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

[BrianS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1934 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, on the M9. Focus is just where I want it. One of my favorite shots of my daughter at the playground. 

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!

So if this is a new movement, I take credit. More realistically- look at the images in Morgan and Lester and other books from before I was born. Nothing new, been around since the beginning of photography, but someone put a name on it.

Edited April 6, 2021 by BrianS

[Lee S]

At the end of the day, it’s your hard earned cash and everyone can buy and play with their toys however they see fit, do whatever makes you happy, none of us are getting out alive. If you love focusing a Noctilux at MFD on someone’s eye and feel satisfied technically and creatively when you nail focus, good for you. Clearly there is a massive market for these lenses and people are willing to pay the prices. I’ve had fun with them and marvel how sharp modern lenses are wide open across the frame, however I did not like the size and weight and my pictures got poorer. 

We all have different creative styles and one mans trash is another mans gold. It would be boring if we all liked the same things. 
 

[Lee S]

16 minutes ago, BrianS said:

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!

Brian your portraits are nothing short of stunning. Absolute treasures and I like the use of DoF and the bokeh is pleasant. 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2021 by Lee S

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BrianS said:

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!

Wonderful pic of your daughter with a very old lens,great example of beautiful bokeh enhancing a portrait and sharp where it needs to be sharp.

I had this lovely minolta 58mm f1.4 mc lens but when i went digital i bought various super sharp lenses of great quality[ olympus and leica] but just a short time ago i bought a voigtlander 40mm f1.4 sc and suddenly i was reunited with my old 58mm rokkor albeit in a different focal length.

For me the penny has dropped and i now know what i like in a camera lens.

[Kwesi]

2 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

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?

The point of this thread is to share your thoughts on the title and intro post. Hope that helps

[pippy]

4 hours ago, 01maciel said:

...a little bit cheesy, but it's nicely displayed...

I went out and bought me a leisure suit. I jingle my change but I'm still kinda cute!

Dear old Frank. RIP.

Philip.

[Fedro]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Bokeh can be useful or overused. Subject isolation is nothing new and while I personally agree with those who think that composition is more important, I also think that it is important not to be pedantic with those who feel otherwise. I.e. most of us are spoilt amateurs anyways so no need to bring others down for the sake of it, whatever floats your boat: just put it to good use and post good quality pics, whichever your style. just my 2c

Edited April 6, 2021 by Fedro

[frame-it]

plenty of nice shots here:

 

[jdlaing]

On 4/5/2021 at 10:00 AM, Kwesi said:

Over the last 5 years or so I've noticed an increasing trend where all lens manufacturers are producing super fast and relatively expensive lenses which seem to be purchased primarily for producing images in broad daylight where some tiny insignificant portion of the image is in focus and the majority of the image is thrown out of focus.

Are we on the verge of a new movement? or is this simply a Veblen fad that will pass?

Your thoughts please.

The manufacturers probably make what sells. 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Kwesi said:

The point of this thread is to share your thoughts on the title and intro post. Hope that helps

My thoughts are live and let live and if you only have slow lenses dont be jealous of others.

[pippy]

3 hours ago, BrianS said:

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.

As many others have said these are wonderful images. Truly Wonderful images and I thank you for sharing them here.

On-topic - and throwing this question to anyone with a point of view on this matter - would these images have been any less wonderful if the oof areas of the backgrounds were rendered marginally differently or would the central subject matter have still been as powerful regardless of  background 'Bokeh'?

Philip.

Edited April 6, 2021 by pippy

[Kwesi]

1 hour ago, steve 1959 said:

My thoughts are live and let live and if you only have slow lenses dont be jealous of others.

As some earlier posters have said, a slow lens can be quite capable of producing lovely bokeh.

Edited April 7, 2021 by Kwesi

[otto.f]

10 hours 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.

Sorry for my English, perhaps this is not the right word, I meant incredible high costs for this APO 35 which I do not yet see as better or more functional proportional to its price compared to Voigtlander indeed. 

Edited April 7, 2021 by otto.f

[Cobram]

7 hours ago, pippy said:

As many others have said these are wonderful images. Truly Wonderful images and I thank you for sharing them here.

On-topic - and throwing this question to anyone with a point of view on this matter - would these images have been any less wonderful if the oof areas of the backgrounds were rendered marginally differently or would the central subject matter have still been as powerful regardless of  background 'Bokeh'?

Philip.

Great question.

I bought 21mm F4 Color Skopar with the intention to use it occasionally as a landscape/nature lens... In 2020 it was my most used "portrait" - family lens replacing (not always) my "bokeh" lenses...

Edited April 7, 2021 by Cobram

[paulcurtis]

Different Angle:

In filmmaking, shallow DOF is about directing the eye during motion sequences and that is a story telling tool. On film the desire to do this in the small patch of celluloid led to Anamorphic lenses which both widened the view and also reduced the DOF. Now in cinema, large format (full frame) is becoming more commonplace and with it even shallower DOF. A natural side effect of this is the nature of the backgrounds and in motion (and also stills) that background is very much the canvas on which the subject is painted. IMHO nasty bokeh - and personally I define this as onion rings, distortions and also noise from the elements inside the bokeh - serves to distract. 

So i am obsessed with smooth buttery bokeh personally. Subjects and stories pop in front of that. I see recently a massive swing in cine lenses to very corrected backgrounds, very smooth and IMHO i think it's gorgeous. That's what i look and strive for in my bokeh.

I am also somewhat against razor sharp slim DOF looks, not least because there's f**kinig nightmare for focus pullers but there you go...

