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

[Guest Nowhereman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Lee S said:

...I think reducing the depth of field has purpose when done correctly...

I don't think the quality of bokeh its a matter of doing something correctly or not — it's a matter of judgment or taste with regard to how the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image are rendered. @adan, above, has given the history of how this developed and also a good example, the barbed wire one, of how bokeh may be use effectively. How important bokeh can be depends on how the photographer wants out-of-focus areas rendered — and whether this is a part of his aesthetic choice.

If you have a portrait, or another subject, where only, say, twenty percent of the frame is in focus and eighty percent is a focus blur because of narrow depth-of-field, the quality of that bokeh will be highly visible. It is not surprising that bokeh quality was first discussed in Japan, considering that publications such as Asahi Camera have had the most extensive technical discussions and reviews, and still do. This attention to bokeh in Japanese photography publications was also reflected in Japanese lens design — and Nikon, I believe, was the first to produce lenses with adjustable bokeh control, in their DC lenses. Among such types of lenses are the following:

• Nikon AF DC-NIKKOR 105mm f/2D – DC = Defocus Control
• Nikon AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D – DC = Defocus Control
• Sony 135mm f/2.8 – STF = Smooth Trans Focus
• Fujifilm XF 56mm f/1.2 R APD – APD = Apodization Filter
• Sigma 135mm f/2.8 YS – Focusing System

You can read about this in this article, together with a lot of more information on bokeh.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

[lct]

Hehe "f/8 and be there" to show boring details behind the pet you're shooting . Just kidding.

[Ko.Fe.]

4 hours ago, petermullett said:

.....

In days of film ....

 

Excuse me... Yours "days of film".

I only started film for real in 2012. Film was still very cheap and cameras were from very cheap SLRS and such to not very expensive film Leicas, including M. I learned how to develop and print. I have tried every possible film format and printing from it under enlarger. I developed ECN-2, E6 and C-41 films.

Someone like you might declare it as "days of film", but it is far from be over.

"Why bother"?

I have traded, sold and purchased my film Ms and not too pricey M lenses mostly with young people. 

Where I'm most of them are not within oil countries distributed income. To them used M3 and cheap Chinese 50 f1.1 lens are not just the only possible entry point to decent rangefinder photography, but their preferable media in photography.  

The only LCS in Toronto which is thriving is Downtown Camera. They made recent move to larger place and their store front and such is with film. I'm the oldest film user where. I see young people of all kinds. Crowds. I remember how I was waiting inline to get film and it was group of young Muslim ladies buying Ilford film camera.

Even at LUF we have huge by number of pages film users photos thread. And even film M thread is thriving here.  

So, in fact, low iso films and fast primes is these days reality for many. 

[Anbaric]

1 hour ago, Nowhereman said:

I don't think the quality of bokeh its a matter of doing something correctly or not — it's a matter of judgment or taste with regard to how the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image are rendered. @adan, above, has given the history of how this developed and also a good example, the barbed wire one, of how bokeh may be use effectively. How important bokeh can be depends on how the photographer wants out-of-focus areas rendered — and whether this is a part of his aesthetic choice.

If you have a portrait, or another subject, where only, say, twenty percent of the frame is in focus and eighty percent is a focus blur because of narrow depth-of-field, the quality of that bokeh will be highly visible. It is not surprising that bokeh quality was first discussed in Japan, considering that publications such as Asahi Camera have had the most extensive technical discussions and reviews, and still do. This attention to bokeh in Japanese photography publications was also reflected in Japanese lens design — and Nikon, I believe, was the first to produce lenses with adjustable bokeh control, in their DC lenses. Among such types of lenses are the following:

• Nikon AF DC-NIKKOR 105mm f/2D – DC = Defocus Control
• Nikon AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D – DC = Defocus Control
• Sony 135mm f/2.8 – STF = Smooth Trans Focus
• Fujifilm XF 56mm f/1.2 R APD – APD = Apodization Filter
• Sigma 135mm f/2.8 YS – Focusing System

You can read about this in this article, together with a lot of more information on bokeh.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

Interesting article on the Nikon DC lens designer's thinking here:

https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0032/index.htm

Not only the first lenses with some control over this quality (though the change is pretty subtle at reasonable settings), but perhaps the first where out of focus rendering was a primary design consideration actively marketed by the manufacturer (not counting soft focus lenses like the Thambar - the DC lenses are really sharp).

