Bokeh! 35mm vs 6x7

[StoneNYC]

Stone- he's talking about the Mamiya 6/7 family of rangefinders, not the RB/RZ.

OH!! Yes in that case the Rangefinder wasn't designed for close focus, there is a macro attachment for it but using a TLR is better


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[msbarnes]

Stone- he's talking about the Mamiya 6/7 family of rangefinders, not the RB/RZ.

Yep. The OP was thinking about the Mamiya 7 but you are correct in that the RB/RZ closely.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

This thread belongs in the bulshitters thread!

a) blade count is mostly irrelevant for bokeh because generally (unless there are very few) you can't count 'em in the image. There are lenses with few blades and beautiful bokeh (e.g. CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4 with hexagons)
b) the dominant factor for smooth bokeh in a traditional lens is the presence of spherical aberration. It dims the edges of the blur discs, thereby reducing hard edges
c) the ultimate bokeh machine is the Minolta/Sony 135 STF due to the presence of its apodisation filter. You get blur gaussians not blur discs, therefore absolutely NO hard edges in the OOF area. It's like taking a defocused image of a defocused image...
d) second choice are the sink-strainer lenses as seen on some MF systems
e) anyone who thinks poorly of Mamiya bokeh# - on the basis of half-remembered internet "wisdom" - needs a good slap.


# or any major brand. They all have "good" and "bad" lenses and if you stick to primes, the bad are few and far between. You can get horrific bokeh from super-zooms though - again with the correction of SA to enhance sharpness often causes nisen bokeh.

Anything to do with &0keh is BS.

 

[msbarnes]

Anything to do with &0keh is BS.

BS, maybe. Over-rated and over-analyzed, yes.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Why do so many people get their knickers in a knot over the term and what it represents? I get the annoyance at discussions that put way too much emphasis on it and/or get snobby about which lens has the "best" bokeh - but it's just a word that encapsulates the quality of out of focus areas. Some lenses have smooth and creamy bokeh - some have harsh and discordant. Most are somewhere in between. We know that the shape of the lens aperture has a major impact on the quality of out-of-focus areas - the more round the aperture, the smoother, to a point. I remember seeing some chromes a friend of mine shot using a 14" Commercial Ektar, a 14" Caltar, and a 355mm Kern Gold-Dot Dagor. The Ektar and Caltar were very close, as they should be - they both are in the same shutter (an Ilex #5), and the 14" Caltar is for all intents and purposes a 14" Commercial Ektar. The Gold-Dot Dagor was noticeably harsher, as it was mounted in a modern Copal 3 with either a 6 or 8 blade aperture. The surprising thing about the Ektar/Caltar was that there was in fact a difference. The Caltar was based on the 14" Commercial Ektar, and was very slightly tweaked. The difference proves that lens design in itself does have something to do with it, not just aperture.

 

[Alan Gales]

I have read that the Rodenstock Imagons in the early shutters had better bokeh than the later ones in the Compur and Copal shutters. The ones in the Copal shutters being the worst. Since the lenses were the same it appears a rounder aperture does affect bokeh.

Like I said earlier, I'm not a lens expert.

Like theFlyingCamera I do love my 14" Commercial Ektar.

 

[polyglot]

Anything to do with &0keh is BS.

Yeah, no. It is a thing and there are distinct differences that can quite reasonably be called "good" (smoothness) and "bad" (line-doubling due to overcorrected SA). Just because most internet discussion of it is ignorant (e.g. the fixation on aperture blade count) doesn't imply that the concept doesn't exist and/or is poorly defined.

Examples of bad "nisen" bokeh: Dead Link Removed, two^. Note the bright rings at the outside edge of each blur-circle; these are due to overcorrection of spherical aberration and it is considered to be ugly because it creates strong features with very high spatial frequency in areas that you're trying to blur out and take the focus away from. It causes line-doubling and all sorts of distracting nastiness.

And for the opposite extreme, examples: one, Dead Link Removed, many from the STF. Note the edges of the background highlights (first image) and how they've been dimmed out by the apodisation filter. With a normal lens, all those coloured blobs would have been sharp circular discs. When applied to an image with a less deliberately-distracting background, the apodisation filter results in extreme smoothness.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

In 35 years of photography I have never occupied myself with the subjective theory of bokeh. Never. I'm amazed at the discourse here. Does anybody actually do serious, considered photography? Do the clients — are there any? — actually remark or fuss and fidget "all about the bokeh"? Or is it about chasing little circles around the frame? Please. Bokeh is bullshit. Get on with serious photography and leave this pseudo-intellectual drivel to such rubbish heaps as the revered photo.net Bokeh Club (where else...) .

