Is getting maximum OoF areas/bokeh the reason people overwhelmingly prefer aperture priority bodies?

[PaulQ]

Your post got me to thinking...

1. my first SLR was a Topcon Auto 100, it had both shutter speed and aperture concentric to the lens, and it had shutter priority automation as well as manual control with left hand
2. My 2nd and 3rd and 4th SLR were both Olympus of various generations, and all had both shutter speed and aperture concentric to the lens, and OM-4 had shutter priority automation as well as manual control with left hand
3. My first Medium Format SLR was Bronica ETRS, and its shutter control was on the left side of the body, while the aperture ring was concentric to the lens, so both could easily be controlled with left hand, and the AE-II/-III metering prism had aperture priority automation as well as manual control with left hand.

You had an OM4 with shutter priority? Every Olympus OM I've owned was aperture priority.

 

[Pieter12]

It really seems that dSLRs are poorly desgined from the standpoiint of splitting control functions between the two hands while actively shooting!

I am not familiar with other than few Nikon dslrs, and all the shooting controls are right-hand. Left is used to support, zoom and focus the lens.

 

[wiltw]

You had an OM4 with shutter priority? Every Olympus OM I've owned was aperture priority.

Nope, OM-4 with aperture priority...the earlier post (now corrected) was the product of cut and paste of the first sentence with failure to edit 'shutter' to 'aperture'

 

[wiltw]

I am not familiar with other than few Nikon dslrs, and all the shooting controls are right-hand. Left is used to support, zoom and focus the lens.

Yup...Nikon just like Canon in terms of overburdening the right hand with too many during-shooting functions
Right hand:

1. Shutter release
2. Focus initiate (back button focus)
3. AF point zone selection
4. Shutter speed control
5. Aperture control
6. Exposure compensation, initiate and control
7. ISO adjust, initiate and control
8. White brightness, intiate and control
9. Exposure metering mode (Eval/Average/Center/Spot)
10. the * button function
11. Self timer & burst shoot control

Left hand:

1. Focus, manual adjust
2. Zoom FL
3. Support lens
4. Mode control

(and all the left edge body buttons for non-shooting adjustment and image review) The right hand has to do too much, and the left hand is largely idle.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Pieter12 and wiltw, we're drifting into forbidden territory. But since we're there, I recently bought a Nikon DSLR and am still learning how to use it. I have a few Nikon SLRs that shoot film, have always set them up except for focusing and selecting shutter speed and aperture in advance, find I'm doing the same with the DSLR. I haven't seen the need to fiddle with all of those damned options on the fly.

 

[Alan Gales]

As for Av vs Tv...I have a slight bias toward Av over Tv, but the choice is really dependent upon what I am shooting and what I need to control from a creative perspective. And if I need to control BOTH aperture and shutter speed I will often resort to Manual. Growing up with film (and one ISO only, unless I changed film backs with the Bronica) Auto ISO is something that simply is not done...automation of aperture and shutter and sensitivity is too much like forsaking ALL control...I might as well be in Green Box mode (shudder). I have never been able to change my way of thinking to use manual aperture and shutter, yet leave ISO under auto control...the issue of high ISO noise is simply something I cannet relinquish, control over noise.

I used to help manage one of my daughter's select fast pitch softball teams. I was the team photographer. I used auto ISO all the time on my Nikon DSLR's when shooting in daylight. Of course in that light I didn't have to worry about high ISO noise. Auto ISO can be handy but like you say, it can cause noise if it goes up too high.

 

[Alan Gales]

Pieter12 and wiltw, we're drifting into forbidden territory. But since we're there, I recently bought a Nikon DSLR and am still learning how to use it. I have a few Nikon SLRs that shoot film, have always set them up except for focusing and selecting shutter speed and aperture in advance, find I'm doing the same with the DSLR. I haven't seen the need to fiddle with all of those damned options on the fly.

Dan, you will find that shooting Digital is a lot more complicated than a large format monorail. Movements are easier to learn than menus.