[pgk]

2 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

..... and Nikon, I believe, was the first to produce lenses with adjustable bokeh control, in their DC lenses.

Variably soft focus lenses have been around for a long time; 1866 according to this: https://antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenses.html. Dallmeyer's lens allowed for adjustment of the amount of spherical aberration from the lens, but his lens itself derived from the earlier Petzval (a fast f/3ish) design which also had highly characteristic 'bokeh'. Dallmeyer's design aroused controversy in its time just as 'bokeh' does today. Do things really change?

Edited April 6, 2021 by pgk

[Herr Barnack]

6 hours ago, 01maciel said:

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 🐝

🍯

Is the use of bokeh to be Instagram's next photographic rat race?  It's starting to sound like it.

What an exercise in futility.

Forget Instagram, forget likes.  Forget social media in general.  Photograph what brings you satisfaction in a way that brings you contentment.  Dig deep and develop your photographic vision.  If your photographic ethos includes bokeh or shallow DOF, great.  If it doesn't, great. 

The intention should be to make arresting, interesting images that you find accomplishment, satisfaction and contentment in. 

JMHO...

 

 

Edited April 6, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Excuse me... Yours "days of film".

I only started film for real in 2012. Film was still very cheap and cameras were from very cheap SLRS and such to not very expensive film Leicas, including M. I learned how to develop and print. I have tried every possible film format and printing from it under enlarger. I developed ECN-2, E6 and C-41 films.

Someone like you might declare it as "days of film", but it is far from be over.

"Why bother"?

I have traded, sold and purchased my film Ms and not too pricey M lenses mostly with young people. 

Where I'm most of them are not within oil countries distributed income. To them used M3 and cheap Chinese 50 f1.1 lens are not just the only possible entry point to decent rangefinder photography, but their preferable media in photography.  

The only LCS in Toronto which is thriving is Downtown Camera. They made recent move to larger place and their store front and such is with film. I'm the oldest film user where. I see young people of all kinds. Crowds. I remember how I was waiting inline to get film and it was group of young Muslim ladies buying Ilford film camera.

Even at LUF we have huge by number of pages film users photos thread. And even film M thread is thriving here.  

So, in fact, low iso films and fast primes is these days reality for many. 

No disagreement from me, Ko.Fe., of course "days of film" are not over, for you, for many others, for me neither and I certainly didn't mean to imply that. I still own and use film cameras from way back before digital times, I even bought a new MA a while ago, so I'm no stranger to that world and at times I've missed the discipline of working in it.....and yes like you I process the films I've shot in whatever film camera I still have, 35, 120 and yes 4x5 film format too. As most of my working life was in using regular film in photography and motion picture work I'm delighted at the "resurrection" of film use in both mediums, no question about it. Happy to learn you've a thriving base there in Toronto.............And yes, I know of our Leica Forum pages too, I've participated in it frequently and  posted images there myself.

As I said to another member my comments were purely personal in saying that for me one of the "gifts" of using a M10 series camera with it's once unimaginable ISO sensitivity is that I can use smaller, slower, lenses without much compromise, for me that's a gift, for others maybe not so much. We all approach our photography differently and use different tools in many different ways, whatever floats your boat......it's all good.

[BrianS]

Linked imaged in flickr no longer showing up.

 

Edited April 6, 2021 by BrianS

[01maciel]

vor 50 Minuten schrieb Herr Barnack:

Is the use of bokeh to be Instagram's next photographic rat race?  It's starting to sound like it.

Not sure what you are talking about. Instagram? Not my point, sounds a little bit cheesy, but it's nicely displayed.

vor einer Stunde schrieb Herr Barnack:

The intention should be to make arresting, interesting images that you find accomplishment, satisfaction and contentment in. 

