New page on BOKEH

luvcameras · Jun 1, 2005

BAD BOKEH

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze7asgb/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/park5w.jpg

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/28-200g/images/lensre11.jpg

http://www.electricedge.com/greymatter/images5/badbokeh.jpg

GOOD BOKEH

http://michaeldavies.org/img/20d/bokeh.jpg

Dead Link Removed

titrisol · Jun 1, 2005

Pardon the ingorance.....Why is that bad bokeh?
the background was probably a forest or something..

jjstafford said:
Here is bad bokeh - from a digial throwaway for ebay
http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/bender1.jpg

Seeing stuff like this gives me the sensation of fingernails across a blackboard.

I see the examples on the links... I thought some of those are not valid since there are not especular reflections and/or lights in there but I see the point.

jjstafford · Jun 1, 2005

luvcameras said:
GOOD BOKEH
Dead Link Removed

Are you sure that background hasn't some photoshop clone-tooling?

titrisol · Jun 1, 2005

I'm not sure I get it....
is this good bad or ugly bouquet?
and why?

psvensson · Jun 1, 2005

luvcameras said:
David - my point is that, in general, I am hard pressed to think of images from the 1920's to 50's, lets say, that have bad bokeh....If you look at HCB's work, most done with Leica - no bad bokeh there....other photogs used larger format...Weegee - dont find bad bokeh....etc

A lot of Rolleiflex images from that era show spectacularly bad bokeh, looking much like the Biotar pics. MF Tessar lenses often seem to show that "spinning" effect. My 50s Minolta Autocord does the same thing at the wider apertures.

psvensson · Jun 1, 2005

titrisol said:
I'm not sure I get it....
is this good bad or ugly bouquet?

I like to use bokeh to refer to the characteristics of the lens, not the picture. To me, a picture has a good or bad background and a lens has good or bad background rendering, or bokeh.

That picture looks like it was shot with a lens with neutral to bad bokeh. It's still a good background to a nice image.

Ed Sukach · Jun 1, 2005

I think the examples posted clarify the effect - quite a bit. "Bokeh" translates to uniform, featureless blur in out-of-focus areas. The more "featureless", the better.

The effect illustrated in David Goldfarb's "Crane" (?) example of "Bad" does seem to detract from the center of interest - the Crane ... but the rest, including the "doubling" of the out-of-focus fence rails in the same post, labeled "Good Bokeh", really doesn't.

All in all, "Bokeh" - (First put on the football uniform complete with all pads, and the Magnum, Super Shock Motorcycle Helmet) does NOT strike ME (n/b. "ME") as being anything of super-vital importance - at least it doesn't seem anything like a fertile field for an obsession.

Interesting to consider, though.

Jose A Martinez · Jun 1, 2005

Jose A Martinez said:
The photo (there was a url link here which no longer exists) enclosed is an example of what I think Bokeh means.

the lense is a Hasselblad, Carl Zeiss Distagon f 4, 50 mm

I posted this photo earlier in this thread, how do you rate the Bokeh? if there is such thing in this image.

psvensson · Jun 1, 2005

Jose A Martinez said:
I posted this photo earlier in this thread, how do you rate the Bokeh? if there is such thing in this image.

The lens has neutral bokeh in Rockwell's terms - the light from a point source is evenly distributed in the shape of the aperture. The problem is that if you have neutral bokeh and only five diagram blades, you get those distracting pentagons. So you might call the bokeh poor.

jjstafford · Jun 1, 2005

Jose A Martinez said:
I posted this photo earlier in this thread, how do you rate the Bokeh? if there is such thing in this image.

While clear images of the diaphram shape like that are considered bad-bokeh, sometimes it just plain works to contrast or compliment the subject; another example of the variability of photographic language.

BTW - of the other examples posted, some are unacceptably misfocused, IMHO.

David A. Goldfarb · Jun 1, 2005

Sometimes it is possible to make a good photograph with bad bokeh. I've seen a few photos made with mirror lenses that play with the "donut" highlights.

Jose A Martinez · Jun 1, 2005

psvensson said:
The lens has neutral bokeh in Rockwell's terms - the light from a point source is evenly distributed in the shape of the aperture. The problem is that if you have neutral bokeh and only five diagram blades, you get those distracting pentagons. So you might call the bokeh poor.

I get it, thanks. Anyway, it is kind of subjective, this is not a great photo but I like the pentagon in the almost foreground and the cloud of pentagons in the background.