 

[CMoore]

I have no use for shutter priority at all. I've only used it accidentally, thinking that I selected either aperture priority, or manual. I don't shoot wide open either, the lenses usually don't perform that well and don't care about bokeh at all. I'll pick an aperture depending on the case, it could be a matter of depth of field, or lack of it, or maximum sharpness. The shutter speed is only taken into consideration if its not hand-holdable, or unavailable. For the rest of the cases, it doesn't matter at all as far as I am concerned.

You expressed my thoughts better than i was about to.
I rarely use max aperture.
The only time i really do is when i am inside and i know there is enough light (no matter what the meter does or does not say) to expose a certain object or person if i hand-hold at 1/30 or 1/60.
I know there will be a lot of underexposed ares in the frame, but the important object will be able to be printed.

I really do not know if the term "Bokeh" was used in 1978 when i took a photo class in high school.
I purposely choose a shallow DOF sometimes, but i have never Cared/Concidered about the "Quality of the out of focus area behind the main topic of a picture".
I find it a bit humorous that people give it so much thought.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

I never had any automatic cameras until a few years ago, when ebay cheapies became available. I always thought I would like shutter priority, since it mirrored the way I (usually) worked the manual camera - set shutter speed, then adjust aperture to suit metering. I remember being disappointed that most of the new 35 mm cameras for sale at one time were aperture priority - but I never did buy a new camera.

Now that I have all sorts of automatic cameras, I find myself going back to manual so often, that I just leave it on manual. Easier than trying to remember where I left the settings from the previous shot. I guess I just can't get used to automatic - too hard!

 

[CMoore]

I used to help manage one of my daughter's select fast pitch softball teams. I was the team photographer. I used auto ISO all the time on my Nikon DSLR's when shooting in daylight. Of course in that light I didn't have to worry about high ISO noise. Auto ISO can be handy but like you say, it can cause noise if it goes up too high.

I worked with a guy whose daughter got a scholarship to a big name school...i think it was Stanford... for softball.
Not sure she threw much faster (she was a pitcher) than 60 or 65 MPH, but she threw junk for strikes or you swore they were going to be strikes.

 

[Helge]

I never had any automatic cameras until a few years ago, when ebay cheapies became available. I always thought I would like shutter priority, since it mirrored the way I (usually) worked the manual camera - set shutter speed, then adjust aperture to suit metering. I remember being disappointed that most of the new 35 mm cameras for sale at one time were aperture priority - but I never did buy a new camera.

Now that I have all sorts of automatic cameras, I find myself going back to manual so often, that I just leave it on manual. Easier than trying to remember where I left the settings from the previous shot. I guess I just can't get used to automatic - too hard!

Coupled meter manual, is just wonderful!
It’s only a tiny bit slower than any mode, and if the light is the same, which you can check very quickly, it’s just as fast.

Uncoupled manual is quite slow in changing light though. But enjoyable and instructive/a learning experience.

Both means you can mix and match to your hearts content, and override the standard exposure to get all kinds of weird results or satisfy exceptional cases, you might want.
Still with full metering

 

[wiltw]

I really do not know if the term "Bokeh" was used in 1978 when i took a photo class in high school.
I purposely choose a shallow DOF sometimes, but i have never Cared/Concidered about the "Quality of the out of focus area behind the main topic of a picture".
I find it a bit humorous that people give it so much thought.

Since you asked!...
Folks today care out 'how blurry is the out-of-focus area", which is not 'bokeh', they merely call what they want by the wrong name...few are actually interested in good vs. bad looking blur.

Original articles about bokeh were published in a 1997 issue of Photo Techniques magazine, editor Mike Johnston. Mike and I were in conversation for a period, about the possibility of my writing articles for Photo Techniques. The original article by Harold Merklinger (1996) can still be found here:
https://luminous-landscape.com/bokeh/

Some key paragraphs discussing 'good' vs 'bad' bokeh are provided:

"The ‘bright ring’ effect is what I suggest leads to ‘bad boke’ and especially ‘ni-sen’. The ‘bright ring’ type circle of confusion allows some aspects of detail in the original scene to show up in out of focus areas and even to be replicated. An extreme example of the ‘bright ring’ circle of confusion is that produced by a typical mirror lens. Figure 10, by Kevin Hawk, shows a background out-of-focus spire as a very distinct double image.

