scaryink Posted June 10, 2009 Share #1 Posted June 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) In my years as a shutter pusher I have found the ability to control boke to be elusive and unique. The outcome seems quite similar to glaze on porcelain. Each piece is different. Outside of the obvious f stop means, I found little in the ways of literature on the control of this essential and beautiful element of photography. I have not been able to get as pleasing foreground boke as in the background using my m8. I dont know if its related to the sensor size or something Im doing wrong. In LF, you can obtain beautiful subtle differences as the images shifts from front focus, in focus, back focus elements. Mostly my foreground boke is noisy and uninteresting. Background is far easier, especially with the zeiss 50 sonnar. Has anyone figure out how to control boke with the m8 for predictable consistent results? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 Hi scaryink, Take a look here Zen, the art of boke and the M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pklein Posted June 10, 2009 Share #2 Posted June 10, 2009 I think it's like the old joke about the violinist who gets into a cab in New York and asks, "Do you know how to get to Carnegie Hall?" The cabbie replies, "Practice." With an RF you just have to learn your lens. Bokeh depends on aperture, on the distance the lens is focused on, and on the distance and character of the background being bokeh-ed. There are many variables, but if you tend to shoot at certain distances and at certain stops, or under certain conditions, eventually you get a reasonable idea of what the picture will look like. If you use a digital RF (M8, RD-1), you can chimp for instant feedback as part of the learning process. Using only one lens for a period of time will help. If you want perfect control of bokeh, you probably need to use an SLR and a good groundglass screen, and if not shooting wide open, view at the shooting aperture using the DOF preview. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted June 10, 2009 Share #3 Posted June 10, 2009 If you put the japanese original into a google translator, "bokeh"comes out as "mild dementia". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 10, 2009 Share #4 Posted June 10, 2009 Shooting at least one f stop faster is necessary to get the same kind of bokeh as film M's but you know this already i guess. There is a learning curve anyway as digital bokeh is somewhat special and the quality of the lenses play a larger role on digital cameras. Ever tried a pre-asph Summilux 50? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 10, 2009 Share #5 Posted June 10, 2009 A sensor draws far more precise than film. A film has an emulsion thickness which makes the effect of a light point equivalent to shining a torch into a bowl of murky soup. Ovals towards the corners, refraction, reflexion, you name it, it is there on a micro-scale. A sensor behaves like a single plane and does not produce these effects. The net result is that the dof falloff is much more defined, which is more steep to the eye. Thus one needs to use lenses that produce "soft" oof areas to get the same result as one had on film. It makes older, wild-aberration lense like the Summarit, and old-look lenses like the Sonnar a bit harsh. Try one of Leica's Summiluxes of the last or current generation, and you will retrieve the look you are after. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted June 10, 2009 Share #6 Posted June 10, 2009 If you put the japanese original into a google translator, "bokeh"comes out as "mild dementia".Intersting sense of humour by our Japanses friends, "mild dementia" = "slightly fuzzy" (brain). Domo arigato gozaimashita! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted June 10, 2009 Share #7 Posted June 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jaapv, Love the analogy to the bowl of soup, very graphic and very accurate. Soo I guess this is why the wast majority of the world seems to think digital sensors have long surpassed film... though I can't think of one woman who prefer sharper wrinkles. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted June 10, 2009 Share #8 Posted June 10, 2009 ... A film has an emulsion thickness which makes the effect of a light point equivalent to shining a torch into a bowl of murky soup. Ovals towards the corners, refraction, reflexion, you name it, it is there on a micro-scale. A sensor behaves like a single plane and does not produce these effects. ... Jaap, An excellent soup analogy, which got me to wondering if the Fovean sensor might behave a little more like film because of way it captures light in a 'stacked' substrate? Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted June 10, 2009 Share #9 Posted June 10, 2009 Jaap, An excellent soup analogy, which got me to wondering if the Fovean sensor might behave a little more like film because of way it captures light in a 'stacked' substrate? Pete. Mmmm... Sounds more like a good espresso. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted June 10, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted June 10, 2009 So no ideas about why foreground boke seems to be less interesting and pleasing to the eye than background boke at a similar distance from the plane of focus? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 10, 2009 Share #11 Posted June 10, 2009 Dof at medium distance is divided 2/3rd 1/3rd off the plane of focus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted June 10, 2009 Share #12 Posted June 10, 2009 Also there is infinitely more stuff behind the object than in front of it:D More seriously the 1/3-2/3 rule is only a rough guess which is OK for medium distances and not too wide apertures. 50mm, f/1 at 1m => 0.99-1.01 50mm, f/1 at 10m => 9.15-11.06 50mm, f/4 at 1m => 0.97-1.03 50mm, f/4 at 10m => 7.46-15.20 Only the last example follows the 1/3-2/3 rule. Also it depends on the lens focal length. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 10, 2009 Share #13 Posted June 10, 2009 So no ideas about why foreground boke seems to be less interesting and pleasing to the eye than background boke at a similar distance from the plane of focus? Because bokeh, as a rule, isn’t symmetrical on both sides of the plane of focus. Suppose the aperture was triangle-shaped: then the blur circle (actually a blur triangle in this case) might have an edge of the triangle pointing upwards on one side of the plane of focus and pointing downwards on the other. Also, if the lens is slightly undercorrected for spherical aberration, it will produce soft blur circles – and thus a pleasing bokeh – from points behind the plane of focus, but slightly ring-shaped blur circles (and a much less pleasing bokeh) from points in front of the plane of focus. For a lens with overcorrected sperical aberration, it is the other way round. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.