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

[jimgalli]

Also posted over at LFForum if you see it twice.

The blog is here, over at my site.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/AfterTheSwirlies/Swirlies.html

Tell me what you think and then tell me how to
make the swirlies happen. I think I'm getting close. That one
of my wife's garden was breathtaking even in the ground glass!

Comments? Ideas?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jim,

Don't take this as a personal insult, because it isn't: it's just an illustration of how tastes differ. I'm still feeling seasick from looking at the picture of the flowers. It was like being unpleasantly and very badly drunk: the sort when, if you are lying on the floor, you still have to hold on to the floor in order to stop moving.

As I say, I really don't mean to insult you, and if you, and others, like this effect, the very best of luck to you; I just thought you might be interested to know the effect that it has on some other people. I looked at it because I wasn't entirely sure what 'swirly bokeh' might be.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[jimgalli]

Roger, it is a look some folks really seem attracted to. For myself, I'd like to at least learn how to predict and control it so if it's an effect I want, it's in my toolbox.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jim,

I am sure you are right. I was just astonished at how adversely the picture affected me, and wanted to convey that in as non-negative a manner as possible -- which wasn't really possible. Sorry!

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I've heard of people who get woozy when viewing images of this type. I wouldn't feel too bad, Roger.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Stephanie,

Whew! Thanks! I'm glad it isn't just me...

Cheers,

Roger

 

[nicolai]

I've gotten swirlies by fitting a lens element from a junked 80's Canon P&S onto a Holga body (obviously with a smaller image circle than a Petz, and no TTL viewing, which is why these test images are unfocussed).

Examples: Element forward and reversed.

This one obviously has a thinner swirl band than yours does, but it's a very cheap and easy way to experiment. The element I used I believe was a piece that got switched in past a certain zoom setting; I can post a picture of it if you're interested.

 

[jonw]

Jim, thanks for your continuing efforts of honing your abilities with your various Lens/tools. It seems that besides the subject matter variable, there may also be a distance and film size variable, i.e., subject to lens and size of the film for the particular swirl. If would appear that if a 5x7 lens is used on an 8x10 camera, there is more swirl than otherwise. Have you found this to be the case? Attached is an example of swirl whereas when the a subject shot was taken at a closer distance, I did not get the swirl. Thoughts?

 

[jimgalli]

G'mornin Jon. Actually I was just out playing again with that lens. Yes, too small a lens is an important aspect. The more important aspect is the relationship to the foliage that will be going out of focus to the subject. My wife has a bunch of black eyed susans growing on a white fence in the back yard. If I focus on the plane they live in, almost no swirls, but a lot of interesting barrel distortion in the corners. However if I roll the front forward to focus on a head that is 2 feet in front of that plane, the susan's go nuts. Kind of fun figuring this out. Also fun to see how much some folks really hate that look. I need some more victims. Let's see, I could offer kids some candy to come in my backyard..........ummm....maybe not.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Not really found of the flower thing. BUT Mick's neighbor(1th one).... That's a really great portrait !

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

I feel badly for Roger, lying on the floor with 'the spins'.

Been there, think it was food allergy thing for me, but the bottle's done it a few times in college too.

 

[bdial]

I don't care for the swirley bokeh, as presented in the flowers. Like Roger, it almost makes me dizzy. The portraits, however are great, though it's hard to imagine what they might look like swirly.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I feel badly for Roger, lying on the floor with 'the spins'.

Been there, think it was food allergy thing for me, but the bottle's done it a few times in college too.

It really was bizarre -- sufficiently unpleasant that I'm reluctant to go back to see if I can analyze it. I wonder what on earth causes it. Has anyone else (other than Stephanie) heard of/experienced this? I think that if it hadn't happened, I'd rather have liked the picture -- but I can't tell!

Edit: Well, one other reported it while I was typing this.