The ‘bright core’ type circle of confusion is observed with the 35/2 Summicron on both sides of the point of focus. I suggest the bright core circle of confusion leads to pleasant out-of-focus images, provided the core is not too strongly concentrated. If the central bright core is too small, again some fine detail is painted into out-of-focus areas‚ although at least it is not replicated.

It is important to understand that many lenses will not display ‘good boke’ or ‘bad boke’ under all conditions. The ‘bright ring’ effect of the Imagon is brought under control to some extent by the sink-strainer aperture, but even so, this lens will show a smoother out-of-focus image for objects behind the main (in focus) subject. Out-of-focus objects closer to the camera will be imaged more harshly. Lenses like the 180/5.6 Nikkor, on the other hand, will show smoother out-of-focus images for objects closer to the camera than the main subject, and harsher images in the background. The Summicron gains its reputation by showing smooth out-of-focus images on both sides of the main subject."
​

In 2010 Zeiss published a paper which discussed bokeh on page 25. https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/app/uploads/2018/04/Article-Bokeh-2010-EN.pdf
Then, in 2017, Zeiss followed up with a discussion, entitled:

"How does ZEISS define Bokeh – An Interview with Dr. Stefan Ballmann
"Are you confused about what bokeh really means? In this interview, Dr. Stefan Ballmann talks about the different characteristics of the out-of-focus areas in an image and how and why lenses differ in the quality of this bokeh or blur."

https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en...ne-bokeh-an-interview-with-dr-stefan-ballmann​

In short, and back to OP, 'bokeh' is determined by choice of lens, and not by methodology of the photographer!
And 'how blurry is the background' is entirely controlled by the diameter of the aperture.
and 'how deep is the DOF Zone' is entirely controlled by size of the subject in the frame and f/stop used.

 

[Helge]

Folks today care out 'how blurry is the out-of-focus area", which is not 'bokeh', they merely call what they want by the wrong name...few are actually interested in good vs. bad looking blur.

Original articles about bokeh were published in a 1997 issue of Photo Techniques magazine, editor Mike Johnston. Mike and I were in conversation for a period, about the possibility of my writing articles for Photo Techniques. The original article by Harold Merklinger (1996) can still be found here:
https://luminous-landscape.com/bokeh/

Some key paragraphs discussing 'good' vs 'bad' bokeh are provided:

"The ‘bright ring’ effect is what I suggest leads to ‘bad boke’ and especially ‘ni-sen’. The ‘bright ring’ type circle of confusion allows some aspects of detail in the original scene to show up in out of focus areas and even to be replicated. An extreme example of the ‘bright ring’ circle of confusion is that produced by a typical mirror lens. Figure 10, by Kevin Hawk, shows a background out-of-focus spire as a very distinct double image.

The ‘bright core’ type circle of confusion is observed with the 35/2 Summicron on both sides of the point of focus. I suggest the bright core circle of confusion leads to pleasant out-of-focus images, provided the core is not too strongly concentrated. If the central bright core is too small, again some fine detail is painted into out-of-focus areas‚ although at least it is not replicated.

It is important to understand that many lenses will not display ‘good boke’ or ‘bad boke’ under all conditions. The ‘bright ring’ effect of the Imagon is brought under control to some extent by the sink-strainer aperture, but even so, this lens will show a smoother out-of-focus image for objects behind the main (in focus) subject. Out-of-focus objects closer to the camera will be imaged more harshly. Lenses like the 180/5.6 Nikkor, on the other hand, will show smoother out-of-focus images for objects closer to the camera than the main subject, and harsher images in the background. The Summicron gains its reputation by showing smooth out-of-focus images on both sides of the main subject."
​

In 2010 Zeiss published a paper which discussed bokeh on page 25. https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/app/uploads/2018/04/Article-Bokeh-2010-EN.pdf
Then, in 2017, Zeiss followed up with a discussion, entitled:

"How does ZEISS define Bokeh – An Interview with Dr. Stefan Ballmann
"Are you confused about what bokeh really means? In this interview, Dr. Stefan Ballmann talks about the different characteristics of the out-of-focus areas in an image and how and why lenses differ in the quality of this bokeh or blur."

https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en...ne-bokeh-an-interview-with-dr-stefan-ballmann​

In short, and back to OP, 'bokeh' is determined by choice of lens, and not by methodology of the photographer!
And 'how blurry is the background' is entirely controlled by the diameter of the aperture.
and 'how deep is the DOF Zone' is entirely controlled by size of the subject in the frame and f/stop used.

