She says 1.4 bohka "is the best". ----

vpwphoto · Mar 22, 2013

Helinophoto said:
I think you are all a bit patronizing here, why does she deserve to be laughed of, just because she got a creative preference and confuse the terms a bit?

Afraid not... She is 20 and believes the best photos are made at f1.8 and believes she needs a 1.4 for better photos still.
She may grow... I have just made an observation that she thinks she thinks she has figured out the secret to all great photos.
Every photo on her card was made a 1.8. She says she's not going to be a "program shooter" I set my lens manually to 1.8.

I was so bummed with her arrogance and confidence in her abilities that I don't think I feel like taking her under my wing.
I told her to hold off on the 1.4 purchase, "that's not what I read". Her other lens is a 50mm f2.8 macro. "for detail shots".

I was just musing in a depressed manner that younger folks think all they have to do is "follow someones" web blog and do what they say to do and that is it.

I always thought the larger aperture lenses came along with the SLR's for easier low-light focusing and image rendering on Tr-x. A 105 1.8 was needed to make basketball photos in the day as not even a pro arena was lit well for a 105 2.5

vpwphoto · Mar 22, 2013

I agree with many of you, I use a 105 1.8 A LOT. It makes focusing easier (mine is an AIS I use on AF bodies... and youngsters are always amused I use an antique lens on a D800 or f100).
But also why cary the bulk everywhere??
I use it most often between f2.8 and 1.8.

Helinophoto · Mar 22, 2013

Ok, makes sense

She'll hopefully grow out of the shallow-dof phase and expand and try other stuff as well. ^^

Actually, even though I like shallow-dof on many occasions, with medium-format, I am really struggling with too thin DOF's.
Even F4 on 80mm is too thin on many occasions, I then stop down, only to find out that I should have jammed a 400 ISO film into the camera instead of 100

(I'm pretty new to medium-format shooting)

E. von Hoegh · Mar 22, 2013

Hopefully this "shoot it wide open" fad will run it's course. It will be replaced by something equally stupid and annoying, though.

Unfortunately, the 1.8 bokeh faddist has all the conceit and arrogance of the very ignorant; hopefully she'll grow out of it but it doesn't sound encouraging. It's hard to learn when you already know it all.

jstout · Mar 22, 2013

Lenses could be made a lot cheaper by leaving out the shutter blades, and all that extra hardware. The lens could also be made much lighter. The complicated mechanisms could be left out, and just use faster shutter speeds. This could make those ultra-fast lenses available to the rest of us. Also, good idea about the welding goggles, as I have a pair somewhere that I may be able to adapt to the purpose.

E. von Hoegh · Mar 22, 2013

jstout said:
Lenses could be made a lot cheaper by leaving out the shutter blades, and all that extra hardware. The lens could also be made much lighter. The complicated mechanisms could be left out, and just use faster shutter speeds. This could make those ultra-fast lenses available to the rest of us. Also, good idea about the welding goggles, as I have a pair somewhere that I may be able to adapt to the purpose.

You know, I've had a couple of those "ultra fast" lenses. Without exception, the only reason I could find to use them wide-open is to get a photograph that cannot be made any other way - that is in very low light. The 50/1.4 Zuiko at 1.4 was soft and mushy around a semi-sharp central zone, and all the highlights had reddish halos. The 50/1.2 Canon in Leica m39 was just lousy wide open. The 50/1.2 Nikkor wasn't much good either. The 50 1.4 Nikkor was by far the best of the lot, but I sold the camera it was on - the original bill of sale said it and the camera were a unit. I now use the 50/2 Nikkor H lenses as my fast 50s, they do everything I need done, and have none of the aberrations (wide open) the faddists go gaga over.

removed account4 · Mar 22, 2013

vpwphoto said:
I was just musing in a depressed manner that younger folks think all they have to do is "follow someones" web blog and do what they say to do and that is it.

vpwphoto --
its the way of the world now. i remember when i was just starting out
i got my hands on one of those "black books" ... thumbed through it listening to cheezy 80s music
there were names and images of pro shooters in there, their best work. some were
2-3 page spreads that must have cost a small fortune for them to have published.

nowadays everyone thinks they are a pro, and is a self published expert
with a tumbler and flickr page, and they often go on their blog and blather on about
how they shot a wedding over the weekend wide open and hdr and documentary style
with no narrative and they got paid their 150$ upfront, and got the gig from craigs list or guru.com ... gotta love it !

i don't think the booquet craze is gonna run its course anytime soon.

