cheewai_m6 Posted February 2, 2010 Share #1 Posted February 2, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) ok, so i only put this subject in this forum because 1. it's the most viewed 2. pictures from here are from a full frame camera 3. being digital, it's faster for a response to the question i'm asking. so i hear 'bad bokeh' or harsh bokeh. i understand the 50 lux and nocti give fantastic bokeh, and from what i've seen i agree. it's smooth etc... but i've also read that the type 3 35mm cron gives 'harsh' bokeh. now i have the type 3 35mm cron, and i actually don't mind the bohek at all. i think it's fine. it's a personal choice i understand. so can someone post up a pic with what might be commonly seen as 'bad bokeh' or harsh please? it would be easier for me to understand. i have seen what i consider bad bokeh in picture where a light source that is out of focus appears to be a regular octagon with defined corners, that to me is not smooth. but this pic that i post up, i think the bokeh is fine and i actually quite like it. what's your opinion (be honest, i don't mind if you don't like it)? this image is shot at f2 from a type 3 35mm summicron. it's been cropped and reduced and scanned from colour neg. thanks for feedback. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/111505-bad-bokeh-and-good-bokeh/?do=findComment&comment=1210936'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 Hi cheewai_m6, Take a look here bad bokeh and good bokeh. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ashwinrao1 Posted February 3, 2010 Share #2 Posted February 3, 2010 Mike Johnston of the Online Photographer has a document regarding good and bad bokeh. He's they guy who came up with the term (or at least adopted it from the Japanese), if I recall: Here are a couple of links: Bokeh Ratings and Lens Awards %contentTitel von Mike Johnston in Arts & Photography His poster child for harsh/bad bokeh appears to be the 40 mm Nokton...Renders harshly...I suspect that he wouldn't like the bokeh in your posted image, but so much of that is personal taste and preference that there is no real right or wrong answer. In most circumstances, at similar focal lengths and apertures, lenses will behave similarly unless presented with backgrounds of hard lighted contrast (such as the image you posted). There are always exceptions to the rule, of course. Best of luck...& P.S. I don't find the bokeh in your image to be objectionable to my taste Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted February 3, 2010 Share #3 Posted February 3, 2010 I don't find the bokeh in your image to be objectionable to my taste Maybe because the background "bubbles" fit very nicely to the theme of bottled water:). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted February 3, 2010 Share #4 Posted February 3, 2010 Maybe because the background "bubbles" fit very nicely to the theme of bottled water:). hahah...that's funny and you're right about that lol I don't necessarily buy into the whole good vs bad bokeh thing. There are different types of background blur that can take on various meanings depending on subject matter and context. Icy background blur can work well with certain edgier or darker subject matter. Harsh broken glass style bokeh can add tension. ...ya'll probably see where I'm going with this idea.... The whole internet obsession with bokeh can be very amateurish. I generally associate bokeh with poverty. Its' a trick used to cover up an unpleasant or common background. Trust me, I've had to use it plenty of times, but it's not my first choice.. It's understandable that a photographer shooting family portraits in a municipal park might want to blur the distracting background. But wouldn't a portrait photographer snapping the Queen in her palace want to actually show the surroundings rather than turning them into a blurry mush? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richfx Posted February 3, 2010 Share #5 Posted February 3, 2010 Like beauty, I suspect that bokeh is in the eye of the beholder. While waiting for my 50mm Lux to arrive, I played around with my 90mm Tele Elmarit-M this morning. Not sure of this lens' bokeh reputation, but here are the results. Rich Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/111505-bad-bokeh-and-good-bokeh/?do=findComment&comment=1211026'>More sharing options...
