Wedding Photag. Gear

[OrionsByte]

Until I joined this forum, I never knew a simple word like "bokeh" could make me have an aneurism every time I read it. The word's only been in use for a decade and yet people toss it about it like it's the most important thing in photography, or like it's the only word that's ever been used to describe selective focus.

Bah, I say.

 

[PatrickCheung]

You dont seem to be helping any beginner here.

Shirley, you jest.

I like you!

 

[flea77]

Oh boy. We pick apart your quotes to Ken Rockwell, you find someone else to quote. Funny thing is I don't think you ever really read what is said, you just yank parts out and go to it. So here we go again....

I say the average beginner asking about lenses on this forum has very little interest in edge sharpness for example nor will they or their audience ever care.

I agree, but for the millionth time, to which you never respond, this thread is not about beginners, it is about someone who is getting paid "MAJOR money" to shoot a wedding. Please understand that.

Same with the flaw called "good" bokeh

Again with the bokeh is a flaw comments. Where, exactly where, does it say that it is a flaw?

I am going to over simplify this so hopefully it will make sense to you. If you want the real story, go take some physics classes.

In order to get an image on the focal plane (sensor or film), light passes through some kind of hole (as in a pinhole camera) and creates an inverted image on the opposite side of the hole. This works pretty well and gets pretty much everything in focus at once. There are however a couple of problems.

1) Since the hole is very small, very long exposures are required.
2) To change the image (get an object larger or smaller on the film or sensor) you have to move the hole forward or backwards by quite a large distance.
3) Controlling the image can be very difficult since you can not use too wide an angle and still have room for a shutter, film transport (or digital equipment), etc.

To solve these problems lenses were introduced. Unfortunately, even though the lenses fixed all of the above problems (much larger hole so faster exposures, 300mm lenses can be 5" long instead of 12", wide angle lenses are very possible) now we have a new problem, focusing.

For this next part, I am going to ignore convergance, divergance, difraction, and some other problems with light traveling through several glass elements, coatings, bouncing around in tubes, etc, even though they have tangable and real effects, they are not needed to understand where this is going.

The reason focusing is an issue is that as light travels through different parts of the glass it actually travels different distances and that has to be corrected. That is not an issue when you are talking about a pinhole that might be 1mm or less. It is a huge issue when you are talking about 30mm or more.The better corrected, the better the lens, the more expensive the lens.

Now an object at one distance will be different than an object at another distance. Think of it like a building in the distance. Although you can see the top and bottom of the 100 story building, the light traveling from the top takes a much longer path to get to you than the light traveling from the bottom. You can place a coke bottle on the table in front of you and although it appears the same size as the building in the distance, it is much closer so the light from the top of the bottle and light from the bottom of the bottle are much closer to the same length than it is for the building.

So in order to get the benefits, you have to deal with only some things being in focus. This is OK because that is how we precieve things anyway. Our brains relate to this very well so it is a non-issue. Images with close and distant objects all in focus at the same time seem disturbing, too busy and surreal anyway as a general rule.

So, if only certain things can be in focus at one time, other things must be out of focus. This is understood, it is part of physics, it is not a flaw, it is a design decision based on what we want to achieve.

The visual qualities or attibutes of the areas that are not in focus is called bokeh. Yes, this area is caused by a misalignment of the lenses in relation to the area in question, but it is not a flaw, it is by design, it is intentional. It can be controlled and achieved in different ways, one of which is spherical abberation. You can increase or decrease spherical abberations in the in-focus area, out-of-focus area, both or neither, and you can do it partially, totally, or not at all.

Now lenses can be taylored to specific uses, and to specific attributes. Some lenses are taylored so that the bokeh is considered more pleasing. If you think lens manufacturer's ignore bokeh why did Nikon produce two DC lenses (DC stands for Defocus Control, they allow user modification of the area that is not in focus, in other words change the bokeh)? Why does Nikon also produce the 85mm 1.4 which is specifically sold and marketed as a portrait lens know for it's outstanding bokeh?

