When Will The Bokeh Craze End

[The Barbarian]

FA 50mm

I have the

but a thrift store find of an old manual 135mm f2.5, puts it to shame.

I'm very impressed with the 135 f2.5

 

[flyingPhoto]

no one seems to realize that the automatic exposure is designed to create max bokeh no matter what

 

[Dave Maciak]

I've noticed a tendency among many in the pursuit of the ultimate creamy background, that it's becoming almost comical in effect. So I have to ask, are there others that feel like photographers are chasing after it too much for their own good? I’m not saying that bokeh is bad. When used in the right situations it can be gorgeous, and can enhance an image, but it still doesn’t mean that every single image has to be shot wide open, nor go overboard in creating excessive fake blur in PS.

Does the average person who looks at your images, and clients who book you, really care about these things. Do they care that you had to sell a body part to buy your new lens, are they impressed with how big your lens is, or what its maximum aperture is, and they certainly won’t sit there ooohhing and aawwweeing, over the background when they’re looking at their family portraits. All they really care about is the subject, the quality of the bokeh is not important to them, unless it's so distracting that it's annoying (a point many are getting to).

In some case I have to wonder if it's an easy cop out (just blur the crap out of everything rather than think about your background and composition). To me its overuse is stifling creativity rather than enhancing.

Could not agree more! Like I said in a previous post: "Bokeh Schmokeh" An otherwise unimaginative, mundane,
"snapshot" won't be saved by a bokeh rich background.

 

[Dave Maciak]

A mottled mess, yeah Smoke that describes it pretty well! Or jittery... JB, I don't remember ever knowing about it years ago, not that it wasn't around, but it must've passed me on by! I do think it's apparently due to lenses that aren't the best.

An iphone will what?? lol that's an odd way to advertise it if you ask me.

And who's Cole and why should we read his notes??!

Ditto

 

[Dave Maciak]

That’s a good idea and will definitely use it. I suspect though that it will just reinforce everyone’s already formed opinions.

You tell me---compare.

 

[SquarePeg]

You tell me---compare.

The first one looks like fake blur was added. The second has way too much dof and detail in the background for my taste. This isn’t really a straight one on one comparison of the same photo taken both wide open and stopped down. Too many other differences in wb and clarity.

 

[Dave Maciak]

The first one looks like fake blur was added. The second has way too much dof and detail in the background for my taste. This isn’t really a straight one on one comparison of the same photo taken both wide open and stopped down. Too many other differences in wb and clarity.

Thanks for the reply----difficult to control WB with Tri-X. Yes, blur was added , but I agree, it's over done.

 

[Dikkie]

Depends on what type of picture you want.
What do you want to show to the people?
If you have an interesting composition, or a nature/city landscape, you sometimes want to get everything sharp to enable us to see everything you want to show us.

I love bokeh, but it needs to be used by purpose to add some value to the picture, and certainly not all the time, occasionally.
When I shoot with shallow dof, I want to have quality in the bokeh, not 'just' bokeh to have bokeh..... If the bokeh isn't beautiful enough, I sometimes prefer to have it fully sharp than having to deal with a bad bokeh.

 

[mrca]

Smoke, I think the word "craze" is appropriate. In the early 2000's we saw novices pushing the saturation slider then discovered HDR and over saturated it. It faded away but seems to have enjoyed a come back. Tilting, rail road tracks, jumping on railroad tracks came and went. Bokeh is the quality of the out of focus background. How does that old adage go, when you have a hammer, everything is a nail. Same for folks with their first fast glass after kit lenses. Oof bg is appropriate for certain things, eliminate a busy bg, to emphasize the subject and harsh bokeh can be disturbing. One new nikon lens photo actually had the bokeh make me nauseous. But it should be used when appropriate. For example, my environmental portrait lens is a 35 mm 2.0 but I am usually 5.6 or above to keep the bg sharp so it gives context. Next shot I might want to isolate the subject against a creamy bg and reach for a 135 2.0 dc, with a bokeh control ring. But I think smoke has a point, every shot shot wide open with blurry bg gets trite real fast. I think that is called a one trick pony.

 

[RAZKY]

I've noticed a tendency among many in the pursuit of the ultimate creamy background, that it's becoming almost comical in effect. So I have to ask, are there others that feel like photographers are chasing after it too much for their own good? I’m not saying that bokeh is bad. When used in the right situations it can be gorgeous, and can enhance an image, but it still doesn’t mean that every single image has to be shot wide open, nor go overboard in creating excessive fake blur in PS.

Does the average person who looks at your images, and clients who book you, really care about these things. Do they care that you had to sell a body part to buy your new lens, are they impressed with how big your lens is, or what its maximum aperture is, and they certainly won’t sit there ooohhing and aawwweeing, over the background when they’re looking at their family portraits. All they really care about is the subject, the quality of the bokeh is not important to them, unless it's so distracting that it's annoying (a point many are getting to).

In some case I have to wonder if it's an easy cop out (just blur the crap out of everything rather than think about your background and composition). To me its overuse is stifling creativity rather than enhancing.

I wouldn't call it a craze - selective focus has long been effectively employed to isolate the primary subject from distracting environs. The craziest thing to me is the persistent misuse of the B-word itself.

 

[ac12]

I wouldn't call it a craze - selective focus has long been effectively employed to isolate the primary subject from distracting environs. The craziest thing to me is the persistent misuse of the B-word itself.

Selective focus indeed has been around for a LONG time.
But, I cannot remember this all consuming "craze" for shallow DoF, and the "look" of the OOF image.

 

[RAZKY]

Selective focus indeed has been around for a LONG time.
But, I cannot remember this all consuming "craze" for shallow DoF, and the "look" of the OOF image.

No doubt I am conceited and self centered, too concerned with my own stuff to fret over what others do.
I do have an upcoming project - close-ups and near macro with my 500 f/5.0 and 800 f/8.0 mirror lenses. Everyone will be free to call the out of focus areas whatever they wish.

 

[mrca]

Razky, I will refer to them as oof. Haven't seen mirror lens oof in a while so will look forward to it.

 

[smoke665]

I wouldn't call it a craze - selective focus has long been effectively employed to isolate the primary subject from distracting environs. The craziest thing to me is the persistent misuse of the B-word itself.

If you'll reread the original post the "craze" I refer to has little to do with with the Bokeh, selective focus, OOF or any other qualities imparted by the glass. Instead many are using the Radial or Gaussian blur filter post to obliviate anything that might have been in the background, leaving a disconnected body floating in a cloud. Or they reach for anything with the widest aperture they can find so their DOF becomes so thin that they're lucky if they catch the eye in focus.

Yes the Bokeh imparted in the OOF areas by some glass can be beautiful, some glass not so much. Yes selective focus is a way to isolate the subject in a frame, but moving or changing your angle can also minimize distracting backgrounds. In an environmental shot the background is a part of the composition so why would you want to eliminate it.

Where the craze or maybe crazy comes in is where the photographer automatically shoots wide open or goes straight to PS rather than considering the best choices for the subject at hand.

 

[mrca]

Smoke, I think it is often a function of a missing fundamental of photography, knowing why the shot is being taken then using the camera/lens controls, etc to maximize the message. Also, it is easier to compose a photo if there are fewer elements and blurring the background reduces it to subject only and drives the viewers eye there, rather than having the skills or taking the time to eliminate extraneous elements in the frame and composing a strong composition. It's why the most difficult lenses in my bag are a 24 and 8 mm circular fisheye that makes it difficult to keep my FEET out of the shot. But the last time I nailed it, it got me a magazine cover. As for the computer generated oof, I have yet to see one that is pleasing.