TheFlyingCamera · Mar 22, 2013

jstout said:
Lenses could be made a lot cheaper by leaving out the shutter blades, and all that extra hardware. The lens could also be made much lighter. The complicated mechanisms could be left out, and just use faster shutter speeds. This could make those ultra-fast lenses available to the rest of us. Also, good idea about the welding goggles, as I have a pair somewhere that I may be able to adapt to the purpose.

I have a lens that is just an achromat meniscus, f 4.5, two elements and a diaphragm, about as simple as it gets, but it weighs something like 6lbs (did I mention it's a 16" Kodak Portrait lens?). So (relatively) small maximum apertures and mechanical simplicity do not a light-weight lens make

jstout · Mar 22, 2013

TheFlyingCamera said:
I have a lens that is just an achromat meniscus, f 4.5, two elements and a diaphragm, about as simple as it gets, but it weighs something like 6lbs (did I mention it's a 16" Kodak Portrait lens?). So (relatively) small maximum apertures and mechanical simplicity do not a light-weight lens make

Good point. Actually, I was kidding about making the 50/1.2 Nikons and others, and selling them stripped down. Kind of like a nokton barrel lens.

TheFlyingCamera · Mar 22, 2013

I know But there are some here who would read something like that and take it literally, and carry on for far too long about why someone doesn't do that

Felinik · Mar 22, 2013

vpwphoto said:
Afraid not... She is 20 and believes the best photos are made at f1.8 and believes she needs a 1.4 for better photos still.
She may grow... I have just made an observation that she thinks she thinks she has figured out the secret to all great photos.
Every photo on her card was made a 1.8. She says she's not going to be a "program shooter" I set my lens manually to 1.8.

I was so bummed with her arrogance and confidence in her abilities that I don't think I feel like taking her under my wing.
I told her to hold off on the 1.4 purchase, "that's not what I read". Her other lens is a 50mm f2.8 macro. "for detail shots".

I was just musing in a depressed manner that younger folks think all they have to do is "follow someones" web blog and do what they say to do and that is it.

I always thought the larger aperture lenses came along with the SLR's for easier low-light focusing and image rendering on Tr-x. A 105 1.8 was needed to make basketball photos in the day as not even a pro arena was lit well for a 105 2.5

Maybe time for a photography tech theory lesson? If she's an intern, she's there to learn, no?

ntenny · Mar 22, 2013

Helinophoto said:
Although, if she is indeed a Canon-shooter, the two 50's cannot be shot wide-open really, as they (at least the f1.4) become both soft and rather strange at those apertures (halo-effects on in-focus objects and also on objects that are out of focus).

As I recall, the 1.8 isn't too bad wide open. Of course it's not as sharp that way as when stopped down a bit, but I don't remember seeing objectionable halos from it.

There's a lot of superstition about bokeh, but at least I can see where ultra-shallow DOF can be an aesthetic choice. It might be one of those things like infrared film, where people have a tendency to go crazy for it at first experience, then eventually get bored with the novelty and take a more balanced perspective.

I'd be lying shamelessly if I claimed never to have gone in for the wide-open macro shot across a map or a sheet of music; they're cliches but they're kinda fun anyway.

-NT

benjiboy · Mar 22, 2013

vpwphoto said:
My intern showed me photos she made with a 50mm f1.8.... then she says 1.4 bohka "is the best, but I can't afford a 1.4".

It's Japanese and spelled bokeh, and not to be confused with the japanese word baka that means idiot.

kintatsu · Mar 22, 2013

Bokeh has its uses, mostly artistic. The problem is, most people use it as a crutch for shallow DOF, to seem more artistic, or because they are often pretentious.

Bokeh properly applied can add to an image, after all part of it is the shape, and texture thereby given, of your aperture, and how it relates to your image, not just the lack of focus. People forget the esthetics of it.

Usually, though, it really is used to hide poor focusing.

Fixcinater · Mar 22, 2013

kintatsu said:
Usually, though, it really is used to hide poor focusing.

Would not shallower-than-average DOF require better-than-average focusing?