Spare me the halfbaked lectures.
You are in essence contradicting yourself with the quotes and links you give.
Bokeh is most certainly, in part determined by “the methodology of the photographer”.
Size of aperture and distance vs. focus are just two examples.
Bokeh is of course also determined by the correction of the lens. But that doesn’t go against what I wrote in the OP.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Let’s be honest: Isn’t the main reason most people almost to a fault prefer aperture priority, so they can set the aperture ring at max hole and shoot away, getting all that “bokey” they paid for?

It’s almost impossible to visualize how slightly different apertures will look, even (especially, perhaps) when stopping down, while it’s quite easy imagining what different shutter speeds will do at a given focal length.
Most often people will just either want as much DoF as possible or as little as possible.
And that is actually easier to control by adjusting the shutter to as little as you dare/can manage to stabilize, to have it as open as possible. Or selecting the highest possible speed to get as much depth as possible.
And of course just a medium speed for something you can hold still, enough or the appropriate amount of motion blur.

I feel myself learning to appreciate shutter priority more and more, to the point that I will avoid a body if it only offers aperture, and no manual and/or shutter priority.

Of course it does happen that I want exactly the DoF that I imagine f8 or f5.6 will give in a given situation. But those occasions are rare and often I’m forced to chose something else due to the lighting conditions.

Also, knowing about futurism and photographers such as Ernst Haas aren’t we kind of missing out on “temporal bokeh” as more than an occasional gimmick for silky water and light trails of cars?

Not true.

I use aperture priority when I want control over my depth of field. I rarely ever want the shallow depth of field that comes from shooting wide open. That being said, I have shot wide open when lighting conditions + film speed called for it. If it was wide open or nothing, I'd open the lens up to maximum aperture. However, I will occasionally go from f8 to f11 or down to f5.6. I like the ability to make the camera pick the shutter speed to give me zone 5 exposure after I've selected my depth of field via aperture.

 

[wiltw]

Dan, you will find that shooting Digital is a lot more complicated than a large format monorail. Movements are easier to learn than menus.

...than Sony menus

 

[wiltw]

Spare me the halfbakes lectures.
You are in essence contradicting yourself with the quotes and links you give.
Bokeh is most certainly, in part determined by “the methodology of the photographer”.
Size of aperture and distance vs. focus are just two examples.
Bokeh is of course also determined by the correction of the lens. But that doesn’t go against what I wrote in the OP.

You buy your lens, you get your bokeh...there is some minimal affect on bokeh by change of aperture, but the change is dependent upon specific lens design, and not directly controllable by the photographer as a univerally true control like in other aspects of photography. Zeiss says same thing.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Since you asked!...
Folks today care out 'how blurry is the out-of-focus area", which is not 'bokeh', they merely call what they want by the wrong name...few are actually interested in good vs. bad looking blur.

Original articles about bokeh were published in a 1997 issue of Photo Techniques magazine, editor Mike Johnston. Mike and I were in conversation for a period, about the possibility of my writing articles for Photo Techniques. The original article by Harold Merklinger (1996) can still be found here:
https://luminous-landscape.com/bokeh/

Some key paragraphs discussing 'good' vs 'bad' bokeh are provided:

"The ‘bright ring’ effect is what I suggest leads to ‘bad boke’ and especially ‘ni-sen’. The ‘bright ring’ type circle of confusion allows some aspects of detail in the original scene to show up in out of focus areas and even to be replicated. An extreme example of the ‘bright ring’ circle of confusion is that produced by a typical mirror lens. Figure 10, by Kevin Hawk, shows a background out-of-focus spire as a very distinct double image.

The ‘bright core’ type circle of confusion is observed with the 35/2 Summicron on both sides of the point of focus. I suggest the bright core circle of confusion leads to pleasant out-of-focus images, provided the core is not too strongly concentrated. If the central bright core is too small, again some fine detail is painted into out-of-focus areas‚ although at least it is not replicated.

It is important to understand that many lenses will not display ‘good boke’ or ‘bad boke’ under all conditions. The ‘bright ring’ effect of the Imagon is brought under control to some extent by the sink-strainer aperture, but even so, this lens will show a smoother out-of-focus image for objects behind the main (in focus) subject. Out-of-focus objects closer to the camera will be imaged more harshly. Lenses like the 180/5.6 Nikkor, on the other hand, will show smoother out-of-focus images for objects closer to the camera than the main subject, and harsher images in the background. The Summicron gains its reputation by showing smooth out-of-focus images on both sides of the main subject."
​

In 2010 Zeiss published a paper which discussed bokeh on page 25. https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/app/uploads/2018/04/Article-Bokeh-2010-EN.pdf
Then, in 2017, Zeiss followed up with a discussion, entitled:

"How does ZEISS define Bokeh – An Interview with Dr. Stefan Ballmann
"Are you confused about what bokeh really means? In this interview, Dr. Stefan Ballmann talks about the different characteristics of the out-of-focus areas in an image and how and why lenses differ in the quality of this bokeh or blur."

https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en...ne-bokeh-an-interview-with-dr-stefan-ballmann​

In short, and back to OP, 'bokeh' is determined by choice of lens, and not by methodology of the photographer!
And 'how blurry is the background' is entirely controlled by the diameter of the aperture.
and 'how deep is the DOF Zone' is entirely controlled by size of the subject in the frame and f/stop used.

Thank you for this summary. I have noticed that the D crowd especially think if they buy ƒ/1.4 or 1.2 lenses and always use those apertures, they will have lots of good bokeh. They miss the fact that out of focus is out of focus. It does not describe the quality of the features that are out of focus. As usual, "I have more of it" is the defining characteristic (much like more megapixels, equivalence, more maximum ISO, faster frame rate, more IBIS, etc., etc.).

 

[Helge]

Not true.

I use aperture priority when I want control over my depth of field. I rarely ever want the shallow depth of field that comes from shooting wide open. That being said, I have shot wide open when lighting conditions + film speed called for it. If it was wide open or nothing, I'd open the lens up to maximum aperture. However, I will occasionally go from f8 to f11 or down to f5.6. I like the ability to make the camera pick the shutter speed to give me zone 5 exposure after I've selected my depth of field via aperture.

If you are shooting say a 200mm lens you know that you should at the very least be @ 250th/s.
Why no just lock the camera at a speed you know you’ll be able to hold still?
Maybe we could say that SP is often advantageous with longer lenses?
And below say 50mm, either SP or AP can be good?
With a 20mm it’s no problem holding still enough at 60th/s so there you can let the settings wander.
If you do need some DoF (large or small
really) with wides, and you are shooting close ups in a rapid series (again, for landscapes and still life, you chose manual and probably a tripod), it can be beneficial to chose a speed you know will bottom out the aperture as much as possible, and not run into motion blur issues in shady areas and in artificial light.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

If you are shooting say a 200mm lens you know that you should at the very least be @ 250th/s.
Why no just lock the camera at a speed you know you’ll be able to hold still?
Maybe we could say that SP is often advantageous with longer lenses?
And below say 50mm, either SP or AP can be good?
With a 20mm it’s no problem holding still enough at 60th/s so there you can let the settings wander.
If you do need some DoF (large or small
really) with wides, and you are shooting close ups in a rapid series (again, for landscapes and still life, you chose manual and probably a tripod), it can be beneficial to chose a speed you know will bottom out the aperture as much as possible, and not run into motion blur issues in shady areas and in artificial light.

