When Will The Bokeh Craze End

[smoke665]

I'm not all that interested in bokeh, but when I found this old 50mm f2.0 SMC Pentax-M

The natural rendering of a good lens can be a beautiful addition. Where I mainly have a problem is the fake addition post. I love my FA 50mm f1.4, but a thrift store find of an old manual 135mm f2.5, puts it to shame. Posted some recently in another thread. Softly In The Sunlight

 

[SquarePeg]

Not all blur is nice bokeh. I love the dreamy bokeh of my Fuji 60mm macro. The slowest hunting lens I own but would never give it up. While a nice blur can be achieved in Post with certain skills, some qualities of bokeh can’t be faked.

Fine feathers by SharonCat..., on Flickr

 

[JBPhotog]

The natural rendering of a good lens can be a beautiful addition. Where I mainly have a problem is the fake addition post. I love my FA 50mm f1.4, but a thrift store find of an old manual 135mm f2.5, puts it to shame. Posted some recently in another thread. Softly In The Sunlight

Directed at your above thread, the lack of decent focusing screens in the modern day digital body is the reason I replaced my 1978 Nikkor 105mm f2.5 AIS with the latest version the 105mm F1.4E. I just had a bear of a time focusing it manually even with all the “in focus” indicators, for portraits it was just a pain. Of course my eyes aren’t what they used to be either

Nice find for $30 BTW. The only issues you may have are flare and ghosting as the coatings have gotten so much better over the past 40 years or so.

 

[smoke665]

While a nice blur can be achieved in Post with certain skills, some qualities of bokeh can’t be faked.

It's possible to obtain passable blur, and even add Bokeh balls post that won't be discernable to anyone but the pixel peepers, but the majority of those doing it today are so sloppy that it's comical in their attempts.

@JBPhotog yeah I miss the split prism. You can still have one installed, but the cost and time might be prohibitive. If I can use a tripod the rear screen is helpful as I can enlarge the image to drill down on the exact focal point.

On occasion flare and ghosting catches me off guard, but as long as I pay attention, it isn't a problem.

 

[Braineack]

It has more to do than BG blur and even bokeh balls. it's the quality of ANY oof portion of the image.

I love the bokeh of my 85mm and 58mm lenses.

this is from my 85mm 1.8g. a ~$350 used lens. Her face is the focal point which at 100% is tack sharp. The foreground blur is pleasant and the transition of focus to blur throughout the background is smooth and blends into a creamy bg.


again, on my 58mm:


DSC_7275 by Braineack, on Flickr

look how nicely they pop from the bg, even the pole behind her head isn't distracting. the foreground blur of the deck is very smooth. You can still tell they are shot on a dock off a lake in front of trees, but the overall bokeh quality is top-notch.

 

[smoke665]

the transition of focus to blur throughout the background is smooth and blends into a creamy bg

That's the difference "the transition", so much of the fake stuff has no transition.

 

[Braineack]

exactly. and blurs fly-away hairs

 

[pocketshaver]

its hell on people with vision problems. People with vision problems spend lots of money NOT to see things in that manner.

 

[Sharpshooterr]

We've certainly seen many on here who seem to want "bokeh" over and above anything else, but it seems the quest for the blur is letting up some. It might have something to do with what essentially becomes a spoiled attempt, and any objective look at the poor results will convince observers that the photograph is not optimum.

After a photographer learns the reason for background (and foreground) blur, and realizes that there are degrees of blur as well as quality of the blur, the photographs seem to get better.

No, most people do not realize that the blur is something the photographer was trying to do, but the separation of subject from the background is always something that makes the product look better (and more professional).

I just read your post, not being on here much, but I will say you are definitely being quite liberal with you opinions!! LoL
I hope you’re not basing it on that useless article that I saw here and other places about six months ago?
First, unless you have personally talk to every photographer that has posted bokeh, that they, “want bokeh over and above anything else”?
Because it might NOT be your cup of tea does not mean they are “spoiled attempts”!
“Optimum”, for who, high level award winning photographers, you, me or maybe the person that created the image? What IS optimum bokeh?
How do you know those photographers don’t know that the separation of foreground/background blur and it’s uses is not important?
Bokeh is not new! It first appeared in Japanese wood cuts about 1000 years ago, long before photography even came into existence!
Some might call it a fad, maybe it will end tomorrow, but I doubt it!!! LoL
SS

 

[Designer]

How do you know those photographers don’t know that the separation of foreground/background blur and it’s uses is not important?

They have written so.

They are newbies asking how to get "bokeh", and they don't know the basics.

That's how I know.

 

[SquarePeg]

Designer this is not directed at you in particular just something that your post brought to mind as I've seen it here and on other forums. I've never really understood the annoyance? condescension? disdain? toward "newbies" who are trying to create a certain look. They don't know what they don't know...until they ask. Most of us started out there.

Look at the ads for these cameras. The photos they use to sell the gear are not shot on Auto,during mid day, at the widest setting with no background separation - but a newbie has no way of knowing that. They see the photos and think "Me likee" so they buy the kit and think they can easily get those results and then when they don't they start asking questions. Nothing wrong with that. They either end up on the long learning curve toward improvement or going back to their iphones.

 

[Sharpshooterr]

How do you know those photographers don’t know that the separation of foreground/background blur and it’s uses is not important?

They have written so.

They are newbies asking how to get "bokeh", and they don't know the basics.

That's how I know.

It sounds to me like you have a bit of disdain for those poor noobies.
I can understand that they may not know how to create purposeful blur. My guess is they know the importance of it or they wouldn’t want to be creating it.
Many noobs probably don’t yet own the glass to create a more perfect blur.
Maybe that’s why they ask.
Seems like they want to be able to put it into their quiver of techniques like the rest of us.
It obviously makes you angry enough to complain about it. I hope you at least explained the technique and how and when to use it.
The average photographer that just because they started with film 50 years ago that thinks their any good isn’t very good either but it’s no reason to criticize what they do or don’t know!
Maybe if I go back and read all 7 pages, Ill be angry TOO!! LoL
SS

 

[Derrel]

I think the inclusion of background blur in the new iPhone and in the new Google pixel phone will ensure that the bokeh effect lives for quite some time.

About a year ago there was an Apple commercial for the new iPhone in which the word word bokeh was used as a verb. One mother says to another something like , "How dare you bokeh my kid!" And the accused mother says," I would never bokeh your kid".

Knowing Apple, I would guess that that ad reached 40 to 50 million people.

 

[smoke665]

It sounds to me like you have a bit of disdain for those poor noobies.
I can understand that they may not know how to create purposeful blur. My guess is they know the importance of it or they wouldn’t want to be creating it.

Back in my original post I stated "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". My biggest issue is with those that try to create the effect in Ps, when they don't understand what constituents attractive blur. They end up with a sharp edge object floating in a sea of blur with no transition. To me at least, it's like the screech of chalk on a blackboard.

 

[SquarePeg]

I think the inclusion of background blur in the new iPhone and in the new Google pixel phone will ensure that the bokeh effect lives for quite some time.

About a year ago there was an Apple commercial for the new iPhone in which the word word bokeh was used as a verb. One mother says to another something like , "How dare you bokeh my kid!" And the accused mother says," I would never bokeh your kid".

Knowing Apple, I would guess that that ad reached 40 to 50 million people.

I had always thought it was pronounced bokay but the pronounced it bokah.