The 28 Summilux and Shallow DOF: Why the newfound malice toward Bokeh??

[NB23]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A good photographs stands on its own. All elements play a role.

 

Boke as the only element, the one-trick poney, makes me sick.

 

A guy comes to mind. All his pictures are YELLOW and BLURRY (mostly pictures of Paris). Got sick of the look after 3 pictures. Just thinking about it turns me off. It's been 5 years or so that I haven'T seen his pictures and I still feel sick when I think about it.

[250swb]

I recall reading somewhere (can't recall where now) that in western cultures, people tend to look at the elements in a photograph that are in sharp focus and consider them to be the most important parts of the photograph, while discounting the significance of the OOF elements or even considering them to be irrelevant or without value.  However:  In eastern cultures, every element of the photograph is looked at as being equally important, regardless of whether it is in sharp focus or is out of focus. 

 

 

 

So given we all share that visual language it would extend to other branches of art then? It's why in the 'West' we all hate the Impressionists, we despise a Mark Rothko, would throw a Jackson Pollock on the fire? What utter manufactured drivel.

 

If you want to dig back a bit into history it was the very reason that European cave paintings held their power, because they were never seen in the clear light of day and held a fascinating mystical power because of the half seen glimpsed representations of the world. The Western world and the people in it are well versed in understanding the visual language of OOF, soft, abstract, and diffused. In fact your theory is completely arse about face if you recall what you 'read' accurately. It is the Eastern tradition in art that placed objects together on the same plane with simple perspective and no recession that would cause anything to be represented as OOF in the distance. It is what the Post-Impressionists latched onto as Japanese prints became freely available in Europe, hence the perspective adopted by artists such a Lautrec, later by Picasso etc. But these are simply traditions in art, not hard wired into the brains of Westerners or Easterners.

 

And photography has it's own traditions, one of which is that fast lenses were invented for 35mm so the camera could be used in low light, and fast film was invented so photographers could stop their lenses down. This is your dichotomy, when to use a fast lens or fast film (high ISO), and having an intelligent reason for it, not some sort of half-baked theory telling people that if they can't appreciate OOF it's because of where they were born! What comes next after that? Appreciating OOF or not-OOF in a photograph, and being able to articulate your appreciation, is about visual and intellectual education in any culture, that is why a Japanese street photograph looks pretty much like a US street photograph, even down to the McDonalds signs, because we are a cross cultural world, not one that identifies people's intellectual or visual awareness by birthplace. 

 

 

Steve

Edited July 14, 2015 by 250swb

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

Surely, Steve, there cultural differences in art and  art perception?  Otherwise Eastern art would be the same as European. Of course there is a Maconaldisation of the world cultures going on, and easily Internet distributed images like photographs will be amongst the first to show it, but the differences are still there.

[jaapv]

Anyway, unsharpness is still part of photographic language. In this example the photographer used the sharp-OOF gradient to symbolize the change from yellow to purple in his garden:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/247752-color-transition/?p=2853690

[Peter H]

Isn't it just that the heavy use of OOF backgrounds has become a cliche?

 

Like all cliches, there are occasions when they seem so perfectly fitting that we use them anyway. But a real challenge for anyone who considers themselves to be creative is to avoid the use of cliches wherever possible. And most of the time it should be possible for anyone with a bit of visual ingenuity.

 

But this reasoning tends to divide photographers. I get the strong impression that a very large number of photographers don't particularly want to be creative in the first place. They want to enjoy a hobby, and make nice photos that they and their friends and family can enjoy. So a nice flower on a rock, a portrait, a deck-chair on an evening promenade are all suitable subjects for "subject isolation". So we get a sort of cross-fire between photographers with completely different objectives in mind; those who are trying to create something new and those who are trying to create something nice. Both valid, but often irreconcilable, hence these inconclusive arguments.

 

As for me, I question whether this type of subject isolation, a technological trick at heart,  has much of a role to play in our creative imaginations. And if it does, how creative are we really being?

 

It's a cliche. It should be avoided wherever possible.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Peter H

[indergaard]

Shallow depth of field does not make an image / subject interesting.