Yeah, you're right. Sometimes shutter priority works best for me. Sometimes aperture priority. My Canon F-1 and my Nikon F2, F3, and F5 give me this flexibility. I make decisions based on practical photography and sometimes, how I want the image to look. However, not once have I ever made a setting decision based on the quality of the out of focus area. That is just so irrelevant to me.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, you will find that shooting Digital is a lot more complicated than a large format monorail. Movements are easier to learn than menus.

Well, my D810 certainly has many menus. Walking through them to set the camera up seems better done with the camera held in front of me than with it up to my face. But so far -- slide digitizing, aquarium photography with flash illumination -- I haven't found reason to do anything that requires using the menus after I've set the camera up for a session. And I don't really see -- haven't done it yet, could well be mistaken -- the need for using menus on the fly for the out-and-about photography I anticipate doing when the weather is better and things have opened up.

I hope to go back to shooting flowers and insects and such with flash illumination. When I did this with K'chrome I had to set aperture -- that's all -- every time I changed magnification and I expect that's all I'll have to do when I shoot digital.

But then, I'm using my old manual focus lenses and use the D810 in manual mode.

I shot a bit of S8 film with C-mount S8 Beaulieus. These are very adjustable. I always set up a shot, including setting the camera, took the shot, set up the next shot, including setting the camera, ... Never ever adjusted the camera while it was running. But then I wasn't into in-camera fades or dissolves.

 

[Helge]

Yeah, you're right. Sometimes shutter priority works best for me. Sometimes aperture priority. My Canon F-1 and my Nikon F2, F3, and F5 give me this flexibility. I make decisions based on practical photography and sometimes, how I want the image to look. However, not once have I ever made a setting decision based on the quality of the out of focus area. That is just so irrelevant to me.

Really‽ It would seem a rather important ability to be able to make the foreground pop.
Or is this a case of being a down-snob? Be honest now. ;-)

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Really. I don't give any kind of f*k about "bokeh". I was making pictures for decades before punks in the 90's started getting sexually excited about the "quality of out of focus". Really? That's about the least relevant part of a photograph. Talk about pop culture bullshit.

 

[wiltw]

Really. I don't give any kind of f*k about "bokeh". I was making pictures for decades before punks in the 90's started getting sexually excited about the "quality of out of focus". Really? That's about the least relevant part of a photograph. Talk about pop culture bullshit.

I am with you on the relevance of 'bokeh'. How deep the DOF zone is, and how blurry the background will be are controllable characteristcs. Bokeh is dictated merely by the design characteristics of the lens designer, and you either like it or you buy yourself a different lens, in its place....a mirror lens is to be generally avoided, but otherwise you do not discover what kind of bokeh you get until you have used the lens.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I am with you on the relevance of 'bokeh'. How deep the DOF zone is, and how blurry the background will be are controllable characteristcs. Bokeh is dictated merely by the design characteristics of the lens designer, and you either like it or you buy yourself a different lens, in its place....a mirror lens is to be generally avoided, but otherwise you do not discover what kind of bokeh you get until you have used the lens.

Yep. What you said ^^^

 

[Don_ih]

I just don't understand this constant generalisation that rangefinders are just for wide angle street shooting as if everyone wants to be HCB or Gilden. You can do portraits with rangefinders just as well as you can with a SLR. I can use my 50mm at f/2 on the M4 and know what I will get. I also know when I want to use f/5.6 or f/8 for more DOF and when I should try f/4 too. I know what look I want when I take a photo and the aperture is an important part of the final image. Film choice, framing, aperture. To me, shutter speed is mainly an irrelevance until it gets below 1/30 or I hit 1/1000 on the M4.

I don't think rangefinders are just for street shooting but I do think they tend to generate photos more of a situation than of a subject. An SLR really draws the photographer's attention to a single subject, especially since your view is through a wide-open lens, thereby showing you the subject with the background out of focus. I'm not saying that someone has to use an SLR to always isolate a subject - just that it naturally lends itself to that, especially up-close. You tend to not get as close with a rangefinder (can't really focus on anything closer than a meter, for the most part) and you always have the full context sharply visible through the viewfinder, so it's more natural to frame the subject against the background with a rangefinder.

But a Leica with a 90 at f4 is better for portraits than any SLR with a 50 at f1.8.