Bokeh! show it off

[dpastern]

and this is why discussion of Bokeh have been going on in my world for the last 9 years.

As to examples I guess I can go look. I do not put my film work on the putter since I shoot slides as the final product. But let me see what I can find.

Very good Bokeh as it gives the subject a 3d effect either a Canon G3 or S3-IS digital

Now chew away.

That's an excellent shot Mark.

Dave

 

[dpastern]

Well, as a photographer myself, Mark's definition of bokeh is spot on. Sorry, guys, but the vast majority of images in this thread are not good examples of bokeh. You not only want shallow DOF (depth of field), but you want a creamy feel to the background. Almost a pastel style feel. You want to avoid highlights and distractions in the OOF (out of focus) background, because they *distract* from your main subject. Ideally, you want the main subject to be the sole point of focus, and to "pop" out at you. Some examples of bokeh:

A few tips to getting shallow DOF - use a longer telephoto lens. There is a recripocal tie between focal length and depth of field. Of course, a shallow DOF aperture like f2 helps. Try and pick backgrounds that are generally uniform in colour and texture.

Yes, Macro is easier to get good bokeh with, since there's very little DOF (around 4mm at 1:1), but it still takes practice to get good at it.

Dave

 

[chillwolf]

Im sorry but I have to disagree with your take on bokeh. A lot of photographers don't consider a picture to have bokeh unless it has some specular highlights in the out of focused background. The pics you have posted as examples are only macros with plain OOF backgrounds.

Look at the photo below as an example of "rough" bokeh. Pics with good bokeh would have more refined patterns/swirls and specular highlights and need to be pleasing to the eye.


Definetion of bokeh from wikipedia.
Coarse bokeh on a photo shot with an 85mm lens and 70mm aperture, which corresponds to f/1.2In photography, bokeh is the blur,[1][2] or the aesthetic quality of the blur,[3][4][5] in out-of-focus areas of an image, or "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light."[6] Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting— "good" or "bad" bokeh, respectively.[1] Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it often associated with such areas.[1] However, bokeh is not limited to highlights, as blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image.

Contents [hide]

 

[dpastern]

Well, we'll just have to disagree then. I know a lot of photographers, both amateurs and pros, and they all seemingly agree with me on the definition of bokeh.

Light highlights are a distraction caused by the aperture blades, and are a no-no in most photography, because they distract from the main subject.

As to my macro images, remember that bokeh is related to DOF, and macro has a very limited DOF. Those backgrounds don't just magically appear on their own. When using flash, you have only a certain amount of area behind the subject that will be lit up, if the background is further than this distance, you'll end up with a black backgroud. Not very appealing. A smart macro photographer tries to (where possible of course), choose an insect or arachnid that has a workable background to avoid this issue. If you have a look at a lot of the macro images on flickr, etc, many of them do not have a bokeh background, despite limited DOF. It's a style that not all macro imagers use.

Dave

 

[moinau]

Don't know much about photography in general, but I've, maybe?? two candidates.

 

[mikeybc]

Bokeh is creamy out of focus backgrounds using large apertures such as f1.4 to obtain a shallow depth of field as opposed to in focus backgrounds using small apertures such as f16 or higher. I have never once heard the requirement of a specular highlight for it to be labeled bokeh....just creamy out of focus objects in the background. Some lenses have awful looking bokeh while others look great such as the Nikon 85mm f1.4 also known as the "cream machine".

 

[Karu Kutt]

Im sorry but I have to disagree with your take on bokeh. A lot of photographers don't consider a picture to have bokeh unless it has some specular highlights in the out of focused background. The pics you have posted as examples are only macros with plain OOF backgrounds.

Look at the photo below as an example of "rough" bokeh. Pics with good bokeh would have more refined patterns/swirls and specular highlights and need to be pleasing to the eye.


Definetion of bokeh from wikipedia.
Coarse bokeh on a photo shot with an 85mm lens and 70mm aperture, which corresponds to f/1.2In photography, bokeh is the blur,[1][2] or the aesthetic quality of the blur,[3][4][5] in out-of-focus areas of an image, or "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light."[6] Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting— "good" or "bad" bokeh, respectively.[1] Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it often associated with such areas.[1] However, bokeh is not limited to highlights, as blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image.

Contents [hide]

I couldn't agree more. Nice pic by the way.

 

[dpastern]

Bokeh is creamy out of focus backgrounds using large apertures such as f1.4 to obtain a shallow depth of field as opposed to in focus backgrounds using small apertures such as f16 or higher. I have never once heard the requirement of a specular highlight for it to be labeled bokeh....just creamy out of focus objects in the background. Some lenses have awful looking bokeh while others look great such as the Nikon 85mm f1.4 also known as the "cream machine".

Yup, with 20+ years experience @ photography, that is my understanding. People quote the wikipedia like it's 100% accurate, guess what guys, the wikipedia contains a lot of erroneous material.

Dave

 

[treserious]

ya know, I didnt start this thread to have an argument about what bokeh is.
there are several schools of thought on it, so live with it.

otherwise I am going to have to ask that a mod close this thread.

just post your pics that you like, that display the definition of bokeh you like.

the creamy soft kind, and those that have highlights.

 

[mikeybc]

Ok, here's another pic taken with an old nikon 50mm f1.4 AIS I found cheap on ebay

 

[JonL]

Just now noticed there was a photography section, so here's a corner of a peanut butter and banana sandwich I ate a few months ago.

That sandwich is in remarkable condition considering you ate it a few months ago.

 

[old_tv_nut]

Ok, here's another pic taken with an old nikon 50mm f1.4 AIS I found cheap on ebay

depth of field - check!
composition - check!
VERY nice!

 

[mikeybc]

That sandwich is in remarkable condition considering you ate it a few months ago.

Yep..and it was delicious !

depth of field - check!
composition - check!
VERY nice!

Thank you, it's one of the very first shots I took with that lens and was surprised how sharp it is...though its a real pain to focus. it took about 4 or 5 tries to get it right.

 

[kamagong]

ya know, I didnt start this thread to have an argument about what bokeh is.
there are several schools of thought on it, so live with it.

otherwise I am going to have to ask that a mod close this thread.

just post your pics that you like, that display the definition of bokeh you like.

the creamy soft kind, and those that have highlights.

thank you sir..:yes:

 

[Chuck M]

Here are a couple from my backyard.

 

[old_tv_nut]

Here are a couple from my backyard.

The colors are amazing, but I'm wondering if the exposure on the lily should be reduced a bit, because the red channel is saturated and clipping. Of course, if you made it this way deliberately, that's your artistic license, but if it's accidental, you might want to compensate exposure somewhat towards darker to make sure you don't lose any detail.

 

[mikeybc]

I don't have many more decent examples of bokeh myself, this is all I could find on my hard drive at the moment. I think the background is a bit busy but the sharpness of that 50mm is very good. The original looks better than this re-sized version but it would be a 8 Mb download

 

[old_tv_nut]

I still don't follow how a picture like this can be judged to have "good bokeh" or "poor bokeh." The background is nicely out of focus, but so much much so that that you would achieve essentially the same effect with any lens using the same focal length and aperture.

Anyway, I like what I got in this shot.

 

[mikeybc]

I like what I got in this shot.

I like it too !

I suppose depending on how out of focus the background is that some lenses will render bokeh a little differently, some smoother and more uniform and others not so much making it seem "ugly"

 

[mikeybc]

Looks pretty good to me