 

[hoffy]

So PDJ, you are telling me that you are not a member of the following Flickr group - http://www.flickr.com/groups/bokehwhores/

Japan have just called. They want their word back...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

In 35 years of photography I have never occupied myself with the subjective theory of bokeh. Never. I'm amazed at the discourse here. Does anybody actually do serious, considered photography? Do the clients — are there any? — actually remark or fuss and fidget "all about the bokeh"? Or is it about chasing little circles around the frame? Please. Bokeh is bullshit. Get on with serious photography and leave this pseudo-intellectual drivel to such rubbish heaps as the revered photo.net Bokeh Club (where else...) .

When you are in the business of selling an aesthetically pleasing object, then the mechanics of how you arrive at an aesthetically pleasing object are very germane and not bullshit. If your audience/client is news media, where the content is not just primary but in fact the only factor in buying an image, then yes, bokeh is irrelevant. But when you're selling art to hang on someone's wall, or you've been commissioned to make a portrait, then absolutely it is germane and important. Nobody is going to buy a portrait that only part of it looks good. Only Gilbert Stuart and Leondardo Da Vinci can get away with selling portraits that aren't finished. Maybe clients can't describe why they don't like a particular image because they don't think about it every day or have the professional vocabulary to articulate it, but it's kind of like porn - they know it when they see it. So even if your clients can't explain why they don't like some photo, you should be able to identify those aesthetic characteristics and describe them so you know why you're selling/losing business.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Why do so many people get their knickers in a knot over the term and what it represents? I get the annoyance at discussions that put way too much emphasis on it and/or get snobby about which lens has the "best" bokeh - but it's just a word that encapsulates the quality of out of focus areas. Some lenses have smooth and creamy bokeh - some have harsh and discordant. Most are somewhere in between. We know that the shape of the lens aperture has a major impact on the quality of out-of-focus areas - the more round the aperture, the smoother, to a point. I remember seeing some chromes a friend of mine shot using a 14" Commercial Ektar, a 14" Caltar, and a 355mm Kern Gold-Dot Dagor. The Ektar and Caltar were very close, as they should be - they both are in the same shutter (an Ilex #5), and the 14" Caltar is for all intents and purposes a 14" Commercial Ektar. The Gold-Dot Dagor was noticeably harsher, as it was mounted in a modern Copal 3 with either a 6 or 8 blade aperture. The surprising thing about the Ektar/Caltar was that there was in fact a difference. The Caltar was based on the 14" Commercial Ektar, and was very slightly tweaked. The difference proves that lens design in itself does have something to do with it, not just aperture.

Lens design has virtually everything to do with it. The number of blades in the aperture will determine the shape of out of focus bright spots, nothing more.

I personally get "my knickers in a twist" because most who fling this annoyingly pretentious term about know not of what they speak.

 

[lxdude]

I don't like the word "bokeh" because it is not clear how to pronounce it and its definition is so often misunderstood. Maybe there is some long and descriptive German word that would have been a better choice. That could have been fun.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Lens design has virtually everything to do with it. The number of blades in the aperture will determine the shape of out of focus bright spots, nothing more.

I personally get "my knickers in a twist" because most who fling this annoyingly pretentious term about know not of what they speak.

Just because some fools misuse a term doesn't invalidate the term. Nuclear weapons are no less potent because George W. Bush calls them "Nookular".

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I don't like the word "bokeh" because it is not clear how to pronounce it and its definition is so often misunderstood. Maybe there is some long and descriptive German word that would have been a better choice. That could have been fun.

"Glaslieblichkeit", literally "glass loveliness".

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've personally gotten decent results with my 165/2.8 P67 lens. It has eleven aperture blades and is
a nice focal length with fast speed, allowing shallow depth of field. But that loud "ker-lunk" of the big
mirror can be a bit distracting in portrait sessions. I wouldn't describe the out-of-focus effect as quite
as smooth as with a Nikon or Zeiss 85/1.4 (comparable angle of view), but the big neg is often nicer to
print from. It's a nice option to have on hand if the subject is too fidgety for the 8x10, or if I have to
work more quickly.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Just because some fools misuse a term doesn't invalidate the term. Nuclear weapons are no less potent because George W. Bush calls them "Nookular".