Get it?

Allan

I'm on an international photography forum and I am having to explain the basics of photography to someone, arg! I'm going to bed.

 

[nonamexx]

Allan, sorry I understand the physics lesson, but I don't get the big deal with bokehs anway. Technically you might be correct in many ways, but photography is not just science, it's also art.

Photographs can be pleasing in very many different ways than just one object being in focus and the other being out of focus. Your simplistic view that bokehs produce pleasing effects is just an opinion.

In fact I would say the most interesting photographs are those where there are many elements of interest - not just a single subject. That is my opinion and is as valid as yours.

Bokehs are over-rated.

But whatever, if you want to spend your money on getting a "better" bokeh, whatever that might mean, it's your money to spend.

Assuming the "physics lecturer" attitude here isn't a big deal. Lots of us studied that at basic physics in school. Some of us might not remember it all that well. What's the point of being condescending to others?

 

[eric-holmes]

How have I missed this???

 

[enzodm]

Allan, sorry I understand the physics lesson, but I don't get the big deal with bokehs anway. Technically you might be correct in many ways, but photography is not just science, it's also art.

bokeh, in fact, is just matter of "art". Or, better, craft.

 

[enzodm]

I want to write the next best-selling novel. What pen should I buy?

I think the quality of ink will make a difference to the final output.

This is a romantic analogy, it sounds well, but unfortunately is not much realistic.
The matter of which is made a novel is language, not ink. In fact, you may use a pen, you can use a computer, you can dictate it to your secretary: the novel will be the same. You may compare the pen to which finger to use to shoot the button on the camera. You can use a thumb on a remote, auto-shoot or so.

On the other side, if you go with a slightly closer analogy, you may ask whether using just a 200-words dictionary is sufficient to write a novel, or using an alphabet missing letters "d", "s", "l", "r". The answer is "yes, if you know what you are doing, i.e. that you are using limited resources". In fact, a french writer wrote an entire book avoiding to use the most used letter in French (excellent exercise).
If you are learning, 200 words is not bad; when you start missing expressive tools, you'll do next step, i.e., you learn and start using other words. But if you always use a 200-words dictionary because you are lazy, you will end up with a boring piece of writing.
(all the people here is convinced a beginner should just use kit lenses until they find their limitations, and even sobolik is convinced that kit lenses are not sufficient for all needs - just search for what he is using for shooting).

 

[nonamexx]

I want to write the next best-selling novel. What pen should I buy?

I think the quality of ink will make a difference to the final output.

This is a romantic analogy, it sounds well, but unfortunately is not much realistic.
The matter of which is made a novel is language, not ink. In fact, you may use a pen, you can use a computer, you can dictate it to your secretary: the novel will be the same. You may compare the pen to which finger to use to shoot the button on the camera. You can use a thumb on a remote, auto-shoot or so.

On the other side, if you go with a slightly closer analogy, you may ask whether using just a 200-words dictionary is sufficient to write a novel, or using an alphabet missing letters "d", "s", "l", "r". The answer is "yes, if you know what you are doing, i.e. that you are using limited resources". In fact, a french writer wrote an entire book avoiding to use the most used letter in French (excellent exercise).
If you are learning, 200 words is not bad; when you start missing expressive tools, you'll do next step, i.e., you learn and start using other words. But if you always use a 200-words dictionary because you are lazy, you will end up with a boring piece of writing.
(all the people here is convinced a beginner should just use kit lenses until they find their limitations, and even sobolik is convinced that kit lenses are not sufficient for all needs - just search for what he is using for shooting).

My analogy is spot on. The lens is just a tool, just like the pen is a tool. In a novel the words may be the product and in photography the composition and the subject and the final picture is what really matters. If you get a good picture, who cares what lens or camera you used? I've seen some top photography by amatuers using P & S cameras simply because of the subject matter and the composition.

