Bokeh - good or bad

[Peter Kilmister]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was originally taught that depth of field was important and to use light from the side to create 3D images. Then everyone went potty about wide open lenses to create 3D images using fuzziness.

 

Both sides of the argument are valid. However, reading Charlie Waite's 1992 book on Landscape Photography, and seeing that he frequently used f/22 or even smaller apertures and 2 second exposures, I now begin to doubt the worthiness of the bokeh style.

His photos taken using film on a Hasselblad in 6x6 format are amazing.

 

Please discuss, considering that unless we crop our Leica photos they deliver 4x3 images.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

No, 3:2.

 

Jeff

[adan]

Some confusion here. "Bokeh" and "limited depth of field and a blurred background" are not the same thing. If a picture happens to use limited DoF and have a blurred background, then the character of that blur (smooth, busy, distracting) is its bokeh.

 

Bokeh can be good or bad - usually the conventional wisdom favors smooth and non-distracting blur (cotton balls) as good, and considers busy and complex blur (bright rings) as bad, but that can be debated - separately.

 

Limiting DoF to a narrow range by using a large aperture may (or may not) produce good or bad bokeh - depends on the lens, the lighting, the foreground/background distance and other factors.

 

Or put logically: Sports car > beautiful exhaust note :: blurred background > beautiful bokeh

____________________

 

I think the original poster's intent is to ask "Using limited DoF to separate a subject from the background - good, or bad?" To which I would reply "Probably."

 

Making everything in the picture sharp - or - isolating a subject with narrow DoF (with or without good "bokeh") are just tools in the well-rounded photographer's toolbox. As is creative motion blur or frozen peak action. Or side light vs. back light vs. front light. What counts is how well a given technique works in exploring and explaining the subject in the resulting photograph.

 

As with any tool, sometimes the old adage applies - "to a kid with a hammer (just one tool), everything looks like a nail." The sophisticated and experienced and effective photographer will understand that, no, everything is not a nail, and thus picking sensibly from the widest tool-kit possible is the most effective approach.

 

Equally, there have been "fads" of using limited DoF in pictures for subject isolation, usually when a new lens enters wide use. In the 1960s there was one driven by the 180 f/2.8s; in the 1980s the advent of the 300mm f/2.8s. So it is hardly a new phenomenon.

 

Frankly, I use large apertures when the light is dim. If I want a picture "sharp everywhere" I pick a 21mm and if I want "subject isolation" I pick a 135, and let the aperture fall where the meter puts it. Assuming the bokeh is not god-awful (500mm mirror lens), I don't pay much attention to it otherwise.

Edited March 21, 2018 by adan

[otto.f]

It’s not so difficult. Shallow depth of field is interesting in certain domains and in other domains not.

Portrait: yes, it gives more sphere to have the background unsharp

Street: yes, it focuses the attention to what the photographer wants to show

Wedding: yes, same reasons as the both above, apart from a shot of the whole group of guests of course

Architecture: hardly, mostly better to have everything sharp

Landscape: same

Stills: depends on the type, but often yes

Packshots: seldom

Fashion: often, to highlight texture of fabrics

Edited March 21, 2018 by otto.f

[Adrian Lord]

Landscapes are about the last place you want to see bokeh. The entirety of the landscape and it's inherent beauty is the whole point of such work. 

 

Nice bokeh is nice to have when a single subject in the fore or mid-ground is isolated by judicious use of depth of field. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Adrian Lord

[wattsy]

I don't think anyone has properly addressed the OP's point about using light rather than a narrow depth of field to create subject separation. Leaving aside what he describes as the "bokeh style" (which I think is just a faddish, usually lazy and gear fixated approach) there is no question in my mind that the use of light – especially backlight, but side lighting clearly also works – is the more satisfying method of drawing attention to the main subject(s) than simply blurring out the background. The OP mentions Charlie Waite – who is obviously firmly within the landscape tradition – and his use of F22. I'd refer to forum favourite James Ravilious as a better example of someone successfully using light rather than depth of field to do much of his compositional work. Ravilious had fast Leica lenses at his disposal but opened up only when darkness necessitated it.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Bokeh is only relevant if and when it adds to the image taken. We seem to love putting things into boxes and classifying them. Same with bokeh - IMO its bad if it doesn't add to or enhance the image and irrelevant unless its use is a positive contribution to the image's overall presentation. The use of light and composition are of far more importance than bokeh which generally is only useful in removing background intrusion rather than actually enhancing separation and so called 3D effect. Occasionally bokeh can be used to lift an image from the ordinary to the exquisite but such use is rare IMO.

 

We should really concentrate more on subject matter, composition and lighting than the utilisation of photographic technique to produce a 'style' or specific look which always has the potential of resulting in the triumph of style over content.

[feelssadman]

Shallow DoF is the easy way out of composition.

[Ko.Fe.]

First, I don't like square. Every time I took 6x6 I printed it on full size of paper. Later on some old ex-pro told me what it was norm back then.

Second, I'm not interested in landscape shots at f22 and two seconds. I'm not into books like this.

Third, I don't care if it is with Hasselblad. It is expensive SLR, slow and limiting. I use Leica, because it is in the opposite.

 

So, as we are on totally different page from OP, including 3D as something not so relevant to bokeh.

 

And from this perspective, to me bokeh is the blur of the image not been in focus. It could be weak and distrusting bokeh or it could be neutral.

To me if bokeh has swirl it is defective. If it has nerviness, buzzing - not good. I like Sonnar bokeh for been rich, but not defective and Planar/Summicron bokeh for been very neutral and organic.  

 

Here is the landscape shot with M-E, Planar 50 at f5.6 and 1/350. It was quicky and handheld.

 

 

I like Leica for it. I could see outside of the frames and make my framing decision quicker and easier way.