Bokehism - New Movement, Compositional Crutch, Status Symbol or None of the Above?

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The term in often mis-used, go to other photo forums to see all the posts from people asking about lenses that give a 'good bokeh effect' etc. etc.

I think it's a reaction to the fact that most people have been using smaller sensor digital cameras which give such large depth of field that they see photos with blurry backgrounds as being a sign of 'professional' equipment or techniques and want to get the same results.

The photos are all about the out of focus backgrounds, with little thought to the actual subject matter.

Some Leica users are as bad - they buy a Noctilux and get obsessed with taking photos showing a pin sharp spot on someones nose with the rest of their features OOF.

[Advertisement]

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

[Lee S]

I have seen very few compelling photos that has a very shallow depth of field. The technique has its place, but is also massively overused and can be a crutch. 

It allows people to be lazy and take boring photos with properly considering the background. Personally I rarely need to use a wider aperture than F2.8. 

The last five years has been a race from manufacturers to make the fastest and sharpest lenses whilst wide open. Why do I care if the extreme corner is tack sharp wide open at F1.2 when the DoF is less than 0.5cm?

I’m also a Sony shooter too and they recently released THREE F2.5 primes, these are compact and makes mirrorless cameras beneficial, perfect. I don’t think they released anything slower than F1.8 since the Zeiss 35mm f2.8 on launch of the system probably 10 years ago.... 

 

Edited April 6, 2021 by Lee S

[Ko.Fe.]

2 hours ago, Lee S said:

I have seen very few compelling photos that has a very shallow depth of field. The technique has its place, but is also massively overused and can be a crutch. 

It allows people to be lazy and take boring photos with properly considering the background. Personally I rarely need to use a wider aperture than F2.8. 

The last five years has been a race from manufacturers to make the fastest and sharpest lenses whilst wide open. Why do I care if the extreme corner is tack sharp wide open at F1.2 when the DoF is less than 0.5cm?

I’m also a Sony shooter too and they recently released THREE F2.5 primes, these are compact and makes mirrorless cameras beneficial, perfect. I don’t think they released anything slower than F1.8 since the Zeiss 35mm f2.8 on launch of the system probably 10 years ago.... 

 

I had Canon 50L and Canon 5D. I used this kit @f1.2 often for portraits from distance with enough DOF to have face in focus. It was close to 4x5 film photography (I also did, including matching enlarger) DOF and rendering, but zero hassle. I used AF Servo and placing AF point where I need it. It was not limited just by RF patch in the middle. But I have seen f1.2 RF lenses portraits well done.

I have now Canon RP and 50 1.8 RF. Good rendering. But no cigar.

Those who can't take portraits with shallow DOF for different reasons are still enjoying shallow DOF rendering. Basically shallow DOF allows to get interesting picture with minimal effort and on digital. 

Honestly, I see nothing wrong in it.

What is wrong with this picture, tell me?

M-E 220 with VF III and odd lens.

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!

What is wrong with lens been sharp @f1.2? And have you ever noticed how faster lenses have different bokeh if not wide open. Like Leica Noctilux OOF @5.6?

[Ray Vonn]

10 hours ago, adan said:

Now - subject separation using narrow depth of field was already a fairly well-known technique, and it was noticed that these new long fast lenses did that far better (or at least far more) than even a 50mm f/1.0.

Excellent point, not fully understood or taken advantage of my many consumers.

[otto.f]

12 hours ago, Kwesi said:

I believe the portrait mode feature in the latest iPhones is a direct response to the bokeh craze

Only the LF view or technical camera will stay unique in being able to deliver a plane of focus which stands oblique towards the optical axis. I doubt whether you can emulate such an image characteristic, for instance in portraits, convincingly with an iPhone or the local blur slider in Photoshop. 

[Guest]

First of all everyone is different, we all have our own approaches to the ways we make images and the tools that we use in the process so what I say now is from entirely my own perspective and probably has little or no validity for others………..But I do find the quest for bokeh is a rather ridiculous one particularly if the camera being used is a Leica M. For a start looking through the M’s VF everything is in focus and by no means is the field of view portrayed for any particular lens truly accurate, it’s a best approximation and focus can be, as we all are aware, hit and miss especially so with the faster glass wide open in “bokeh land". So given that you don’t see the “bokeh” effects of any particular lens in a M's viewfinder until after the shutter’s tripped the resulting image is mostly a surprise that comes from chimping, later post work or in regards to film, hours or weeks after the film’s processed and scanned. This “bokeh obsession” with an M is a little nuts to me..........and yes, I know one can use the Visoflex 020 on an M, I have one but I personally find it's use awkward and image quality rather unsatisfactory so I'd much rather use my M's naked as they were intended.

