my bokeh!?! "How's my bokeh?" "Is that bokeh in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?"

In reality, DOF has been around since the dawn of photography. Up until 1997, nobody was striving for good "DOF".... the goal was only to have a DOF that accentuates the subject.

I'd like to say that like with most fads, "bokeh" will go away and people will go back to using DOF creativly, but with such a catchy phrase, I think people will continue to use it.

manaheim · Jan 12, 2011

errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... what?!

Ok, first to the poster's original point (which I think many of you are missing)...

OP... your pictures presumably didn't improve because you switched apertures... they improved because you studied and thought a bit about composition. You changed two variables at the same time... the aperture... and your knowledge. If you flip your aperture back to "wide open" I suspect you'd find that your pictures are still better.

All this said... like anything in photography, you have to know how and when to apply it. Wide open can be pretty dangerous in a lot of situations (like taking a picture of someone and focusing on their nose, only to find out their eyes are out of focus), but used appropriately and well it can yield some very cool results.

An example, if I may...

Salem%20Day%20-%20Old%20Burial%20Ground%20-%20014.jpg

Frankly, I think people's giddiness over "bokeh" (and I find the term trite and foolish) is silly, and people who rush out to buy a lens that can go down to 2.8 exclusively for the purpose of extremely out of focus areas are really missing the boat... as, I believe, so are you.

See, a lens with a very wide aperture is more often than not also an EXTREMELY good lens with high quality optics, excellent color reproduction, etc. I have 3 2.8 lenses and a 1.8, and I almost never run them wide open, because wide open is frequently not the appropriate choice.

As far as the guy who was saying "bokeh" comes from an imperfect lens... I believe that article may be full of crap. On a quick scan it looks like he's mixing bokeh with sloppy lenses and calling them the same animal. I could be wrong here, but I have other things to do so I'm not going to agonize over it.

Abby Rose · Jan 12, 2011

I think it's pretty. But I like shallow dof in most types of pictures.

But I agree; it can't replace a good comp in the first place.

Using a smaller aperture helped you see better compositions and whatnot. So if you go back to a wide open aperture and the bokeh again, you're probably still going to be better than you were when you relied on the bokeh to make the image. I think.

Overread · Jan 12, 2011

So, the question is... is bokeh overrated?

It sounds a little like you've swapped f1.8/f2.8 and instead shifted to using distances and naturally more sparse backgrounds to get the less distracting background elements. It's hard to say without seeing comparison shots from both periods of your shooting experience.
However to me it still sounds a little like you're using the same compositional method, but that you've changed the method of acquiring the reduced clarity of the background areas. At the same time it sounds like you were not that happy with razor thing depths of field and that you are preferring a deeper depth of detail to your foreground subjects.

In the end background blurring is a compositional tool that photographers have access to and it is one that many newer photographers latch onto early on. In fact it is partly making things easier in that composing a shot with a less distracting background is a far easier task than working with a deeper depth of field and getting both foreground and background elements to blend well together.

Alter_Ego · Jan 12, 2011

Without bokeh a lot of photos would look flat and boring

Light Artisan · Jan 12, 2011

If this had no 'bokeh', you would be hard pressed to find the birds! :lol:

You don't always have a choice of background - life happens.

Light Artisan 7526 by Light Artisan Photography, on Flickr

Overread · Jan 12, 2011

Light Artisan said:
If this had no 'bokeh', you would be hard pressed to find the birds!

You don't always have a choice of background - life happens.

However I'm willing to bet that "shutter speed shutter speed - low ISO" was more at the forefront of your mind than "darn must get that background blurry"

Often times many discussions of a photographers fantastic selection of settings are - in reality - more the result of them being pushed into a pigeon hole of very limited settings as a result of the environment and the lighting present.

Of course the above is very much bias toward environments with less control over the subject and environment (eg wildlife ) than those where you have control over both (eg studio)

Light Artisan · Jan 12, 2011

Yes and no... I generally try for no more than f/5.6 when shooting birds in general but shutter speed is the top priority. I even let set ISO to auto and let it roam up to ISO 1600 at will to get the shot with less blur and accept some noise.

Back to bokeh... it's really no different than panning and getting perceived motion, or using fast shutter speeds to stop motion... it's a technique, something to make the photo appear how the artist intended. Sometimes it's an evil must, others it's a welcome choice.