But your example doesn't demonstrate "bokeh" as currently described. It shows the movement of large format cameras in a studio setting, combined with specialised lenses and lighting. You won't get that look if you stick a 50mm f1.2 on your DSLR, which is what people assume off the shelf bokeh comprises of.
My comment from a digital thread on this forum yesterday: "Technically I think smart phone cameras will improve to the extent that camera photography becomes niche. I also believe the smart phone has lead to an equally obsessive reaction towards narrow focus photography ("bokeh"), as the only thing smart phones cannot deliver optically. It's sad that newcomers to photography equate film with bokeh, when full aperture work occupied a tiny proportion of image making."Well, if there really is a hipster nouveau-bokeh movement afoot then it's probably a reaction to "them" staring at thousands of flat, boring, smartphone photos where everything is sharp including the fork on table 17 in the far corner. I don't blame them for wanting to inject a bit of magic into their pictures. But, I'm a bit upset I can't grow a bushy beard, wear too short stove-pipe trousers and sockless shoes without getting a slanty look these day. The bastards!
That does not work because while an American can be bourgeois, there are bourgeois who are not American.
I think, perhaps, some of you guys are conflating Bourgeois with Bourgeoisie.
The latter, usually, referred to a group of people in an economic system.
The former, usually, was a reference of Slight or Insult about a person or group of persons that were overtly concerned with Wealth/Material possessions.....especially their own.
Yes, if one insists on viewing the world through the "class struggle" filter.One can see a class struggle in everything...
Like lenses with bokeh.The former, usually, was a reference of Slight or Insult about a person or group of persons that were overtly concerned with Wealth/Material possessions.....especially their own.
If you can show me a serious artistic or commercial genre that was about sharpness combined with bokeh, I'll take your witticisms seriously. It wasn't pictorialism, it wasn't portraiture, it wasn't political photography. Commercially it's a millennial advertising look. If you can find sharpness and out of focus highlights in a serious context, I'm interested.
You clearly understand the issue, the problem and the possibilities. Most people do not. Generally speaking, 35mm photography was not associated with lack of focus, except as a consequence of other factors. Indeed it was predicated on the exploitation of sharpness and depth in a miniature photographic format. Large(r) format photography did have those concerns, especially portraiture, but this was usually from a wider pictorial aesthetic, of which subverting realism (Emerson, et al) was a key part. My gripe, if wry amusement can be considered a complaint, is the valorising of incremental sharpness against a wider palate of "bokeh" for novelty purposes alone, and the totemic nature it has accrued for the digital generation."Bokeh as currently understood is about a sharp subject surrounded by out of focus areas, the more out of focus, the better."
As you know this is not a correct definition of Bokeh, but is more of a simple very shallow Depth of Field. Nevertheless I agree this is a current definition for many, which will hopefully self correct once digital imagery gets over its growth pangs.
But it is unfair to ask for a "serious artistic or commercial genre that was about sharpness combined with bokeh" before the words existed, much less expect a prior example of "a sliver of focus at 1.2 or 0.95".
It is fair to look for antecedents and I think they exist. I would suggest that the serious artistic or commercial genre that was about sharpness combined with bokeh we are looking for is that of Peter Henry Emerson's differential combination of sharp subject and out of focus periphery. Julia Margaret Cameron's eclectic choice of focus was also in the sphere of what we are discussing. Indeed the emphasis of masses of light and dark and blurring of detail in Calotype photography, are themselves an expression of the discussion of sharpness and detail, softness and effect. Sharpness, focus, out of focus, Bokeh, and shallow focus as an end in itself are all part of the continuum of the fundamental dichotomy of photography.
"Shallow focus as an end in itself is a new phenomenon. In the 1960s Japanese photographers of the Provoke school valorised 'are-bure-boke', translated as 'grainy/rough, blurry, out-of-focus', but that was a complete look. Now people seem to think a sliver of focus at 1.2 or 0.95 or whatever denotes artistry."
I expect this is true in a narrow sense but ignores the larger picture. One could write a similar critique in 1870 about poor focus, in 1890 about no focus, in 1895 about selective focus, in 1910 about soft focus, in 1920 about sharp focus, in 1936 about complete focus, or 2115 about hyperfocus, or today about sliverfocus.
I dont' get caught up in these ideas in photography. A photo is either good or it isnt.
I must be pure-to-the-bone bourgoisie, I expect sharpness in any lens (regardless of vintage) or film. No sharpness = not doing intended job. I can make any sharp lens deliver a fuzzy wuzzy image, try to get a sharp image from any unsharp lens.Dealing in absolute is poor practice, it can lead to disastrous results.
Are you Absolutely sure about that.?Dealing in absolute is poor practice, it can lead to disastrous results.
Are you Absolutely sure about that.?
For people who care about such things, the precise nature of out of focus highlights is a big deal. Doughnuts are out, as are "busy" blurring. I can see these things as well as the next chap, but beyond the recognition that they occur, I don't understand the fuss.Unless I am completely mistaken, bokeh is not simply out of focus areas, such a those occasioned by shallow depth of field, but specifically out of focus highlights (and even more specifically their interplay with aperture shape), which can occur independently of shallow depth of field. I see shallow depth of field as an aesthetic and bokeh as a novelty, much like starbursts, which is why it and its discussion is so dreadfully boring.
Considering how berserk some of the digital generation go over bokeh, "so far such work is absent from the" Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and every other digital camera with which they claim to have mastered bokeh.....the totemic nature it has accrued for the digital generation.
Speaking purely from a modern definition, I have yet to see it break the bounds of novelty, which makes me suspect it has nowhere to go philosophically. I may be wrong, and someone will demonstrate a peerless body of work based on the representation characteristics of extremely wide aperture lenses, but so far such work is absent from the canon.
I must be pure-to-the-bone bourgeoisie, I expect sharpness in any lens (regardless of vintage) or film. No sharpness = not doing intended job. I can make any sharp lens deliver a fuzzy wuzzy image, try to get a sharp image from any unsharp lens.
Are you Absolutely sure about that.?
I take it that pinhole cameras are not to your liking.I must be pure-to-the-bone bourgoisie, I expect sharpness in any lens (regardless of vintage) or film. No sharpness = not doing intended job. I can make any sharp lens deliver a fuzzy wuzzy image, try to get a sharp image from any unsharp lens.
Actually they are. Different animal entirely.I take it that pinhole cameras are not to your liking.
Which highlights why this thread belongs in the "Ethics and Philosophy" sub-forum.Actually they are. Different animal entirely.
Unless I am completely mistaken, bokeh is not simply out of focus areas, such a those occasioned by shallow depth of field, but specifically out of focus highlights (and even more specifically their interplay with aperture shape) ...
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?