A Blog and discussion about that *$%%# elusive Swirly Bokeh!

OP
OP

jimgalli

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
4,236
Location
Tonopah Neva
Format
ULarge Format

Usually it works just the opposite. Vignette at infinity and covers at closer focus. Make sure you try some portraits wide open with just a single element of that lens. I've seen some marvelous soft portraits made with single component shot wide open. Nice portrait!
 

copake_ham

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
4,091
Location
NYC or Copak
Format
35mm
I got to page two and then decided I couldn't take it any more. Not the swirl - although that's a bit off-putting - but rather, learning if Roger survived or not.

Then, I thought, wait a minute - Jim mentioned "bokeh".

Isn't the definition of bokeh, or at least what you're supposed to aspire to as bokeh, considered to be "GOOD" OOF? As in pleasing to the eye?

Think it's kind of safe to say that most "good bokeh" is not "swirly"; although there may be some "good swirly bokeh". Jim's flower shot does not seem to qualify! It is not "pleasing to the eye".

But it did give Roger the heebie-jeebies, so it's not necessarily a totally bad picture!
 

JosBurke

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2004
Messages
464
Location
KY
Format
Multi Format
I have a Dallmeyer 2B that gives that nice swirly bokeh a little more outside the center of the image than your example but keep in mind that I shot mine in 5x7 and at f8 or my guestimate of the f stop via waterhouse (not wide open) and it really clips the corners--the lens is more suited to 4x5 but I've never used it there except for some polaroid 54 shots. I like you're swirl Jim but it is rather dizzying---that's a lot of swirl--gonna make me hurl, chicka chicka boom boom !! I should be writing rap songs or whatever ya want to call em' !
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…