You're looking at the pixels, I look at the full picture as a work in itself.

You can tell the SAME story with any pen just like you can take the same picture with any lens.

If you're saying that a better lens will make a qualitative difference to the technical aspects, I agree, but if the composition is great, I care a damn about a few pixels here and there. And even minor technical shortcomings can be overcome by "post-processing". Using freely available digital processing techniques using tools like GIMP you can even fake a bokeh effect without much difference between "real" bokeh.

Whether bokeh is art or not is still subjective and qualitative. I see it as a blobs of non-detailed spherical blur that a 3-year old kid with a crayon can reproduce. Any accomplished digital artist can create "bokeh" in 3 minutes with free software and no expensive equipment.

I don't think the bokeh makes a final difference to the "story". And since you can even fake a bokeh cheaply using software if that is what you like, I think the point about the lens is moot.

I am not denying the role of technology and the limitations it overcomes in many other situations (like low light, fast moving action, quick response) etc. But with a bit of creativity you can surprisingly maximize the existing limitations. And throwing money at every problem you encounter seems such a waste.

 

[enzodm]

You can tell the SAME story with any pen just like you can take the same picture with any lens.

No. You can take good pictures with any lens, but not the same pictures. Simply consider longer focal lengths. You can walk to simulate (but again, perspective change) but sometimes you cannot. The lens is not the pen, is the eye of the writer.

If you're saying that a better lens will make a qualitative difference to the technical aspects, I agree, but if the composition is great, I care a damn about a few pixels here and there.

I do not have expensive lenses, and I too do not care much about pixels, mostly because my largest prints are 20x30cm (8"x12"). The difference is that your composition is 2D, mine tends to be 3D, like the world. Position of items in a picture is not only on the two main axes, third is given by perspective and out of focus areas.

And even minor technical shortcomings can be overcome by "post-processing". Some digital software filters are so good you can even fake a bokeh effect without much difference.

Photoshop costs like a good lens. GIMP at present is not as practical, although I use it sometimes (and I work with computers, so I'm not so picky on software).

Whether bokeh is art or not is still subjective and qualitative. I don't think the bokeh makes a final difference to the "story".

Bokeh is art in the sense that its appreciation is not matter of science. Anyway, again is matter of 2D vs. 3D. As you always shot with a P&S you never exercised with shallow DoF, so it is easy to tell it does not matter. I went to dSLR because I was limited in that.

I am not denying the role of technology and the limitations it overcomes in many situations (like low light, fast moving action) etc. But with a bit of creativity you can surprisingly maximize the existing limitations. And throwing money at every problem you encounter seems such a waste.

You are glorifying the role of technology, since you think all can be cared with (expensive) software.
For the rest, is exactly what I told. If you know existing limitations, you can do a good work. Different from what you can do with other lenses. And bokeh is not only matter of spending: when I need shallow DoF I use a 40€ lens (with some quality issue on other compartments, but since I do not have pro expectations, I do not have people trusting me for unrepeatable shots, nor I print on large, it is not a problem for me).

 

[nonamexx]

No. You can take good pictures with any lens, but not the same pictures. Simply consider longer focal lengths. You can walk to simulate (but again, perspective change) but sometimes you cannot. The lens is not the pen, is the eye of the writer.

I talked about when the composition is the same.

I do not have expensive lenses, and I too do not care much about pixels, mostly because my largest prints are 20x30cm (8"x12"). The difference is that your composition is 2D, mine tends to be 3D, like the world. Position of items in a picture is not only on the two main axes, third is given by perspective and out of focus areas.

I have no doubt that the depth of field is very useful and interesting study to many people. I simply don't find it interesting enough.

Photoshop costs like a good lens. GIMP at present is not as practical, although I use it sometimes (and I work with computers, so I'm not so picky on software).

I use GIMP exclusively and it's quite good. Give it a go some time, especially with additional plugins from the community.