 

Many people photograph boring subjects or scenes with shallow depth of field and suddenly thinks this makes the image interesting, or makes it "artistic", whatever that means. But in 99.9% of the cases this is not true. 99% of the worlds population looks at an image with the subject in mind, not the out of focus background. And if the subject is boring or is missing, then the image is uninteresting, no matter if it has creamy bokeh or not.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But if you treat the oof elements as irrelevant, would you then more likely make it boring/mundane/(insert any more derogatory comment here)? I am not sure anyone here is a wedding photographer, but any competent wedding tog would utilize an oof element well, whether to complement the bride's eyes color or to not distract the viewers from the newly wedded couples' expression. I saw one of Jerry Ghionis's wedding shoot videos, and he utilized f/1.2 on his Canon 85 really well.

 

I guess most here are street togs so bokeh shot might seem to be irrelevant/boring. But would you guys ever consider challenging yourself making a memorable shallow DOF shot? I recently lost my interest in taking the typical flower shots that I used to do in the early day. They all look the same to me, but I occasionally would go out of my way and try to find another angle, another way of taking flower macro that others rarely see (like UWA flower macro). So far I failed miserably , but that wouldn't stop me from trying.

 

A recent flower shot with the ZM 15

 

 

I love the concept, but I would say that the oof areas are too dominant. If the subject had included the entire rock, the oof areas would be less distracting to me. And, for me, that is the point. The oof areas need to add to the composition without distracting from the subject. I'd have my dof calculator out!

 

As an aside, you took this with an M(240)?  Did you use cornerfix to get rid of the red edge, or did you crop it?

 

PS - while I agree with a lot of what Steve and Peter say above, I do think there is a tendency to seize on particular aspects of technique and over emphasise them, and over criticise them.

 

I recall some years ago, a discussion about ultra-wides (it was either about the Distagon ZM 15 or the Summilux 21). Lars had just said that he couldn't understand the point of a fast, uncoupled lens of 15mm, and another poster of vast talent and expertise (and a keen appreciation of both) chimed in and said images with everything in the foreground to infinity in focus was such a cliché.

 

Go figure. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[jaapv]

A cliche is only a cliche by the way it is used. If it is an actual way to express something there is no objection to using it.

 

Simply said: if I feel I need to use a certain aspect I will not avoid it because others don't like it.

[Peter H]

............................

 

............I recall some years ago, a discussion about ultra-wides (it was either about the Distagon ZM 15 or the Summilux 21). Lars had just said that he couldn't understand the point of a fast, uncoupled lens of 15mm, and another poster of vast talent and expertise (and a keen appreciation of both) chimed in and said images with everything in the foreground to infinity in focus was such a cliché.

 

Go figure. 

 

 

John, photography is full of cliches, and they are all to be avoided. Which is, of course, virtually impossible to achieve, but it's the attempt that matters.

 

Speech is also full of cliches, and when we're chatting to a friend we use them freely. But if we're trying to write a novel, or a promotional document, or anything with a serious intent, we try to avoid them. Or we should.

 

Photography uses a vast visual vocabulary and it's impossible to be original the whole time, and not always appropriate. This is why I referred to the different things that motivate us. I do believe that when we are really being serious about our photography, as when writing something that is important to us in a creative sense, we should not even bother if we can't at least try to come up with something new.

 

Also, the heavy use of bokeh can feel slightly inauthentic to me, but that's another huge subject to talk about...

Edited July 14, 2015 by Peter H

[Ellie]

Perhaps it's a cliche to focus closer than 3 meters? Using smaller apertures like f/11 doesn't help when focusing at close range, the background will be OOF.

[Peter H]

Perhaps it's a cliche to focus closer than 3 meters? Using smaller apertures like f/11 doesn't help when focusing at close range, the background will be OOF.

 

No, and I think you're pretending not to understand what I'm trying to say.

 

I'm talking about deliberately selecting a large aperture as a compositional choice where there may be more interesting, if more challenging, alternatives.