viooh Posted February 3, 2010 Share #6 Posted February 3, 2010 now i have the type 3 35mm cron, and i actually don't mind the bohek at all. i think it's fine. it's a personal choice i understand. so can someone post up a pic with what might be commonly seen as 'bad bokeh' or harsh please? this image is shot at f2 from a type 3 35mm summicron. it's been cropped and reduced and scanned from colour neg. thanks for feedback. Actually, what I see in the picture is circles with a bright edge and darker core. Some people consider exactly this "bad bokeh", but of course it is a matter of personal taste whether you like it or not. I understand that these lens characteristics have to do with over- or undercorrection of the lens and the spatial position of the unsharp highlights, so it is not only the lens but also the shooting situation that influences bokeh. Personally, I like lenses that have what might be called "neutral" bokeh, that is where the distribution of brightness over the unsharpness circles is most even without regard to the spatial position of the bright spot. I think that Leica aims at correcting modern lenses this way, but some people also consider this "neutral" bokeh harsh... Again, it's all a matter of personal preferences. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on this, there are much more important matters than bokeh in the creation of good pics. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic108 Posted February 3, 2010 Share #7 Posted February 3, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Bokeh is where advertisers put their text so it should be as smooth as possibe. In all seriousness bokeh is a kind of cinematic invention that doesn't always print well. I think bad bokeh is too much bokeh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 3, 2010 Share #8 Posted February 3, 2010 There are obviously people who like the out-of-focus rendering of the v.3 35mm Summicron. There are also people who like nail beds. No accounting for taste. What you see in the original posted picture is over-corrected spherical aberration. This produces the 'condom effect' in the background. If there hade be a foreground -- something closer than the plane of best focus -- the effect would have been the opposite, i.e. point highlights that are very strong centrally but fade out toward the periphery. Use a lens with undercorrected s.f. and the two effects switch places. The v.4 lens was hailed as 'the bokeh king' and became a classic because its s.f. correction was much better. Now we should understand that we can put our (possibly perverse) private likes and dislikes aside, and what remains is a technical quality which can be analysed in terms that are esthetically neutral, and can in fact be quantified. So, while there are no norms in esthetics, there are norms in technical matters (in a wide sense). 'Better' or 'worse' are meaningful, valid terms. The old man from the Age Before Bokeh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 3, 2010 Share #9 Posted February 3, 2010 The whole internet obsession with bokeh can be very amateurish. I generally associate bokeh with poverty. Its' a trick used to cover up an unpleasant or common background. Trust me, I've had to use it plenty of times, but it's not my first choice.. It's understandable that a photographer shooting family portraits in a municipal park might want to blur the distracting background. But wouldn't a portrait photographer snapping the Queen in her palace want to actually show the surroundings rather than turning them into a blurry mush? You make a good point, and I agree that sometimes it's overdone. But very, very, very few professionals are photographing the Queen in her palace. Most clients and many subjects benefit from some background blur, preferably not of the condom effect variety. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 3, 2010 Share #10 Posted February 3, 2010 Don't confuse "selective focus" with "bokeh." Selective focus is a photographic technique. Bokeh (good or bad) is an image/lens attribute that gets revealed if one uses selective focus. I disagree with GV that selective focus is somehow a substandard tool. It can be overused ("To a kid with a new hammer, everything looks like a nail") - and it can be used poorly, just as one can pound one's thumb with a hammer. Or it can a powerful tool for guiding the viewer's eye. Depends on how narrow one's view is of what makes an effective picture. One size does not fit all. _______________________________ I'd say the original poster's sample verges on what is technically called "bad" bokeh. Bright rings and all that. I've seen worse - I've seen a lot better, too. Two examples of selective focus: 35mm Summicron ASPH, and 135 Tele-Elmar. See more photos from this essay (in which I used both selective focus and "deep" focus" as I thought appropriate) at: ColoradoSeen - Stories Index - Colorado's small libraries: Part 1, Nucla I leave the evaluation of the bokeh to the beholder. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/111505-bad-bokeh-and-good-bokeh/?do=findComment&comment=1211635'>More sharing options...