If bokeh is really important, accurate framing, focus points and control of out of focus areas is desirable then what you really should be using is an EVF mirrorless camera, a DSLR or a SLR, not an M.

 

In days of film fast lenses were desirable primarily for their enabling low light photography, days when a “fast” ISO was around 400 ASA and probably under special circumstances topped out at a barely usable 1600ASA, but now with M’s capable of very usable imaging with up to and above 32,000 ASA the practicality of f1.4. f1.1, and f.95 lenses is I think questionable……This again is purely from my perspective. Plus the fact that the fast lenses are large and heavy lumps on what is now, ( thankfully ), a svelte film M sized body all of them block way too much of the M’s VF anyway making framing even more of a guesswork than it is when the finder is far less obstructed with a smaller lens..........and to maximise the desired effects of bokeh with a fast lens wide open in daylight invariably you have to employ the use of a +1/2/6x ND filter which could effect the image quality too. Why bother?

 

I appreciate the fact that now with the sensitivity that a M can offer I can use smaller and more compact lenses in most of the situations that I want to photograph in, even at night and even with maximum apertures of f2, f2,4 and f2.8, and my viewfinder is either completely clear of obstruction or at worst suffers from a 15% block if a lens hood is used. My Summilux’s rarely go out these days, Summitars and VC lenses seem to rule and I leave “bokehism” to my D810 kit, or if I’m feeling particulary muscular that day, my Pentax 67.

[01maciel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looks like someone kicked off a bokeh bashing thread 😲
IMHO The only thing what's left for hobby photographers is the consciously use of DOF. The result can be truly inspirational photographs and worth to look at. For everything-flat-and-sharp daylight snapshots the smartphone is a perfect tool which simply adapts the means to the end.

DOF seems to be the only field and expertise what's left for brands like Leica, Fuji you name it, and they all know it very well. Hence the major marketing attacks for lenses like Noctilux 1.2, APO's, Fujinon XF 1,0/50 etc. The people love it. It's a way of life. I suppose that wise old saying applies to most of us: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar 🐝

🍯

[tom.w.bn]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Al Brown:

You are confusing bokeh and shallow/narrow DOF in your answers. The term "bokeh" represents the quality of the unsharp areas, the aesthetics of how the lens renders out-of-focus points. It can be creamy, nervous, swirly etc.

Excatly. DOF can be measured, bokeh is subjective.

The "king of bokeh" lens is not f0.95 or f1 or f1.4, it's a f2 lens.

[Cronilux]

"Bokehism" is simple the most natural way, cause the human eye sees like that. We don´t see plain sharp images. Our eyes just have extremely fast focus. A wide aperture is also just another tool, like different focal length or different lighting. It´s not a trend. There habe been fast lenses for ages, but to stay relevant as a manufacturer you have to play the game. Thats the same with high megapixel cameras. Nobody needs them, but everybody manufacturer produces them.

[Lee S]

7 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

I had Canon 50L and Canon 5D. I used this kit @f1.2 often for portraits from distance with enough DOF to have face in focus. It was close to 4x5 film photography (I also did, including matching enlarger) DOF and rendering, but zero hassle. I used AF Servo and placing AF point where I need it. It was not limited just by RF patch in the middle. But I have seen f1.2 RF lenses portraits well done.

I have now Canon RP and 50 1.8 RF. Good rendering. But no cigar.

Those who can't take portraits with shallow DOF for different reasons are still enjoying shallow DOF rendering. Basically shallow DOF allows to get interesting picture with minimal effort and on digital. 

Honestly, I see nothing wrong in it.

What is wrong with this picture, tell me?

M-E 220 with VF III and odd lens.

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!

What is wrong with lens been sharp @f1.2? And have you ever noticed how faster lenses have different bokeh if not wide open. Like Leica Noctilux OOF @5.6?