The bold 'you' (4 times) indicates to me what's best for me and others from your point of view;) yeah right, and that's why we are posting hundreds and thousands of photos every day 😁

[Kwesi]

Wow! Some very thought provoking comments here so far, thanks everyone.

 

[Kwesi]

8 hours ago, 01maciel said:

Looks like someone kicked off a bokeh bashing thread 😲

No agenda at all. Just curious as to how forum members feel about the use of bokeh as subject

[Kwesi]

16 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?

Hi Ko.Fe,

Personally i don't think there is anything wrong with your photo. You asked for a critique so here is my two cents worth. I think your image works largely because it is monochromatic and so your in/out of focus areas are in harmony and the transition is quite smooth. it feels as if your turtle is waking from a dream, head first, with the out of focus body still in slumber.

As others have said bokeh, when used judiciously, can greatly enhance an image and direct your viewer to read it as the artist intended.

It is also true that the vast majority of bokeh infused images we come across say far more about the lens than the artist.

[Ouroboros]

On 4/5/2021 at 6:12 PM, adan said:

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.

 

The most popular way to suppress one's own creativity, as if it were needed.  Stultifying, I gave up looking a long time ago.

[Herr Barnack]

2 hours ago, 01maciel said:

Not sure what you are talking about. Instagram? Not my point, sounds a little bit cheesy, but it's nicely displayed.

The bold 'you' (4 times) indicates to me what's best for me and others from your point of view yeah right, and that's why we are posting hundreds and thousands of photos every day 😁

@01maciel it seems that you have misunderstood my intent.  My reference to Instagram was not to imply that you were referring to Instagram in your post.  IG was mentioned as a reference to the online rat race for "likes" that many photographers participate in, and how pointless it is when we think about the world of photography as a whole.

The bold 'you' (4 times) was used merely for emphasis.  Maybe I should have used italics instead.  I am not in the business of telling other photographers what they "should" do, which was my whole point. 

In terms of photography - photograph subject matter that you like using whatever techniques that you find produce pleasing results; that is my approach.  Unless money is changing hands and you are photographing for a paying client, trying to guess what kind of images others will like is a losing proposition and a path to disillusionment.

[MrFriendly]

On 4/5/2021 at 11:07 AM, otto.f said:

the latest Karbe debauchery, starting with Thambar running along Noctilux 75  with the latest price-quality-functionality ratio score of the APO 35 (compare for instance the Voigtlander apo lanthar)

debauchery?? how much is a compact APO 35 supposed to cost?  and why does it cost what it costs, specially compared to Voitlander and others.  Those are questions nobody seems to be able to answer.

[Guest]

So what is the point of this thread?

Bokeh is bad? noctilux users are imbecile idiots?  fast lenses are a total waste of time unless its dark?

I dont get it to be honest but on social media its always fun to hammer somebody or other i guess?

[onasj]

Great thread, with many good examples of how to effectively use thin depth-of-focus to convey meaning and beauty.  But there's also a more practical economic and marketing factor—many relatively inexpensive lenses perform very well at small apertures, so naturally premium lens manufacturers have a strong incentive to focus on what they can achieve more uniquely, which is large-aperture lenses.  And to showcase why a customer should purchase these lenses, they need to shoot them wide open.  

[Herr Barnack]

20 minutes ago, MrFriendly said:

debauchery?? how much is a compact APO 35 supposed to cost?  and why does it cost what it costs, specially compared to Voitlander and others.  Those are questions nobody seems to be able to answer.

"You get what you pay for"  maybe?

Edited April 6, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[BrianS]

Two portraits that I took, more than 30 years apart. My wife in 1984, and my Daughter a couple of years ago.

Lens used for my daughter- much older, 1936 CZJ 5cm F1.5 Sonnar- wide-open.

I forget the lens I used in 1984. It was new.

I like these. I've been taking portraits like this for over 50 years.

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

16 minutes ago, steve 1959 said:

So what is the point of this thread?

I suppose it is about whether 'bokeh' in itself makes a photograph, which of course it does not. Its another tool but not an end in itself. Discussions are as useful or pointless as you want to make them I suppose.