adan Posted February 3, 2010 Share #11 Posted February 3, 2010 Just made a logical connection: IMHO, ideal bokeh will look just like a pinhole image. I.E. what one gets when no glass is influencing the light rays. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/114525-leica-m9-tin-foil-pinhole.html Of course, a pinhole image is all-or-nothing. Either everything is sharp or everything is equally fuzzy. But the smooth transitions between tones and at edges created by the simple process of light passing through a hole in straight lines is what a lens should aim for in the non-focused areas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheewai_m6 Posted February 3, 2010 Author Share #12 Posted February 3, 2010 ok cool. knowing what's defined as 'bad bokeh', i still don't find the bokeh ugly or unpleasant. it tells me that the lens is technically not perfect, and has some weaknesses. to me, i still find the original image (which is cropped severely, by that i mean it's less than one quarter of the original image) quite pleasing. i didn't have permission to put her face up so i didn't put the entire image up. thanks everyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 4, 2010 Share #13 Posted February 4, 2010 The other thing to remember is that bokeh can vary with a lot of things - different subject distances - the difference between the subject distance and the background distance - the light - the scene contrast. That particular leaves-against-sky pattern is a real acid test. Even my "king of bokeh" v.4 Summicron didn't pass any better than yours. Try a shot of your "significant other" in front of, say, a backlit fountain at f/2, and those hard circles may just turn into a beautiful luminous mass - with the same lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 4, 2010 Share #14 Posted February 4, 2010 The other thing to remember is that bokeh can vary with a lot of things - different subject distances - the difference between the subject distance and the background distance - the light - the scene contrast. Yes, very true! I was just reading Sean Reid's review of 35mm lenses and he has a nice section comparing their bokeh with different subject matter. In some examples, you can see a clear difference and say one lens has better bokeh than another. And in other examples it's hard to see any difference at all. It seems that small bright highlights in the distance really bring it out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viooh Posted February 4, 2010 Share #15 Posted February 4, 2010 As far as I remember, LFI a few years ago featured some bokeh issues with different generations of 35mm Summicron-M lenses. The outcome was, if I recollect this correctly, that - somewhat surprisingly - the latest, that is the ASPH, in their opinion had the "best", most even bokeh, beating the 4th generation Summicron bokeh king. I think their example pics then made a good point in favour of this result. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted February 4, 2010 Share #16 Posted February 4, 2010 As far as I remember, LFI a few years ago featured some bokeh issues with different generations of 35mm Summicron-M lenses. The outcome was, if I recollect this correctly, that - somewhat surprisingly - the latest, that is the ASPH, in their opinion had the "best", most even bokeh, beating the 4th generation Summicron bokeh king. I think their example pics then made a good point in favour of this result. did they define what best means? I did a comparison between the Lux Asph vs Cron IV at F2 a few days ago. The Lux Asph has smoother bokeh while the Cron IV is more crazy. Personnally, I favour the Cron IV bokeh but I would not call it the best, it is really about each one's tastes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 4, 2010 Share #17 Posted February 4, 2010 As far as I remember, LFI a few years ago featured some bokeh issues with different generations of 35mm Summicron-M lenses. The outcome was, if I recollect this correctly, that - somewhat surprisingly - the latest, that is the ASPH, in their opinion had the "best", most even bokeh, beating the 4th generation Summicron bokeh king. I think their example pics then made a good point in favour of this result. I agree. Some people say that the aspherical lenses have 'bad bokeh' or 'harsh bokeh' when they are actually not speaking of bokeh at all. What they dislike is in fact the superior definition ("sharpness") of the modern lenses *in the plane of best focus!* The very opposite of bokeh, of course, which means the visual properties of out-of-focus detail. But these people do presumably think that 'bokeh' is a word sufficiently vague that it can be made to mean just anything, or nothing -- while their problem actually is that they do not understand the concept. The old man from the Age Before Bokeh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted February 4, 2010 Share #18 Posted February 4, 2010 Another example of the Summicron 35 type 3 (1977). Probaly taken around F4. Not so bad as the general opinion makes us believe, I would say! Maarten Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/111505-bad-bokeh-and-good-bokeh/?do=findComment&comment=1212544'>More sharing options...
scc Posted February 4, 2010 Share #19 Posted February 4, 2010 Just made a logical connection: IMHO, ideal bokeh will look just like a pinhole image. I.E. what one gets when no glass is influencing the light rays. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/114525-leica-m9-tin-foil-pinhole.html Of course, a pinhole image is all-or-nothing. Either everything is sharp or everything is equally fuzzy. But the smooth transitions between tones and at edges created by the simple process of light passing through a hole in straight lines is what a lens should aim for in the non-focused areas. A pinhole is afocal. That is, there is no refraction of light, so all rays pass through unchanged in their direction. You therefore cannot have an out of focus area with a pinhole, as nothing is focussed or defocussed in the first place! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirdwheel Posted February 4, 2010 Share #20 Posted February 4, 2010 Another example of the Summicron 35 type 3 (1977). Probaly taken around F4. Not so bad as the general opinion makes us believe, I would say! Maarten This is a fantastic shot Maarten. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.