Your post got me to thinking...
- 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
- 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
- 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.
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.It really seems that dSLRs are poorly desgined from the standpoiint of splitting control functions between the two hands while actively shooting!
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'You had an OM4 with shutter priority? Every Olympus OM I've owned was aperture priority.
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.
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.
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.
You expressed my thoughts better than i was about to.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.
I worked with a guy whose daughter got a scholarship to a big name school...i think it was Stanford... for softball.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.
Coupled meter manual, is just wonderful!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!
Since you asked!...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.
Spare me the halfbaked lectures.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.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
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."
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.
Not true.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?
...than Sony menusDan, you will find that shooting Digital is a lot more complicated than a large format monorail. Movements are easier to learn than menus.
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.
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.).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.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
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."
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.
If you are shooting say a 200mm lens you know that you should at the very least be @ 250th/s.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.
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.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.
Dan, you will find that shooting Digital is a lot more complicated than a large format monorail. Movements are easier to learn than menus.
Really‽ It would seem a rather important ability to be able to make the foreground pop.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. 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.
Yep. What you said ^^^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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?