Don’t get me wrong (for MY taste) I think reducing the depth of field has purpose when done correctly, someone on this thread used it to isolate a barb wire which told a story as part of a series to great effect.

 

It can look great in environmental portraiture to emphasis a subject but still have enough detail that the background adds to the story, it can also be useful if you want to take a portrait and the background is too distracting, however I feel it is often overused when better composition can be had. You even said it yourself it makes it easy to make interesting photos to you. For me, shallow depth of field does not automatically equal interesting.

 

I’m including myself in that criticism, I have the 85mm F1.4 G Master (Considered one of the best Bokeh lenses ever) and 40mm F1.2, they stayed wide open and my photos got boring to ME. Soon the novelty wore off and I was sick of carrying around massive lenses, hence my move to M with smaller and lighter lens and all its limitations and my photography is better for it. 

My criticism is more aimed at the size of lenses these days.  There’s nothing wrong with a sharp lens wide open in the corner at F1.2 if that’s your thing but you pay for that in weight and size. Look at the sigma 35mm F1.2. 

That said photography is your art, you enjoy what you enjoy and I’m glad the tools are available to make photos you enjoy. 

There’s nothing wrong with the photo you took, you like it that’s all that matters, but what was the artistic purpose of having the turtle head in focus only? Would it be a more interesting photo if we got to see his full form. 

 

Rather than use a shallow DOF to get an interesting photo wouldn’t it be better to push yourself creatively and work with some limitations? 

[pippy]

17 hours ago, adan said:

...It is a useful tool in achieving a larger goal. Emphasis on "tool." It is a hammer to be brought out when one's goal requires driving nails....But just going through life driving nails into anything and everything as one's only goal - without actually building something more important in the process - is a rather pitiful existence...

Perfectly put, Andy.

Philip.

[Lee S]

3 minutes ago, pippy said:

Perfectly put, Andy.

Philip.

Yes this and one of my points is people just shoot wide open blindly without thought (Including myself...)

[pgk]

22 minutes ago, tom.w.bn said:

Excatly. DOF can be measured, bokeh is subjective.

I believe that 'bokeh' can, to an extent, be 'measured', or if not precisely quantified, its qualities can certainly be described. There are for example, known effects of lens design on 'bokeh' and the transitions from 'sharp' to 'unsharp' areas, and there is a description of this which has been published by Zeiss. The effect of 'bokeh' on the aesthetic of an image though is subjective and IMO 'bokeh' should be a reinforcing attribute within an image rather than the focus of the image itself (forgive the pun). If an attempt is made to utilise 'bokeh' then I would say that this needs to be borne in mind, and the temptation to dwell on 'bokeh' as a primary element within an image should be resisted because it rarely seems to work (if ever).

[lct]

5 minutes ago, pgk said:

There are for example, known effects of lens design on 'bokeh' and the transitions from 'sharp' to 'unsharp' areas, and there is a description of this which has been published by Zeiss.

Matter of DoF repartition between background and foreground it seems. Less DoF in the background with Zeiss lenses apparently. Same more or less with modern Leica lenses (Karbe's) compared to earlier ones (Mandler's and before). Could be quantified i guess but i have no idea at all. FWIW.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Al Brown said:

You are confusing bokeh and shallow/narrow DOF in your answers. The term "bokeh" represents the quality of the unsharp areas, the aesthetics of how the lens renders out-of-focus points. It can be creamy, nervous, swirly etc.

Yes, believe it or not I am aware of that definition of bokeh. Perhaps my point wasn't clear enough for you, what I wanted to point out was that all of those lens characteristics, including DOF as you mention, are not presented at all in a M's VF..........and also thanks to the high, usable, ISO's now available with the M10 series of cameras perhaps larger faster lenses aren't as important as they used to be, they do for me have some real drawbacks.......I also took pains to say that this was my point of view as a long time Leica M user and probably not one that I would expect to be shared to any great degree by others.

[Lee S]

On a side note a YouTube camera blogger who does mostly comedy came up with a term for the amount of depth of field which seems to be getting some traction in the photographer community.

Bokeh = The quality of out of focus areas.

Toneh = The amount of out of focus or the depth of field.

