When Will The Bokeh Craze End

[Derrel]

According to what I have read the term was introduced to the English-speaking world in the early 1990s by Mike Johnston, then the editor of Darkroom Techniques magazine. Mike is now the owner of The Online Photographer blog.

 

[SquarePeg]

"Fake blur" has become much better in recent years. The new Google Pixel phone has amazingly good artificial blurry backgrounds, and in the new iPhone 11 it looks pretty good, not perfect,but pretty good. Just a few months ago Apple advertised their phones with the word bokeh, using it as a verb,in this sentence "I would never bokeh your kid."

That commercial was funny but didn’t they pronounce it wrong?

 

[photoflyer]

To me, bokeh approximates how we actually see the world. What we are looking at in the macula of the eye is in focus and everything that is around it is a bit blurry. This effect is less pronounced in our vision relative what we see in most photos shot with a fast lens that is wide open.

I often shoot the same image as I stop the lens down. For me the sweet spot is the aperture that provides the minimum depth of field necessary to place the front to back of the object of the image in focus. More than that and sometimes the background becomes a distraction. Of course there are exceptions. Landscapes shot with a telephoto where compression of foreground and background objects is desired comes to mind.

 

[SquarePeg]

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).

The average person may not understand why they like one image more than another - but they do. They’re attracted to the qualities that these lenses bring to an image even if it’s only subconsciously.

 

[smoke665]

To me, bokeh approximates how we actually see the world

Oh I agree with you, and I can accept the effects of DOF, but when I see a portrait that's tack sharp from the tip of the nose to the ears, then suddenly everything goes blurred all at once that's not how I see the world. Somewhere along the line on the journey to more Bokeh someone brought in the crazy post blur that doesn't resemble the beauty of the real thing. Initially it was mostly the inexperienced, but of late I've seen even the more experienced falling into the trap.

 

[Tropicalmemories]

I'm an unapologetic bokeh fan.

Bokeh is like wine. Most things look better with bokeh, but too much can make you dizzy.

 

[Original katomi]

Just seen some tv advert for video boken, I have to admit it’s not something I think about. As long as I get what want sharp, in the frame, and no telegraph poles sticking out of peoples heads I don’t worry too much about what effect that particular lens in use has on the background.
I want to and have people look at what I was trying to capture not the effect the lens, lighting had on the background.
But I have a rep for being out of the box and for Marmite photography
What one person sees, and likes will not appeal to another.
For me, the worst cc of one of my photos is
Technically it’s perfect,,, but
Edit.
I have read and I have looked and still don’t understand
What’s the difference between boken and out of focus.
I thought boken was the bluring effect on lights or points of light

 

[Designer]

I have read and I have looked and still don’t understand
What’s the difference between boken and out of focus.
I thought boken was the bluring effect on lights or points of light

The original usage of "bokeh" was to designate the quality of the blur. A soft, even, cloud-like blur was said to be "bokeh", but so many people now simply call the blur bokeh, without judging how soft it is. I've even read "swirly bokeh" or "cat's eye bokeh", which neither one of which would have fit the original definition.

So how do we use this? Some lenses are known for their soft blur, and other lenses are known for undesirable blur.

I say you should simply look at the blur and decide for yourself if it is actually bokeh or just some jarring blur that you don't want. If you want the soft blur, get that lens, if you don't like the blur, don't buy that lens.

 

[smoke665]

I have read and I have looked and still don’t understand
What’s the difference between boken and out of focus.

As Designer and others have stated above actual Bokeh has to do with the quality of the blur (soft focus) imparted by the lens. Unfortunately the advent of cellphones and Ps has led to the gross distortion of the background to blur. Here's a quick example I just did of one of the techniques used in Ps to add the fake blur. The background was a landscape that was blurred using a Field Blur layer.

And here's an example of DOF. Obviously in the above the a different background then the original photo was used, but the same could have been done with the original, notice the soft gradual transition along the edges vs the above example.

 

[otherprof]

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.

Time to revisit Group f64?

 

[dennyr]

I thought it was called Circle Of Confusion......... and for that f/4.0 - f/5.6 was always plenty for me.

 

[SquarePeg]

Why care so much about what other photographers like and value? If you don’t appreciate it or think it’s too trendy then save your money and be happy about it.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I don't think bokeh looks like how I actually see things, not unless I take my glasses off! I don't really get what is meant by that. Anyway I think it's like a lot of effects, it can work if done well, but it doesn't really work to try to 'fix' a picture.

If there are windows/doors etc. in the background, they'll be large out of focus squares/rectangles; if someone/something is in red it'll make for a red blurry thing back there, that's all still part of the composition. The way to 'fix' it is to see it in the viewfinder and move your feet, move around and change the vantage point, think about where you're putting things in the frame, etc.

I think some people rely on it a little too much and aren't always using it to best effect.

 

[jcdeboever]

Most of my glass is shot best between f/5.6 and f/8.

 

[Original katomi]

Ok I see, I have been using DOF for years deciding how much or how little I wanted in focus. I have even used Cokin filters for soft focus of the background.
Well having given it some thought I will not be joining the Boken fad.
DOF I understand, and can use.
Thanks for the replies.