E. von Hoegh · Mar 22, 2013

Does the intern have a drug habit, or brain damage, or something?

vpwphoto · Mar 22, 2013

My last post... I have some technical certifications, a bachelor degree in photojournalism, and 3/4 of a Master's in Art... and never was the word Bokeh uttered till 2007 or so.

vpwphoto · Mar 22, 2013

E. von Hoegh said:
Hopefully this "shoot it wide open" fad will run it's course. It will be replaced by something equally stupid and annoying, though.

She spoke about wanting to get Photoshop (complained it's too expensive) but want's to do "tilt shift" in photoshop....

......ANd she says she doesn't like JAZZ either... I listen to it all day.....

........ at least my 17 year-old and I have 1950-1970's Jazz, Steely Dan, Rush, and Yes in common.

kintatsu · Mar 22, 2013

Fixcinater said:
Would not shallower-than-average DOF require better-than-average focusing?

Good point. Those using it as a crutch, though, often focus haphazardly, writing it off to bokeh.

They even sell filters to create shaped bokeh, for instance, hearts. At least the folks who buy those, usually have some idea of what they're trying to do. I've seen some folks who do nice work, especially around the holidays using bokeh as an element of their composition.

When folks just want to copy something or use it as a crutch, though, it ends up not quite so nice. Often, even a casual observer can tell.

vpwphoto · Mar 22, 2013

@jstout... the aperture assembly is probably the least expensive component of a lens.

benjiboy · Mar 22, 2013

vpwphoto said:
She spoke about wanting to get Photoshop (complained it's too expensive) but want's to do "tilt shift" in photoshop....

......ANd she says she doesn't like JAZZ either... I listen to it all day.....

........ at least my 17 year-old and I have 1950-1970's Jazz, Steely Dan, Rush, and Yes in common.

me too, far out man

ntenny · Mar 22, 2013

vpwphoto said:
......ANd she says she doesn't like JAZZ either... I listen to it all day.....

Now *that* is unforgivable. You should start playing John Zorn or Derek Bailey for her benefit.

(Note: I love most of Zorn's work and find Bailey interesting if bewildering, but for someone in the "doesn't like jazz" camp, they'd be the soundtrack of hell.)

-NT

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 22, 2013

One thing often missed is what the actual size of the aperture is what determines the depth of field, regardless of focal length. 35mm lens at f/1.4 has the same depth of field as a 50mm at f/2 or a 150mm lens at about f/5.6 (f/6 is you wanna be picky). (35/1.4=25 and 50/2=25). So to say that everything is better at f/1.4 means absolutely nothing. Just as an aside.
I like to photograph portraits at medium distance using that 25mm aperture, but it's too shallow when moving close, so I stop down. Or I don't freaking care and just shoot at an aperture that is practical, based on the lighting.

As far as 'bokeh' is concerned - I absolutely hate all discussions about it. I start to itch all over and basically have to leave since I don't want to break out in the hives. I had better go, cause I can feel a severe rash coming on...

kintatsu · Mar 22, 2013

Thomas Bertilsson said:
As far as 'bokeh' is concerned - I absolutely hate all discussions about it. I start to itch all over and basically have to leave since I don't want to break out in the hives. I had better go, cause I can feel a severe rash coming on...

Too many folks talking about it in our modern world!

Worker 11811 · Mar 22, 2013

I know a guy who fancies himself a bird photographer. He's not bad, actually.
He showed me some photos of a fairly rare bird, in these parts. (Trumpeter swan. Itinerants that don't usually nest here.)
It was a pretty good photo.

But I took one look at it and asked him if he used a catadioptric lens.
"A cata-what-ic?"
"Catadioptric... Like a miniature telescope. With a mirror inside"
"How did you know?"

I told him that those mirror lenses are known to produce ring-shaped halos around highlights.

"Oh, you mean bokeh," he said, "I thought that was cool."

The guy knows his birds, though. Better than anybody else I know.

She says 1.4 bohka "is the best". ----

vpwphoto

vpwphoto

Helinophoto

E. von Hoegh

jstout

E. von Hoegh

removed account4

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

jstout

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Felinik

ntenny

benjiboy

kintatsu

Fixcinater

E. von Hoegh

vpwphoto

vpwphoto

kintatsu

vpwphoto

benjiboy

ntenny

Thomas Bertilsson

kintatsu

Worker 11811

She says 1.4 bohka "is the best". ----

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency