Bokeh in Large Format

[lee]

I hope not too Mr Callow. I dont like bokeh in large format as I try pretty hard to make the image in focus all over.

lee\c

 

[Struan Gray]

Jim, I would be interested to hear more about early abstract photography. A lot of my compositional style is derived from mid C20th abstract painters like de Stael, Tobey and the New York Abstract Expressionists. My (admittedly random) readings into art history have reinforced the standard view of photography's rather abject stance with respect to painting and the other plastic arts. I would love to learn of counter examples.

 

[lee]

look for work by Aaron Siskind

lee\c

 

[Struan Gray]

He's one of my favourites. I have the recent Aaron Siskind 100 book, and have read a fair bit about his interaction with the New York crew. I find it fascinating that he was a photographer who was not just influential for a major art movement, but was accepted as a leading and equal member of it.

But I read Jim's comment to refer to earlier abstract art movements, and although I can sort of swallow the idea that photography freed up painters from the demands of representation, I don't see any specific photographers who can be regarded as having lead from the front. Those like Steichen and Stieglitz who are usually credited with shaking photography from complacency strike me as lagging a long way behind the avant garde painters of the day.

Just to stay vaguely on topic: it is worth remembering that at one time the original pictorial school was something new, exciting and genuinely artistic. A lot of early photography was so grounded in the inevitable limitations of the technology that the photographers became narrowly focussed on technical goals to the exclusion of expression. One of the things I find interesting in recent resurrections of old processes and looks is the way they no longer can be dismissed as technical failures, and have to be addressed in their own terms. Kerik's lost in a book photo is a wonderful example.

 

[Jim Chinn]

But I read Jim's comment to refer to earlier abstract art movements, and although I can sort of swallow the idea that photography freed up painters from the demands of representation, I don't see any specific photographers who can be regarded as having lead from the front. Those like Steichen and Stieglitz who are usually credited with shaking photography from complacency strike me as lagging a long way behind the avant garde painters of the day.

The move from figurative representation to abstraction was a slow process. Picasso, Braque and Gris led the way with cubism derived from the influences Picasso gained from African art. In the teens you had the emergence of a more modern abstract approach to photography with Strand, Karl Struss, and Arthur Chapman who bridged the gap from pictorialism along with Steiglitz. Before Strand made his famous "Porch and Shadows" abstract, Kasmir Malevich in Russia was already making geometric abstractions with oil and canvas followed in a few years, abstracts by Eli Lizzitsky, another Russian.

So I will admit that I got a little carried away with the idea a great deal of 20th century art can find origins in photography. Many of the modern trends were all ready established or being discovered seperate from photography. After WW1 I think the influence of photography greatly increased as it was viewed as the modern way of seeing and expressing oneself. This is when painters began to become interested in the physical properties of the lens and how it rendered subjects on the 2D plane.

 

[jjstafford]

But I read Jim's comment to refer to earlier abstract art movements, and although I can sort of swallow the idea that photography freed up painters from the demands of representation, I don't see any specific photographers who can be regarded as having lead from the front.

You must have missed the reference to Marcel Duchamp who definitely considered the work of Muybridge. There are other associations of artists to photographers, but it might be better if you spent the time experiencing the learning rather than us providing a reading program - unless that is what you want. Suffice to say, there were many!

 

[medform-norm]

I don't know if you are poking fun at me or not...

To clear all doubt about my intentions: my remark was, if anything, socratic (and made spontaneously).

(that's what happens to people when they study philosophy, they start making socratic remarks).

Cheers, norm

 

[matt miller]

wtf is "socratic"?

 

[jjstafford]

wtf is "socratic"?

A dialog that leads towards learning that might begin with, "what is wtf", and then lead you down a path beyond acronyms.

 

[Dave Wooten]

Thanks for that Duchamp site!

 

[jjstafford]

Thanks for that Duchamp site!

Thank my brother Andy. He's the author. Also check out his web recapitulation of the first multimedia magazine: http://www.ubu.com/aspen/aspen.html

 

[Dan Fromm]

A dialog that leads towards learning that might begin with, "what is wtf", and then lead you down a path beyond acronyms.

John, the socratic method as I encountered it in college and again in grad school came down to torturing students who came to class unprepared until they somehow came up with the desired answer or ran away. It didn't work very well, students who came to class badly prepared once did it again and again ...

Cheers,

Dan

 

[25asa]

The internet holds so much potential, yet there is this Law of De-Compartmentalized Participation:

The intellectual content of the conversation is inversely proportional to the number of participants squared. (Actually the value of the exponent may be much higher than a value of two).

Can we please stay on topic - i.e. Bokeh ?

jimgalli started a great threat here with such potential and now it's degenerated to acronyms and the Socratic method. This could have evolved (and still can) into an evaluation of several lenses as to there out of focus characteristics - and examples of creativity using both so called "good" and "bad" Bokeh. How can we make this come to fruition?

 

[jjstafford]

There is a lot of written (typed) information about bokeh, and some interesting illustrations of the sharp Nikon Defocus Control (DC) lens 'out there', however not a lot of illustrations using earlier lenses which APUG members are likely to own. Therein may be the special contribution we can offer.

Some here have pointed to their examples, and it is quite helpful. If I had my druthers, I'd like to see attempts that exploit the sharper area of focus, then let the background be the bokeh instead of images that are entirely soft, hind-focused or competely out-of-focus.

Nay, I am not just typing to let another do the work, but inspired to use the old hardware - however I am laid up with a rather daunting injury for a few weeks, but I will, I promise, contribute.

Not sophmoric, I hope.
Best,
jj

 

[Struan Gray]

I didn't think I was asking for a reading list, but I'm happy to peruse suggestions if anyone has the energy. I thought Jim made an interesting comment and simply asked him to expand on it.

I am interested in Bokeh as a way to create texture. A lot of photographers use it to direct attention to a visual centre - and I would put both Jim G's and Kerik's photos in this catagory - but I am more interested in making 'all-over' photographs where isolated compositional points are eliminated, or at least subordinated.

One optical effect not touched on in most treatments of bokeh is the way that obstructions close to the lens affect the depiction of the rest of the scene. Telescope users call this 'apodisation' when done deliberately. Perhaps the simplest example is the way a chain-link fence does and does not dissapear when you photograph through it. If the fence is well outside the depth of field it will not appear itself, and it will have no effect on the in-focus parts of the image, but it can substantially affect the out of focus parts of the image, imprinting its characteristic symmetry on them.

 

[jjstafford]

[...] One optical effect not touched on in most treatments of bokeh is the way that obstructions close to the lens affect the depiction of the rest of the scene. Telescope users call this 'apodisation' when done deliberately. Perhaps the simplest example is the way a chain-link fence does and does not dissapear when you photograph through it. If the fence is well outside the depth of field it will not appear itself, and it will have no effect on the in-focus parts of the image, but it can substantially affect the out of focus parts of the image, imprinting its characteristic symmetry on them.

Ah, how wonderful! And people despair that there is nothing yet to learn in conventional photography! Yes, I noticed the effect largely by accident in film school, but never considered pursuing it with stills. Should I have a success when I do, I will dedicate it to you.

You might be interested in this big old Verito that seems to be soft in the center, then sharp a bit out, and soft again. Me, I can't even hold it right now.

Mayve we could start a Lens Loaner program.

 

[25asa]

I do not have the studio set up to do this, but I think it would be interesting to make a standardized Bokeh Measuring Test Background Tool ~ something like a 4 foot by 5 foot backlit test target on clear acetate consisting of point sources, several different polygon shapes in formation, differing circles and arrows, a high contrast USAF 1951 chart, et cetera, ad infinitum.