Well, yes it does - if I'm trying to communicate with said fools, we'll be speaking different languages. If I use the term correctly, they won't know what I mean.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Well, yes it does - if I'm trying to communicate with said fools, we'll be speaking different languages. If I use the term correctly, they won't know what I mean.

Well, then medicine is a waste of time... compared to the average doctor, the average patient is a fool when it comes to medical terminology. But that shouldn't stop a doctor from distinguishing between a melanoma and a sarcoma (two kinds of cancers, for the non-initiated). Both terms have meaningful differences and should not be conflated. Maybe instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater you should either educate the fools, or stop talking to them.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The average doctor communicates in insurance codes and has to pick one out in minutes. If you walk
into his office with antlers growing out of your head, he can only charge for something the insurance
company will reimburse, so codes it as "wart removal". At least a term like "bokeh" still has some vowels to it. The cell-phone generation will probably contract this to "bkh" and it will become confused
with some kind of chemical hamburger preservative that cause the antler growth in the first place!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Well, then medicine is a waste of time... compared to the average doctor, the average patient is a fool when it comes to medical terminology. But that shouldn't stop a doctor from distinguishing between a melanoma and a sarcoma (two kinds of cancers, for the non-initiated). Both terms have meaningful differences and should not be conflated. Maybe instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater you should either educate the fools, or stop talking to them.

Well, it's been demonstrated that at least some medicine is a waste of time, if not actively harmful. I imagine that, confronted with a layman who flings misused medical terms about, the average doctor would think him/her a pretentious bore at best.

I've found fools uneducable, and I don't use the term "bokeh". Instead, I use the words "rendition of out of focus areas" which are accurate, self explanatory, and at least somewhat understandable to the unitiated. The purpose of language is communication, jargon is understood only by the elect. I personally find jargon annoying.

 

[Alan Gales]

The average doctor communicates in insurance codes and has to pick one out in minutes. If you walk
into his office with antlers growing out of your head, he can only charge for something the insurance
company will reimburse, so codes it as "wart removal". At least a term like "bokeh" still has some vowels to it. The cell-phone generation will probably contract this to "bkh" and it will become confused
with some kind of chemical hamburger preservative that cause the antler growth in the first place!

I have just got to stop eating those dollar hamburgers from McDonalds. I was wondering what was causing those antlers.

Thanks Drew!

 

[redrockcoulee]

Jargon like leaf shutter or aperture? Every field uses jargon and in fields of science for example when much of the work is done by people in non English speaking countries, non English words become the accepted terms or labels rather than saying for example hills with ice cored created by hydrostatic pressure the word Pingo is used. You may not know what a Pingo is but almost all geomorphologists would. Many of the terms used by photographers are totally unnecessary to be know by the clients. But using a single or two word term to explain what otherwise takes 7 words is communications in my mind. I think if you dissected the terminology used in all aspects of photography you would find many words that we take for granted but non users would think of as jargon. What is a safe light may be a simple example. Perhaps due to the term being foreign, new and is pronouced as an existing word that means something totally different is one of the reasons bokeh is trashed. I do not see how renditioned our of focus area has any more meaning to a non photographer or is a better means of communicating with a photographer. I probably do not use the word myself but I think I know what everyone means when they say it and can visualize the effect on the image. To me that is communitcations.

 

[StoneNYC]

Well, it's been demonstrated that at least some medicine is a waste of time, if not actively harmful. I imagine that, confronted with a layman who flings misused medical terms about, the average doctor would think him/her a pretentious bore at best.

I've found fools uneducable, and I don't use the term "bokeh". Instead, I use the words "rendition of out of focus areas" which are accurate, self explanatory, and at least somewhat understandable to the unitiated. The purpose of language is communication, jargon is understood only by the elect. I personally find jargon annoying.

"Rendition" is the completely wrong word FYI


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mesantacruz]

just thought i'd share some information, that SOME people have probably not seen.


1. history of the term bokeh... and why it is pronounced the way it is... and who made the decision to name it such

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-04-04.shtml



2. another article/blog referencing some history, and issues touched in this thread

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/02/11/what-is-bokeh/



3. very important article referenced in the above link, one could say, the one that started it all, kind of.

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf


Make sure you read the article (No. 3 LINK)

 

[E. von Hoegh]

"Rendition" is the completely wrong word FYI


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Then why don't you enlighten me as to the correct word?

 

[artobest]

"Rendering" might be more strictly correct, but the snideness was unwarranted IMO.