 

[Andy K]

An interesting effect. It looks like an extreme incidence of coma to me. I've seen similar to a much smaller degree in a couple of shots I made using the CV 40/1.4 Nokton (not LF I know). Here's the shot in question, you can see the coma in the top third of the frame.

 

[Dave Wooten]

The most pronounced "swirl" will appear in greater proportion to the extent that there is no plane at all in sharp focus.

 

[mark]

I personally do not like the swirl bokeh. If it is in the portraits I don't see it and happy it is not there. In my opinion the Bokeh, if pronounced, like the garden shot, becomes the subject. My opinion of bokeh, is it is most pleasing when it is not noticed. If I notice the bokeh, the image is a failure.

The over pronounced swirl of the garden picture completely detracts from what is probably a fine image.

Just my opinion. Others' will differ.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In my opinion the Bokeh, if pronounced, like the garden shot, becomes the subject.
Just my opinion. Others' will differ.

Seconded

 

[Jim Noel]

Jim,
Thanks for starting this discussion. Although the flowers qre a little much for me, I find it interesting that the swirl does not appear in the portraits. I have thought I was doing something wrong when i could get no swirl with any of the old lenses I have tried. Now I realize that it perhaps is my subject matter. I wonder how much effect there would be if the portraits were made infront of the flowers.
Keep up the good work. Although I don't often respond, I follow each of your contributions with great interest.
Jim

 

[Dave Wooten]

Jim,
Thanks for starting this discussion. Although the flowers qre a little much for me, I find it interesting that the swirl does not appear in the portraits. I have thought I was doing something wrong when i could get no swirl with any of the old lenses I have tried. Now I realize that it perhaps is my subject matter. I wonder how much effect there would be if the portraits were made infront of the flowers.
Keep up the good work. Although I don't often respond, I follow each of your contributions with great interest.
Jim

Jim the portraits a have at least one plane of sharp focus.

 

[nicolai]

Re the swirl becoming the subject, I like to take a frame from the aberrant areas only and crop out the rest. (It feels more integrated for what I'm personally after that way.)

(example from the edge of a Diana lens image circle attached)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Gimme a barf bag!

After I heaved my cookies, the rest of the photos were much better.

By the way, send me a box of chocolate chip cookies to replace the ones that I lost looking at the flowers.

Steve

 

[jimgalli]

Gimme a barf bag!

After I heaved my cookies, the rest of the photos were much better.

By the way, send me a box of chocolate chip cookies to replace the ones that I lost looking at the flowers.

Steve

LOL!! Well I'm tickled I've finally made an image that got so much attention even if it is hate. Think I'll make some more. Actually today I'm doing a series of portraits with the faces sharp and the swirl like a toilet drain in New Zealand.

 

[Richard Kelham]

From what (little) I've seen of swirly bokeh, it seems to happen most when a peripheral area of 'busy' high contrast (most often foliage or tree branches with backlighting) reacts with pronounced coma – which might explain why the garden shot had it and the portraits didn't.

Otherwise, I'm with Roger in that it reminded me of student parties when you had to hang onto the floor to stop falling off....




Richard

 

[John Bartley]

Hi Jim,

Sorry, I don't like the flower photo - way too swirly. The others I do like, but they aren't really swirly are they? I don't know how to make the swirly bokeh you're looking for, but I think what you're looking for is part way between the photos of the gnarled old dudes and the dizzy flowers eh?

cheers

 

[jimgalli]

Hi Jim,
.... but I think what you're looking for is part way between the photos of the gnarled old dudes and the dizzy flowers eh?

cheers

Heck, why not go for the throat. I'm picturing a large gallery show of my pictures with dramamine sold in the lobby and a barf bag requisite to entering the main gallery. Joe Smigiel explained how the swirlies are formed. It seems when you pour the liquid emulsion on the glass plates, you swirl it to cover the corners. The photons are then confused as to where to land and voila!

Hi DAVE! As you can see, nothing has improved in Tonopah.