Lenses could be bench tested for Bokeh characteristics using a standardized tool.

BMTBT - Bokeh Measuring Test Background Target - there's one for the acronym lovers.

I hear the Nikon 85mm 1.4 has BAD BOKEH, but the 1.8 has GOOD BOKEH. Yeah?
Can we quanitify this out of focus point source Bokeh by bisecting its point source blur?
+100% to 0 to -100% ?
+100 is a bell curve of luminescence across the blur? ----^----
-100 is a circlet of lumenescnece across the point? --^----^--

A mirror lens ought to approximate -100, BAD BOKEH!! - but wouldn't astronomers want this?
couldn't this be a creative option?

BTW, Isn't Bokeh is a problem only for refractive and reflective optics?
Pinhole openings (diffractive imaging) display superb bokeh everywhere and are oblivious to "depth of field" as a concept in the first place.
F/64 and up is headed in this direction.

How does a one element one group perform?
Two elements one group?
Triplets?
Petzvals?
Dallmeyers?
300mm Nikor-M?
240mm Congo?
135mm Symmar-S?
90mm Thambar?

Too many lenses, not enough time!

 

[jimgalli]

Too many lenses, not enough time!

Alas, quantifiable bokeh? I think it's far too subjective to individual taste. But your last line certainly rings true. Struggled all day today to get out even for a few minutes but nay. Ebay calleth (read, I'm bankrupt and have to sell something quick). I had a lovely Voigtlander I wanted to play with but it will have to wait. Meanwhile make sure you check my ebay ads late this pm. Couple of nice old things going up. tpahjim

 

[Struan Gray]

Lens design programs let you plot so-called 'spot diagrams', which show how a point source like a star or a distant street lamp will appear on film for various apertures and focal distances. These are literally bokeh plots, at least for those able to do a rough mental convolution. They are not popular because a) they reveal every last flaw of a lens' design and b) they are simply too much information for the average chart-grubber to digest - they don't allow a ranking or star rating.

John: I've pm'd you about the lens. Many thanks. Impromptu apodisation was supposedly used by press photographers, presumably in the TLR era, when focussing in dim light. The trick is to put your finger across the center of the lens and focus so as to eliminate the resulting split image.

 

[David]

swirly bokeh?

I took this image with a 420mm Imagon on an 8x10 without any sink strainers in it. The near branches are in sharp focus but everything else goes wonky pretty quickly. The vortex in the trees has me mystified. I don't know if it's like the swirly effect on the previous image. Any thoughts? The picture was an experiment.

 

[medform-norm]

I took this image with a 420mm Imagon on an 8x10 without any sink strainers in it. The near branches are in sharp focus but everything else goes wonky pretty quickly. The vortex in the trees has me mystified. I don't know if it's like the swirly effect on the previous image. Any thoughts? The picture was an experiment.

Hi David,
maybe it's just our computer, but we can't see any images! Can you post them again or give a pointer to where they can be seen (in an APUG gallery perhaps?)

Cheers,
medform-norm (the socratic)

 

[medform-norm]

Hi David,
maybe it's just our computer, but we can't see any images! Can you post them again or give a pointer to where they can be seen (in an APUG gallery perhaps?)

Cheers,
medform-norm (the socratic)

It's just like magic! It has suddenly appeared! How did you do that, David?

 

[David]

I have a Mac

 

[medform-norm]

I have a Mac

We have three Mac's and it doesn't make a darn difference... so it's still ma(c)gic!

 

[Lee L]

We have three Mac's and it doesn't make a darn difference... so it's still ma(c)gic!

Or it could be that since your post registered 5 minutes after the photo post was done (less if you throw in a couple of minutes to compose and post your message), that the text was posted and available before the photo completed uploading and the link established by the web site software.

But since you're running Macs, we'll go ahead and call it magic. If you were running Windows, it would be an accident. If linux, you'd be reading a .log file to see what error was recorded.

Lee