 

I'm not saying  OOF backgrounds are always bad. And obviously they are sometimes unavoidable, and sometimes very attractive. It's a stylistic matter.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Peter H

[Winedemonium]

If we are talking shallow DOF to isolate the subject, it can work well in some instances, particularly if the subject is very strong or a poor arrangement of other elements cannot be avoided. 

 

But there are other - often visually more appropriate - ways to isolate the subject:

- contrasting textures between subject and other elements

- contrasting colour

- contrasting light

- contrasting movement (motion blur for subject or for background)

these four other methods can more readily lead to pictures that give context to the subject making the picture as a whole more interesting.

 

sometimes though you can see that the photographer using maximum aperture has either used super shallow DOF as a crutch, or worse, without considering the best shallow DOF for the subject. Personally I get a bit put off when a portrait gets one eye in crisp focus and the other eye is already far enough off the plane of focus that it is blurred. When that achieves nothing visually except to show off focusing skills or just how razor thin DOF can be achieved with a certain lens, it doesn't appeal to me.

 

so I don't think the gripe is with shallow DOF per se. It can be used to great artistic effect. The gripe is with lazy or thoughtless approaches to its use that say one-size-fits-all -- just get the subject in focus and blur the rest away.

[250swb]

Surely, Steve, there cultural differences in art and  art perception?  Otherwise Eastern art would be the same as European. Of course there is a Maconaldisation of the world cultures going on, and easily Internet distributed images like photographs will be amongst the first to show it, but the differences are still there.

 

Which is what education does for you, it enables you to understand other artistic traditions different from your own. We shouldn't confuse a tradition born of a way of life with something that can't be appreciated and understood by an outsider. It is how influences migrate from culture to culture, bits and pieces are taken here and there as the occasion necessitates or on the whim of a painter, photographer, academic, or musician etc. If it isn't a concept that you can believe in then nobody should be playing Beethoven to the Japanese. Perception and experience are closely linked, it is what gives credibility to the naïve artist, but naïve art can still be appreciated by anybody who isn't 'naïve' themselves.

 

And we don't have to like something to appreciate it for what it is, it is perfectly possible to dislike OOF and at the same time understand why it is being used and it's place in culture. The criticism of 'if you don't like it you don't understand it' or, 'you come from somewhere else so you can't understand it' is schoolyard stuff.

 

Steve

Edited July 14, 2015 by 250swb

[jaapv]

To be honest, Japanese music is something I don't "get". All the more reason to admire those members of an Eastern culture who are able to appreciate our music and sometimes render it beautifully.

 

However, the differences in general are still there. One of the amazing things for instance, is that there are scientific studies that show that colour perception differs between cultures, which we, as photographersK can see in the difference between Fuji, Kodak and Agfa slide film.

[IkarusJohn]

John, photography is full of cliches, and they are all to be avoided. Which is, of course, virtually impossible to achieve, but it's the attempt that matters.

 

Speech is also full of cliches, and when we're chatting to a friend we use them freely. But if we're trying to write a novel, or a promotional document, or anything with a serious intent, we try to avoid them. Or we should.

 

Photography uses a vast visual vocabulary and it's impossible to be original the whole time, and not always appropriate. This is why I referred to the different things that motivate us. I do believe that when we are really being serious about our photography, as when writing something that is important to us in a creative sense, we should not even bother if we can't at least try to come up with something new.

 

Also, the heavy use of bokeh can feel slightly inauthentic to me, but that's another huge subject to talk about...

 

Couldnt agree more, Peter. 

[edwardkaraa]

Very interesting and educating discussion. I think no body's arguing about the esthetic value of nice bokeh complementing an interesting subject. The argument is rather when the bokeh becomes the subject, as in shooting indiscriminately any subject as long as the background is nicely blurred. This reminds me when I first got my first UWA. I only shot distorted subjects for the first couple of weeks.

[thighslapper]

this sort of discussion tends to meander into the quicksand of 'Photography as Art' and all that goes with it .......

 

suffice it to say that a 'good' photo is the harmonious sum of many parts ..... and like art entirely in the eye of the beholder.