He named it after Tony Northup, a guy who filmed a lens review about a 50mm F1.2 lens by what he describes as ‘a beautiful lake’ but nobody can see it because he’s filming on said lens wide open at F1.2. Yes Tony you are by a beautiful lake but nobody else can tell because you obliterated the background lol. 

 

[frame-it]

Fuji X-H1 + Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH

 

Leica Store in Hong Kong

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!

Edited April 6, 2021 by frame-it

[Danner]

"f8 and be there"

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[01maciel]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb frame-it:

Fuji X-H1 + Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH

 

 

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!

Ha ha, a perfect photo to underline that the term 'Bokeh' is just marketing speech. I guess it is not worth to talk about the quality (to be defined in this context) and the existence of 'Bokeh'. It's just like talking about the quality re the checked pattern of a tweed jacket or the quality of Sauerkraut strings. 🍏🍊

[Ko.Fe.]

2 hours ago, Lee S said:

Don’t get me wrong (for MY taste) I think reducing the depth of field has purpose when done correctly, someone on this thread used it to isolate a barb wire which told a story as part of a series to great effect.

 

It can look great in environmental portraiture to emphasis a subject but still have enough detail that the background adds to the story, it can also be useful if you want to take a portrait and the background is too distracting, however I feel it is often overused when better composition can be had. You even said it yourself it makes it easy to make interesting photos to you. For me, shallow depth of field does not automatically equal interesting.

 

I’m including myself in that criticism, I have the 85mm F1.4 G Master (Considered one of the best Bokeh lenses ever) and 40mm F1.2, they stayed wide open and my photos got boring to ME. Soon the novelty wore off and I was sick of carrying around massive lenses, hence my move to M with smaller and lighter lens and all its limitations and my photography is better for it. 

My criticism is more aimed at the size of lenses these days.  There’s nothing wrong with a sharp lens wide open in the corner at F1.2 if that’s your thing but you pay for that in weight and size. Look at the sigma 35mm F1.2. 

That said photography is your art, you enjoy what you enjoy and I’m glad the tools are available to make photos you enjoy. 

There’s nothing wrong with the photo you took, you like it that’s all that matters, but what was the artistic purpose of having the turtle head in focus only? Would it be a more interesting photo if we got to see his full form. 

 

Rather than use a shallow DOF to get an interesting photo wouldn’t it be better to push yourself creatively and work with some limitations? 

Viogtlander is leading RF, M mount f1.2 market with latest not too big primes. Their latest 40 1.2, for example.

Sigma... I won't touch anything from Sigma with ten feet pole.

You will benefit with getting to  wider acceptance and willing to learn about what it is for others. Which includes people capabilities and situations. To have Leica gear, you have to be creative on making money first. It takes time. These days you have to be creative to be able to have disposable money for Leica.

Also, creativity in photography in terms of interesting is in huge spectrum. Some are interested in bokeh,  some are in f32 landscapes. Many have absolutely no interest in street photography with so called "f8 and be where". 

Older person who was able to get decent living, got his dream Noctlix and M10something. Is this person going to travel to photo fancy destinations? No. He comes at beach nearby and takes boat picture @1.1 on sunny day. It is this person creativity and joy. And here is absolutely nothing with it.  

And where are still those how could only afford M film beater and non Leica lens. Maybe not so many of them on LUF. But where are many film M users. And just like decades ago they benefit from f1.2 lens, but thanks to Viogtlander and eager Chinese manufacturers, it doesn't have to cost fortune now to be able to use film under low light.

Even more, where are still those who not jump on every digital M just because it was released yesterday. People are still using, buying M8/M9. Those are often finding f1.2 lenses to be practical. And some are able to see the difference between amplified high ISO on latest cameras and native, low ISO. ISO 400 is still preferred by many to ISO 40000. 

Just look around. Creative @f8 with Leica? To many of us it is outside world, full of free people. I don't know where you are, but I'm in the well populated area which is at its third lock down. Street photography, which is people is no go here. 

Yes, it is easy to create something cool by bokeh. Do you realize what 99% of those who takes photos are not creators, but users?

And here is nothing wrong with it. It is human nature. 99% won't become HCB, GW, VM and so on. No photo gear manufacturer would ever survive if they would make lenses only for creative genius. And creative genius won't get the gear without support of general public, which is buying photo gear for "just to see how it looks like to be photographed". Including@ f1.2

This gives less time