For the rest, is exactly what I told. If you know existing limitations, you can do a good work. Different from what you can do with other lenses. And bokeh is not only matter of spending: when I need shallow DoF I use a 40€ lens (with some quality issue on other compartments, but since I do not have pro expectations, I do not have people trusting me for unrepeatable shots, nor I print on large, it is not a problem for me).

I didn't glorify technology either. I actually state that the final product - once executed - is technology neutral - in that it doesn't matter what was used to create it.

As to cost, whenever you keep adding a new equipment to your photography arsenal, even a small amount, it is an additional cost is it not?

As I said, I have made my point. In the end, my philosophy is slightly different from yours and I respect that.

 

[PerfectlyFlawed]

Hm.

 

[enzodm]

I talked about when the composition is the same.

Composition can be the same only if you start from the most limiting lens. So, you can tell just some stories.

As to cost, whenever you keep adding a new equipment to your photography arsenal, even a small amount, it is an additional cost is it not?

Any hour spent with software to artificially recreate blurring or so is a cost too. Learning how to do it well is... 20 hours? The cost of a decent lens for me, at my current hourly salary. Actually, I do not want to spend on both sides .

 

[flea77]

Allan, sorry I understand the physics lesson, but I don't get the big deal with bokehs anway. Technically you might be correct in many ways, but photography is not just science, it's also art.

I agree.

Photographs can be pleasing in very many different ways than just one object being in focus and the other being out of focus. Your simplistic view that bokehs produce pleasing effects is just an opinion.

I never said bokeh produced please effects. I said some lenses are taylored so that the bokeh is considered more pleasing. Please do not refer to my view as simplistic when you do not know what my view is in the first place.

In fact I would say the most interesting photographs are those where there are many elements of interest - not just a single subject. That is my opinion and is as valid as yours.

I also never said that photographs with just a single subject were more interesting or more pleasing. While your opinion is indeed just as valid as mine, you might want to actually know what my opinion is before jumping on it.

Bokehs are over-rated.

I agree.

But whatever, if you want to spend your money on getting a "better" bokeh, whatever that might mean, it's your money to spend.

I very much appreciate your permission to spend my money however I want, but not once have I suggested that someone buy a lens for better bokeh. Now in a different thread I have said that bokeh is one of many factors to consider in purchasing a new lens. If someone were to buy a lens for professional use, or just for portrait use, where I feel bokeh can be important, I might suggest bokeh be taken into account when selecting a lens, but never as a single factor in lens determination. Are you suggesting that bokeh be completely ignored in all respects when purchasing a new lens?

Did you actually read the entire thread before posting?

Allan

 

[Dao]

My analogy is spot on. The lens is just a tool, just like the pen is a tool. In a novel the words may be the product and in photography the composition and the subject and the final picture is what really matters. If you get a good picture, who cares what lens or camera you used? I've seen some top photography by amatuers using P & S cameras simply because of the subject matter and the composition.

Pen is one of the tools for writing a book. However, in photography it is a little bit different. You need the right tool to do the right job. A hammer, wood and some nails, you got a table and chair. But I will rather live in a house that build with experienced people with the right tool. Of course, if we just talk about very very basic house. Sure, it can be done. (no plumbing work nor electrical work etc.)


Will a $50 point and shoot digital camera with video feature able to produce a movie? Sure, it is highly possible. But that movie will be limited.

Back to photography. Can you use a basic slr camera with very basic lens to produce photos? Of course the answer is yes. But the basic camera and basic lens have limitations. Certain type of photos maybe hard to do with that setup. Again, use the right tool for the right job.

As for the question regarding Wedding photography gear. It is not the gear. It is the photographer. It is because the wedding photographer knows what he/she needs for his/her own photography style.

 

[pgriz]

I seem to recall reading that there were serious and furious arguements among the learned cognoscendi about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin, back in the Middle Ages. Doesn't seem that technology helped matters much.:meh: