Does bokeh matter?

[DrM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi

With the new AI feature for bokeh (https://petapixel.com/2023/10/10/lightroom-has-a-new-lens-blur-feature-that-simulates-depth-of-field/), how much do you still go for a specific lens character? Maybe a bit provocative, but with the rise of computational photography, how much value is shifting from lens to post-processing, and are you taking (or do you see yourself) making different lens choices in the future? See an example below.

Best,

Marc

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 October 15, 2023 by DrM

[Advertisement]

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

[Erato]

You have to be brave to be real in a fake society we live in the future. Because real photo is rare and fake is everywhere.

So tired of fake people and the fake photos. I'd rather be honest than impressive! 

[Erato]

You can't photoshop personality.

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!

Topcor 9cm F3.5(w/ OUFRO), M10-R

[spydrxx]

While I prefer unadulterated originality, I see things like the "selective blur" functionality you describe as just another tool in the toolbox, available for the artist's use as he/she deems appropriate. It will probably be overused like so many other fads, like solarization, etc., but there will be some who will really creatively use it to generate masterpieces.

[evikne]

I remember a time (not long ago) when it took practice and talent to photograph moving objects at f/1 or f/1.2. And people got excited. Now anyone can shoot halfway blind at f/8 and blur the background afterwards. And no one cares.

Edited October 15, 2023 by evikne

[pgk]

Computational photography cannot exist since by definition photography means 'drawing with light' and compututional adjustments are mathematical and have nothing to do with light. Its a descriptor which should actually be referred to as 'computationally adjusted photographically derived imagery'. trying to class it as photography is legtimising inherent falsity. By all means accept and use it but plaese do not think of it as photography because it has nothing to do with drawing with light other than that it was derived from an initial image which was a photograph. By scanning an old painting it could have similar computational adjustment but I doubt that the output would not be referred to as a computational oil painting.

[jankap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So "projectography" would be a better term. With a camera, one does not draw. It registers a projected image on a sensor, no drawing in between.

[Bronco McBeast]

I stopped messing around with my mental health AKA digital photography AKA FAKE’TOGRAPHY 20 years ago. 

This is for fanbois. No thanks. 

[pgk]

In the past photography was essentially a physical process. Any 'interpretation' of the image which fell on the plate or film relied on physical (chemical or mechanical) intervention. The probelm with computational intervention is that it changes images in ways which alter the image which was recorded and as has been said, this probably includes that vast majority of 'photographs' currently taken.

On a forum dedicated to at least one camera (the M) which can still be used in much the same way as it was in the 1950s, the idea of then using computational adjustemnt seems a bit strange to me. It is interesting that despite various offerings of cameras which have inherently included computational adjustments, these have not yet become dominant because of this. Phones on the other hand include many computational feature. I wonder how many are used beyond of course the inbuilt automation that is.

[Erato]

2 hours ago, Erato said:

You can't photoshop personality.

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!

Topcor 9cm F3.5(w/ OUFRO), M10-R

(without OUFRO), revised

[pcgarner]

Great topic, but 99.8% of photographers (using cellphones) won't get it, and could care less. And, consider their images photographs. As an aside, I'm an artist and I do a lot of drawing -- pencil, charcoal, ink. I'm also a photographer. And I don't consider my photos to be "drawing with light." The term is a rather lame attempt to add clout to the act of taking a photograph. 

But I suspect we could go on for another 500 posts and not settle any of these small controversies.

[pgk]

17 minutes ago, pcgarner said:

The term is a rather lame attempt to add clout to the act of taking a photograph.

Photo means light and graphos means writing, both from Greek. The word was coined by Sir John Herschel in 1839, the year accepted as when photography was invented. The act of taking a photograph back then didn't need clout; it was a time consuming, difficult and coplicated process.

[David Wien]

“Does bokeh matter?”  Not to me personally: I prefer the “f/64” look. Before the 20th century, artists didnt deliberately paint objects in the background out of focus. And as viewers we have no difficulty in identifying the primary subject matter of the picture.

David

[Jeff S]

I haven’t cared for the bokeh craze (crutch) even before PP effects.  
 

Jeff

[sometimesmaybe]

just some personal observations from a portrait shooter

1. super shallow DOF seems over used and it's starting to look generic to my eyes
2. having bokeh doesn't make an image good (and vice versa) 
3. photography (for me) is more than just clicking a button - searching for locations, creating mood boards, working with models to bring the vision to life, MacGyver-ing / thinking on my feet during the shoot, doing postand spending valuable time away from family. some parts are obviously more enjoyable than others 😅

[williamj]

I generally don't shoot at wider than f4 so bokeh isn't a big factor. However, at dawn and dusk it is unavoidable and then I prefer unremarkable, "smooth" and "creamy" bokeh, I like point sources of light at the edge of the frame to still be round not squashed, such as can be seen in more modern lenses. I like there to be some 3D imaging. My pancake Nikkor AIS 50mm F/1.8 and Nikkor pre-AI 105mm F2.5 are pretty good in that respect.

I don't like cats eyes or swirly bokeh, although that might be harder to simulate and so may appear more "authentic" some time in the future. Leica lenses can be a mixed bag and from photos posted here I like the 50mm Summilux ASPH very much whereas the 50mm Summicrons tend to have cats eyes especially in the earlier iterations. The reported sticktion [spelling] that can occur in the Summilux is one thing that makes me pause.

[Bronco McBeast]

The cool thing is that picture #1 is way better than the bockey’d  pic #2.

[250swb]

I think of it this way, I work out what part of the photograph is going to be riddled with bokeh and then stop down until it isn't. Avoiding any interest in bokeh has so far saved me many thousands of pounds on lenses and stopped me kidding myself bokeh is an interesting lens property that should be inflicted on other people. Photographing with a fast lens in low light is however another matter because hopefully everything OOF and affected by bokeh will be black.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

To answer the 'bokeh' question; IMO 'bokeh' is relevant when it is relevant. When, of course, is the trickier question to answer. I've taken and seen few photographs where 'bokeh' genuinely adds something to the overall composition and end result. Mostly it is an overused 'effect' which does little to improve images but does make them look different. Different does not equate with better as often as might be preferable though.

[evikne]

I have to "admit" that I have been fond of bokeh and blurred backgrounds. Before I migrated to Leica some years ago, the 85/1.2 and 135/2 were among my favorite lenses, and I used them mostly wide open. With Leica, that has changed a bit, for a number of reasons:

• Price is an obvious factor, I could no longer afford to buy the fastest lenses (my most expensive Canon lens cost USD 1500 new, that's less than my cheapest used Leica lens now).
• My photographic tastes have evolved; blurred backgrounds are no longer as important to me (how they render is more important).
• I find a Leica M camera better suited to small and lightweight lenses.
• Better sensors make large apertures less necessary. F/2 seems to be a good compromise.
• And now there's yet another reason: Should I still want a more blurred background, I can just fix that in LR. 😉