 

if you have engaged in the ritual self flagellation of posting images to the forum the 'beholders' appear to be frequently blind, stupid, uncultured and ignorant if photos are ignored ..... and friends for life if they pass even the most grudging compliment 

 

of course you may be deluded with aspirations of grandeur and photographic abilities that are entirely unfounded and living in your own Cartier-Bresson fantasy world ..... 

 

Poor old Wilfredo needed a stiff talking to after he nearly engaged in on-line hari-kari on the forum due to lack of appreciation of his photos .....

 

just do what you enjoy and interests you and if others find the occasional image interesting then that is a bonus ...... bokehlicious or not .... 

[Herr Barnack]

So given we all share that visual language it would extend to other branches of art then? It's why in the 'West' we all hate the Impressionists, we despise a Mark Rothko, would throw a Jackson Pollock on the fire? What utter manufactured drivel.

 

If you want to dig back a bit into history it was the very reason that European cave paintings held their power, because they were never seen in the clear light of day and held a fascinating mystical power because of the half seen glimpsed representations of the world. The Western world and the people in it are well versed in understanding the visual language of OOF, soft, abstract, and diffused. In fact your theory is completely arse about face if you recall what you 'read' accurately. It is the Eastern tradition in art that placed objects together on the same plane with simple perspective and no recession that would cause anything to be represented as OOF in the distance. It is what the Post-Impressionists latched onto as Japanese prints became freely available in Europe, hence the perspective adopted by artists such a Lautrec, later by Picasso etc. But these are simply traditions in art, not hard wired into the brains of Westerners or Easterners.

 

And photography has it's own traditions, one of which is that fast lenses were invented for 35mm so the camera could be used in low light, and fast film was invented so photographers could stop their lenses down. This is your dichotomy, when to use a fast lens or fast film (high ISO), and having an intelligent reason for it, not some sort of half-baked theory telling people that if they can't appreciate OOF it's because of where they were born! What comes next after that? Appreciating OOF or not-OOF in a photograph, and being able to articulate your appreciation, is about visual and intellectual education in any culture, that is why a Japanese street photograph looks pretty much like a US street photograph, even down to the McDonalds signs, because we are a cross cultural world, not one that identifies people's intellectual or visual awareness by birthplace. 

 

 

Steve

Gee, Steve - thank you for that pulpit pounding, sweat slinging, spittle spewing exhibition of blind evangelical rage.  I had forgotten why I had put you on my ignore list so long ago; now I remember.  Thanks for the refresher.

 

If I may be so insolent as to request a favor of you, don't shoot me, I'm just the piano player.  None of the ideas that I mused about in the post which caused you such unfiltered, childlike rage came from me.  As I stated, these were ideas that I had read some years ago that were put forward for consideration by someone else; I cannot recall the author's name or the source where I read his thoughts.  No matter, though.  You needed a punching bag to verbally beat, kick and spit on.  I was what was at hand.  Your thinly veiled accusation that I was lying ("...if you recall what you 'read' accurately...") is also duly noted, even though it is completely without merit and is based in your assumptions.

 

It is unfortunate to see such venom, anger and unvarnished hatred festering in the mind the mind of a person of your education and intellect. 

 

I am still at a loss to understand what caused you to throw such a hissy fit.  If you would be kind enough to explain it to me, I would like to know and understand.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[Matlock]

Oh dear. Handbags at dawn

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[cpclee]

The overuse of bokeh ranks #2 in my book of annoying photographic practices and is second only to excessive fake vignetting.  HDR is No 3. 

 

The word bokeh in Japanese originally only describes the quality of out of focus rendering.  It doesn't refer to the quantity and certainly doesn't suggest the shallower the depth of field the merrier, which seems to be what a lot of people assume these days.  Funny thing is the word would draw a blank 10-15 years ago, but now it's a total obsession in the Leica community.

 

You use a shallow depth of field when it's to your advantage to do so.  It's not the be all and end all.  Unfortunately a lot of pictures showcasing bokeh would be bad pictures at any aperture.

 

You heard this here first: there is also a Japanese word for the in focus area, "nukeh" (ヌケ).　I'd like to see that word catch on and people starting shooting every picture at f64.