Flotsam · Jun 1, 2005

This is a scan from a neg that was taken with a lens that got an eight on that list.
I don't know how much the scan and JPEG artifacts screw it up. Maybe it is an invalid illustration.

luvcameras · Jun 1, 2005

psvensson said:
A lot of Rolleiflex images from that era show spectacularly bad bokeh, .

can I see some examples ? Most are tessar type lenses which have neutral to good bokeh....dont know about the Planar's....

noseoil · Jun 1, 2005

For any who are interested, I've just ordered a large amount of Bokeh fluid from Nigeria. It should be here in two weeks, so anyone who needs more bokeh for their lenses, may want to sign up. Please send me a private email and I will let you know price and availability. I had to order quite a bit, so I should have enough to go around for the next year or so. tim

Tom Duffy · Jun 1, 2005

Bokeh is a designed amalgam of uncorrected abberations. Creating a lens with good bokeh is an art.

Since 1969 I've mostly shot with Leica lenses not particularly known for being super sharp. I, seriously, never knew what bad bokeh was until I bought a Nikon in the mid '90s.

My favorite "good bokeh" lenses and the year I bought them, since I don't know which version they were:
35mm Summicron M (1972)
50mm Noctilux M (1975)
50mm Summilux M (2001) (Superb at f1.4)
90mm Summicron R (1970) (my all time favorite portrait lens)
140mm f2.8 Contax for 645 format (1999)
300mm f5.6 Apo-Symmar which I use with 5x7 film, very good out of focus areas at f8, used for portraits.

If you use lenses with good bokeh, you'll never notice. If you use lenses with bad bokeh, you will.
Take care,
Tom

jjstafford · Jun 2, 2005

Tom Duffy said:
My favorite "good bokeh" lenses and the year I bought them, since I don't know which version they were:
35mm Summicron M (1972)
Tom

A lens I dearly regret selling was the first RF 35mm F1.4 Summicron. I liked the wide-open charactristics. A good lens is not always an optically perfect one.

psvensson · Jun 2, 2005

luvcameras said:
can I see some examples ? Most are tessar type lenses which have neutral to good bokeh....dont know about the Planar's....

Sorry, I don't have any scans to show. It may not affect all MF Tessar lenses. Here's an earlier discussion of the subject:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0086l9

David A. Goldfarb · Jun 2, 2005

I think there's some variation among planars. The lousy Biotar I mentioned above is a planar, but so is the Voigtlander 50/2.0 Ultron, which has great bokeh (no specular highlights in the OOF area here, but nice smooth lines)--

I have a Zeiss 135/3.5 Planar for 4x5", which is usually pretty well behaved (also no obvious specular highlights in this one, but again, no double lines or other clutter)--

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I don't seem to have anything conveniently scanned with the Bronica-Nikkor 75/2.8, which is another planar-type, but offhand, it strikes me as a lens with neutral bokeh. I think I'd say the same for the 105/2.8 Xenotar, which is another planar-type.

luvcameras · Jun 2, 2005

here are some shots with a Rolleiflex - doesnt mention lens - but none of these have bad bokeh....

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00COzN

psvensson · Jun 2, 2005

luvcameras said:
here are some shots with a Rolleiflex - doesnt mention lens - but none of these have bad bokeh....

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00COzN

None of them have backgrounds that would reveal it at such small magnification.

David A. Goldfarb · Jun 2, 2005

psvensson said:
None of them have backgrounds that would reveal it at such small magnification.

There are a couple that have some good lines in the background that would be busier with poor bokeh, and the OOF highlights in this one seem to fade nicely--

http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=23884784

Rummaging around in his portfolio, I found more shots with this camera and a picture of the camera itself, which shows a Zeiss Tessar as the taking lens. I'd say he got a good one.

titrisol · Jun 2, 2005

Micro Nikkor 55/2.8 AIS Bokeh
Dead Link Removed

medform-norm · Jun 2, 2005

noseoil said:
For any who are interested, I've just ordered a large amount of Bokeh fluid from Nigeria. It should be here in two weeks, so anyone who needs more bokeh for their lenses, may want to sign up. Please send me a private email and I will let you know price and availability. I had to order quite a bit, so I should have enough to go around for the next year or so. tim

Tim, did you get that fluid at a company called 419 perhaps? I've heard of them before somewhere, although I can't quite recall where...

Mark Layne · Jun 3, 2005

Polygons ain't what bo-keh's about.
As an example a lens with bad bo-keh may take an out of focus twig and split it in two
Mark

New page on BOKEH

luvcameras

Advertiser

titrisol

jjstafford

titrisol

Attachments

psvensson

psvensson

Ed Sukach

Jose A Martinez

psvensson

jjstafford

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Jose A Martinez

Flotsam

Attachments

luvcameras

Advertiser

noseoil

Tom Duffy

jjstafford

psvensson

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

luvcameras

Advertiser

psvensson

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

titrisol

medform-norm

Mark Layne

New page on BOKEH

Advertiser

Attachments

Moderator

Attachments

Advertiser

Moderator

Advertiser

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency