Bokeh and smooth tonality

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There's been loads of discussion about lenses with 'good' bokeh and whilst bokeh appears to be important to some photographer, it seems to be less so to others. However I wonder if a lens with smooth bokeh might also exhibit a smoothness of tonality which also contributes to the overall 'feel' of some of the images it produces?

[pico]

We tread on some very personal grounds when we speak of bokeh and tonal rendering, but in my experience and to my taste, very late ASPH lenses are over-corrected and have harshly precise separation of highlights and near-highlights wherever they appear in the image, focused or not. Not good for me.

 

However, in overcast, low contrast scenes the separation of tonalities can create a very pleasing look.

 

My view does not imply that Leica errs in making the very best designed lenses. Someone has to exceed the rest.

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

We tread on some very personal grounds when we speak of bokeh and tonal rendering....

 

However, in overcast, low contrast scenes the separation of tonalities can create a very pleasing look.

My wife looked at images taken on an older lens yesterday and immediately remarked on the tonal difference and slightly old fashioned feel to the image - she is a biologist not a photographer although she has a good eye. So personal grounds or not, differences in image rendition clearly exist and do so markedly enough to be visible to uninitiated viewers. Which got me thinking about bokeh/tonality. IMHO the two must be linked and I'm surprised that there has been no discussion about this before.

 

Anyone???

[Rick in CO]

To my eye, the latest Apo/ASPH Leica offerings have similar, if not more contrast than the Zeiss lenses I have used. Does this increased contrast result in less "tonality"? I'm just asking, but I have noticed one or two observances by MM users that they prefer the look of older Leica glass.

[farnz]

My wife looked at images taken on an older lens yesterday and immediately remarked on the tonal difference and slightly old fashioned feel to the image ...

Paul,

 

What do you think your good lady wife meant by "tonal difference"? It could relate to the graduation of the tones, separation of individual tones, smooth transition between light and dark tones, a palette of tones that's not commonly seen today, or even perhaps low contrast. I have to admit I find the term "tone" quite confusing because, for example, for some it relates to black & white but for others it relates to colours.

 

To respond to your question I personally don't think there's a direct link between out of focus areas/boke/bokeh and tonality but I think that smooth tonal transitions enhance the bokeh that I like. But since bokeh is so subjective, the chap standing next to me on the tube at any given moment might particularly dislike such bokeh. I've seen 'harsh' bokeh with smooth transitions and 'gentle' bokeh sharp transitions, hence my belief that they're unconnected but catalytic.

 

Pete.

[pgk]

Pete

 

I agree that tonality is one of those terms which is subject to varied interpretation.

 

However....

 

Zeiss published an interesting article on bokeh (CLN35) and one comment stands out to me, namely 'The nature of the background blurriness of a spherically under-corrected lens is appealing to the human eye.' Since this applies more to older designs than new I wonder if the reduced corrections have effects both on the bokeh and the definition of detail which in turn affects the tonality or more specifically, the gradation between adjacent areas of differing tone which in turn provide the overall 'look' of the image.

 

Interestingly, the article comments that the effect of aspherical surfaces can sometimes be seen within the bokeh of a lens, and it is aspherical lenses which have the 'bite' and high contrast that defines today's state of the art lens designs. Hence my query.....

[k-hawinkler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do you have examples to demonstrate your points?

Thanks.

[farnz]

.... Zeiss published an interesting article on bokeh (CLN35) and one comment stands out to me, namely 'The nature of the background blurriness of a spherically under-corrected lens is appealing to the human eye.' .....

With the greatest respect this is such a generalised statement that, to me, is meaningless. For every 1,000 people Zeiss could find that agree that it is appealing there will be 1,000 who would say it is unappealing, so it is appealing to some human eyes, but not all as the statement implies; such is the degree of subjectivity of bokeh.

 

I suppose it's possible that there's a direct link between tonality and bokeh but we'll never know until (appealing) bokeh is clearly and unequivocally defined, which has proved impossible so far owing to its subjectiveness.

 

Pete.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

I suppose it's possible that there's a direct link between tonality and bokeh but we'll never know until (appealing) bokeh is clearly and unequivocally defined, which has proved impossible so far owing to its subjectiveness.

 

Pete.

 

So FWIW, myself and a lot of other folks sort of prefer the overall bokeh and tonal qualities of the classic Mandler-era lenses: the M28 2.0, 35 1.4 IV, 50 2.0 cron, Nocti 1.0, 75 1.4, and a couple of 90s--especially on digital. Not to mention the last version 50 R lux, the 80 1.4R and a host of other R lenses...

 

I know other people who just hate those lenses. But it does mean, at least, that there is something to the correction -- tonality correlation and a family resemblance among similarly designed lenses.

 

While I like the newer, differently corrected lenses as well, especially on film, there is something about the Mandler lenses that balance lower contrast, tonality and beautiful bokeh (though not under all conditions). For people work, especially, I find them just wonderfully "classic" and compelling.

[farnz]

Jamie,

 

I completely agree with you and you've mentioned many lenses whose bokeh appeals to me too, to which I'll add the old RF Sonnars.

 

But we're in danger of falling into generalisation here by saying we like the bokeh of those lenses because the bokeh can vary significantly under certain conditions. Take, for example, the Noctilux 1.0 you mention, which under certain conditions has the celebrated/notorious (depending on which side of the fence one sits) "swirly" bokeh yet under other conditions/apertures exhibits bokeh with a different smoother character. (For the benefit of this discussion only) presuming that the lens produces only two distinct characters, which do we like? Both? One? The other? In some pictures one? In some pictures the other?

 

I fear that this discussion is likely to inexorably slide into the seemingly endless discussion about bokeh rather than Paul's original question about a connection between tonality and bokeh so I'll stop here.

 

Pete.

[pgk]

there is something about the Mandler lenses that balance lower contrast, tonality and beautiful bokeh.

It was a Mandler design that sparked off my original post. The image in question prompted a comment initially about 'sharpness' but immediately corrected because the shot IS sharp, and ended by stating that the image looked slightly old fashioned.

 

I know what Pete is saying but accepting that its difficult to define 'good' or 'bad' bokeh, I still wonder if the actual bokeh produced by a lens is intrinsically linked to its corrections (or lack of). The article by Zeiss indicates that bokeh is dependent on a high number of factors and I assume that as it is a physical result of numerous factors, it must be 'predictable' to some extent, as are other lens characteristics. From other reading, I am under the impression that some Mandler designs were state of the art at their time and it took technological shifts to significantly (?) exceed them. Perhaps they represent the pinnacle of a step in lens design and these lenses have the remnants of personally crafted characteristics as opposed to being precisely technical masterpieces?