When Will The Bokeh Craze End

[jcdeboever]

I should mention that I have a lens made by Nikon. It is a 35mm f/1.4 AIS. I have read it is an incredible lens. I have yet to get a good image from this glass but I know it is my lack of skill. The glass is weird to say the least but I bet, if I could get skillful enough, I may be able to squeeze a wonderful render with it. There was a guy that used to post in the coffee house that killed the output of this lens... I want to say his name was Steve but I haven't been in that room for a year. Anyway, IMO it is line draw is what gets the juices flowing. Line draw of a lens is what makes me purchase it, not bokeh.

 

[Original katomi]

Ok stupid Q line draw... is that how well it will resolve fine drawn lines

 

[Original katomi]

Thinking of what everyone has been saying.
I took this pic in the failing light I had the choice of hi stupid hi iso or F wide open
I decided that I wanted the face in focus and minimal grain... sorry noise never really looked at the boken untill today

 

[photoflyer]

@SquarePeg, maybe this could be a weekly challenge "To Bokeh or not to Bokeh.". Take the same shot twice: wide open with lots of background blur and then again stopped down to minimize the effect.

 

[SquarePeg]

@SquarePeg, maybe this could be a weekly challenge "To Bokeh or not to Bokeh.". Take the same shot twice: wide open with lots of background blur and then again stopped down to minimize the effect.

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

 

[smoke665]

maybe this could be a weekly challenge

Yes it could, but please no fake PS blur. I'm not opposed to the use of shallow DOF, and admire the quality that a good lens can impart in a background. I'm just of the opinion that it's a tool that doesn't need to always be used, and the fake blur added post detracts rather then enhances an image.

 

[JBPhotog]

The term “bokeh” actually means blur, originally a Japanese term(boke). It should not be confused with the concept of only high quality or pleasing blur, it represents all qualities of blur, good and bad.

Think of it like the word ‘food’, there’s good food and bad food, lol.

 

[AlanKlein]

F1.4, f1.0 and f/.95 lenses don;t provide better bokeh although they do reduce the depth of field to something that just looks bad when half of a person's' head is out of focus.

Big aperture lenses were originally produced during the film era. It gave SLR cameras the ability to see better in darker light because it brings in more light. Of course, if you're using a digital eye level finder, or the LED display on back, the camera compensates with darker lenses. You can easily see the scene with smaller apertures. So you don't need all that heavy and expensive extra glass which also has a tendency to distort more because of the extra glass.

Also, with film you want to use low ASA type to eliminate grain. So you're using no more than let's say 200 ASA. FIlm of ASA 400, 800 or 1600 is just too grainy for most common use. So, again, you need more glass to expose lower ASA film properly at higher shutter speeds. However, with modern digital cameras that shoot acceptable pictures at higher ASA's, again, you don;t need so much glass to pull in all that extra light. It's overkill.

 

[ac12]

Not soon enough.
I am personally tired of this constant talk about bokeh, as if it were the more critical thing about the lens.

I would like the lens image to be SHARP with no glaring optical issues.
I would like the lens to autofocus well and be reasonably fast. For sport lenses, I want a FAST autofocus.
For a zoom, I would like a smooth/light zoom ring.
I don't want a HEAVY lens.
etc. etc. etc.
Bokeh is WAY down MY list of things that I look for.

BTW, I shoot a mirror lens, and I don't care about the donut shaped OOF spots.​

But to each their own.

Were I a professional portrait photographer, I might look at it different.

 

[dennyr]

Yeah.....The Tate and The Smithsonian have announced they are throwing away all photos shot by Group f/64........... No Bokeh.

 

[Dean_Gretsch]

Yes, as SquarePeg said, to each his own. Let's concentrate on the real evil: milky water or not!

 

[petrochemist]

I'm an unapologetic bokeh fan.

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

View attachment 180976

View attachment 180977

No, It may be that most things look better with GOOD bokeh, with bad bokeh they invariably look worse.
Bokeh does not mean shallow DOF (another current fad) which is really what you're showing here.
Your examples do have a smooth pleasing bokeh so work well, if you took the same shots with a mirror lens you'd pobably end up with multiple images in the background that would make the images very confusing.

 

[petrochemist]

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

Circle of confusion is the size you can distinguish two separate points at. A concept that is used in determining DOF (if your visual system cant tell two point apart then they are effectively focused even when merged).

 

[smoke665]

Think of it like the word ‘food’, there’s good food and bad food, lol.

Okay there's chocolate on one end (which I love) and cooked cabbage on the other (which I loathe). Fake blur added post is cabbage. Nice simple analogy.

 

[Tropicalmemories]

[QUOTE="petrochemist,

No, It may be that most things look better with GOOD bokeh, with bad bokeh they invariably look worse.
Bokeh does not mean shallow DOF (another current fad) which is really what you're showing here.
Your examples do have a smooth pleasing bokeh so work well, if you took the same shots with a mirror lens you'd pobably end up with multiple images in the background that would make the images very confusing.[/QUOTE]

So the wine analogy still works - "looks better with a good wine .... ".

I do remember from my teenage years that Thunderbird Wine did not improve anything.

But I do think a good, wide aperture lens has an added capability to enhance some shots - as we can't always control the background, particularly at any tourist spots in this over-populated world.

Whereas as the typical f3.5+ kit zoom lens does not have the same added feature (unless you can specially arrange your subject and background).