YMMV

cheers
Paul

[pgk]

9 hours ago, Fedro said:

Bokeh can be useful or overused.

I suppose that there may be three ways of looking at 'bokeh' (pun intended this time).

'Bad bokeh' where the out of focus areas are distracting and confuse the composition. This is most likely poor compositional planning whilst not being fully aware of the effect of the lens and aperture being used in terms of its resultant 'bokeh', but it can sometimes be due to the shape or textures of the elements within the oof areas.

'Neutral bokeh' where the oof areas/'bokeh' simply don't impinge on the subject or composition in any way that is noticeably significant. This would probably be the aimpoint of most photographers most of the time, as shallow dof can be useful when isolating subjects, but the resultant background should be neither intrusive nor detract.

'Enhancing bokeh' in which the 'bokeh' is an inherent and intentional part of the composition. This is the sort of shot which has given rise to the current obsession over 'bokeh' and is, more often than not, the least well executed way of working because it is all too easy for 'enhancing bokeh' to drift into 'bad bokeh' . I'm not good at pie charts but I suspect that if we drew one for photos with 'bokeh' attributes then by far the largest segment (99.99% or more) would be 'neutral' with the remaining segment shared between 'bad' and 'enhancing'.

Predicting 'bokeh' with a rangefinder camera is of course about making life more difficult for oneself as a photographer. Perhaps its a challenge which appeals to some?

[pippy]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

...'Bad bokeh' where the out of focus areas are distracting and confuse the composition. This is most likely poor compositional planning whilst not being fully aware of the effect of the lens and aperture being used in terms of its resultant 'bokeh', but it can sometimes be due to the shape or textures of the elements within the oof areas...

Understanding how any particular lens renders is, to state the obvious, a very useful thing to learn.

A couple of months ago I picked up a lens infamous for its 'nervous', 'swirly', 'jittery' (etc.) Bokeh  - the 50mm f1.5 Summarit - and spent the first four weeks shooting with it wide-open just to get to know how it performs. Very educational and entertaining at the same time!

Not an award winner by any means and shot purely in the spirit of testing as mentioned above but FWIW here's an example of how nervous, swirly and jittery (etc.) can sometimes, IMO, actually add something to the image;

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!

Philip.

[Kwesi]

2 hours ago, paulcurtis said:

Different Angle:

In filmmaking, shallow DOF is about directing the eye during motion sequences and that is a story telling tool. On film the desire to do this in the small patch of celluloid led to Anamorphic lenses which both widened the view and also reduced the DOF. Now in cinema, large format (full frame) is becoming more commonplace and with it even shallower DOF. A natural side effect of this is the nature of the backgrounds and in motion (and also stills) that background is very much the canvas on which the subject is painted. IMHO nasty bokeh - and personally I define this as onion rings, distortions and also noise from the elements inside the bokeh - serves to distract. 

So i am obsessed with smooth buttery bokeh personally. Subjects and stories pop in front of that. I see recently a massive swing in cine lenses to very corrected backgrounds, very smooth and IMHO i think it's gorgeous. That's what i look and strive for in my bokeh.

I am also somewhat against razor sharp slim DOF looks, not least because there's f**kinig nightmare for focus pullers but there you go...

YMMV

cheers
Paul

Thanks for bringing this up Paul, I've become more aware of the use of bokeh as a narrative tool in cinema in recent years. Not being my medium, I hadn't realized that its coincided with the use of full frame cameras in movie making. Its so beautiful and effective

[SoarFM]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

spent the first four weeks shooting with it wide-open just to get to know how it performs. Very educational and entertaining at the same time!

The current philosophy at Leica seems to be they intend every lens to be shot wide open, stopping down only for DoF considerations. And that makes sense, for it would seem odd if they designed every lens to be shot at f8 and opened up only for shutter speed considerations.

On the other hand, Leica is the lens maker, not the director of photography and the person behind the camera should be making the decision how to achieve the look that is wanted. In the mid 20th century, the f64 school had decided that sharpness (and contrast) throughout the frame was the aesthetic ideal and it has held sway now for many, many decades and is largely the standard by which we judge a lens. Even Leica’s original design goals understood the importance of sharpness and contrast in it’s miniature camera if they hoped to gain wide acceptance.  I still remember my earlier years with a camera when there were certain people that would laboriously use tripods, tech-pan film and special developers in their quest to extract the ultimate in sharpness and resolution form a 35mm film camera. They were quite proud of their “medium format” look.

Here we are in more modern times and the current state of technology has placed heretofore unknown capabilities into a tiny camera we can carry in a satchel with extreme resolution and sharpness an easy task and these same cameras allow us to explore the unique characteristics of so many lenses and apply them creatively as we see fit. What an amazing time. Enjoy learning and using that new lens.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

1 hour ago, SoarFM said:

...I still remember my earlier years with a camera when there were certain people that would laboriously use tripods, tech-pan film and special developers in their quest to extract the ultimate in sharpness and resolution form a 35mm film camera. They were quite proud of their “medium format” look...

Guilty as charged, M'lud!............

Tech-Pan rated at 6 ISO and developed in Technidol LC. I didn't use it all that often but, like all things, it had its uses and it really was very good at what it did.

And yes; I will continue to enjoy using the Summarit and the bonkers things it does wide-open so thanks for the thought. From the very first frame I shot with it outdoors I had a hunch that it would become a much-liked lens and so it has proven to be. It stays on my M Monochrom practically all the time because - as has been noted elsewhere - once stopped-down it performs pretty much like any other 50mm and so really can be used all the time.

Philip.

Edited April 7, 2021 by pippy