Amature Bokeh Question - Iron Horse
Jul 2, 2018 22:28:21 #
1st picture shared by an amateur trying to improve knowledge/skills. I have been a snapshot photographer... of grandchildren and vacation scenes... and just want to improve.
Basic question is, is there a formula that considers focal length and aperture to compare lenses for best bokeh? Example: I took the attached photos with a 50mm (prime) F/1.8 (and set at 1.8) and they yielded less bokeh than I desired. If I increased my distance with a 100mm or 150mm... or more... what aperture capability would I need to get equal (to the 50/1.8) and/or improved bokeh?
The 2 attached pictures already show me some practical examples of differences. I was closer to the horse with the 2nd picture (profile) than the 1st (side shot) and it appears being closer gave me a bit better bokeh.
In the 1st picture (side shot), I would like to have decreased the distraction of the background and (while I should have brought a zoom for comparison... but I didn't) I am wondering if one of my zooms (both start at F/3.5) would have given me better bokeh by backing away and (even though I don't have that F/1.8 to help me) shooting with the longest telephoto I can manage (with the space available to back away).
Basic question is, is there a formula that considers focal length and aperture to compare lenses for best bokeh? Example: I took the attached photos with a 50mm (prime) F/1.8 (and set at 1.8) and they yielded less bokeh than I desired. If I increased my distance with a 100mm or 150mm... or more... what aperture capability would I need to get equal (to the 50/1.8) and/or improved bokeh?
The 2 attached pictures already show me some practical examples of differences. I was closer to the horse with the 2nd picture (profile) than the 1st (side shot) and it appears being closer gave me a bit better bokeh.
In the 1st picture (side shot), I would like to have decreased the distraction of the background and (while I should have brought a zoom for comparison... but I didn't) I am wondering if one of my zooms (both start at F/3.5) would have given me better bokeh by backing away and (even though I don't have that F/1.8 to help me) shooting with the longest telephoto I can manage (with the space available to back away).
Jul 2, 2018 22:58:56 #
Do you even know what bokeh is? The background that is shown is not the type that one should be thinking of bokeh. Not one bit. Besides, bokeh is a bit over rated. It appears best when it is a happy accident even though good bokeh is achieved with experience. Try finding an object that you would like to practice bokeh with. The background should be full of round objects (berries on a bush for example) just to begin with. In addition Google photos with bokeh and you will get a better understanding of what I am talking about.
Jul 2, 2018 22:59:39 #
You mean depth of field.
Bokeh is a different matter- it’s about the quality of the out of focus areas, of the quantity.- best seen in out of focus highlights.
There is an on-line depth of field calculator you can use here:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Bokeh is a different matter- it’s about the quality of the out of focus areas, of the quantity.- best seen in out of focus highlights.
There is an on-line depth of field calculator you can use here:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Jul 2, 2018 23:25:48 #
This is a good definition of bokeh that I found online: The visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens.
I took this photo with my Nikon 40mm f/2.8 micro lens on my D7000. I think it has pretty good bokeh. The out of focus Christmas tree lights are nice round, solid discs. An example of poor bokeh could be if the out of focus lights were ovals or like doughnuts with a brighter outer portion and darker center.
I took this photo with my Nikon 40mm f/2.8 micro lens on my D7000. I think it has pretty good bokeh. The out of focus Christmas tree lights are nice round, solid discs. An example of poor bokeh could be if the out of focus lights were ovals or like doughnuts with a brighter outer portion and darker center.
Jul 2, 2018 23:40:53 #
CO wrote:
This is a good definition of bokeh that I found online: The visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens.
I took this photo with my Nikon 40mm f/2.8 micro lens on my D7000. I think it has pretty good bokeh. The out of focus Christmas tree lights are nice round, solid discs. An example of poor bokeh could be if the out of focus lights were ovals or like doughnuts with a brighter outer portion and darker center.
I took this photo with my Nikon 40mm f/2.8 micro lens on my D7000. I think it has pretty good bokeh. The out of focus Christmas tree lights are nice round, solid discs. An example of poor bokeh could be if the out of focus lights were ovals or like doughnuts with a brighter outer portion and darker center.
I think we are going to need someone with some really good examples, understanding, and ability to explain this one. Seems no one thus far has it totally right. I know what I'm looking for but can't think of an example I have ready access to or sure how to explain it. This is more of an aesthetic or opinion question than technical. In general to me anyway it means a background that is also indiscernible and non-distracting.Jul 2, 2018 23:45:13 #
tainkc wrote:
Do you even know what bokeh is? The background th... (show quote)
That may help him a bit. This may be tough for all of us (thus far).
Jul 2, 2018 23:45:40 #
lamiaceae wrote:
img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)
Yes, that's what people here have been saying. It's the aesthetic qualities - not depth of field. What is your description?
Jul 2, 2018 23:58:38 #
tainkc wrote:
Besides, bokeh is a bit over rated.
The bokeh in Elena's images aren't over rated. It's a matter of knowing how to use it that makes it sublime.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/75571860@N06/
Jul 3, 2018 00:32:04 #
CO wrote:
Yes, that's what people here have been saying. It's the aesthetic qualities - not depth of field. What is your description?
Exactly, not depth of field per se but the lack of it. As I said before, where is helps the over all image. But have not seen a good example yet in this Thread.
Jul 3, 2018 00:37:41 #
Haydon wrote:
The bokeh in Elena's images aren't over rated. It's a matter of knowing how to use it that makes it sublime.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/75571860@N06/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/75571860@N06/
Those aren't real or optical bokeh, that is well done plain out of focus areas in the far background that were softened and blurred with Photoshop or some other PP program. Well done fantasy images but not what say a Japanese flower bokeh freak would be looking for.
Jul 3, 2018 00:57:47 #
KillroyII wrote:
1st picture shared by an amateur trying to improve... (show quote)
I think anyone interested in Bokeh should read through this Web Page https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/09/11/understanding-bokeh-the-art-and-science-behind-the-beauty-of-blur-part-1 and look at the examples. None are extreme creating an image that is bokeh made out of out of focus light sources as light balls as more as an effect than a help to the real subject of the image. If you Google "bokeh" you will get tons of pointless balls of light.
Jul 3, 2018 01:52:01 #
KillroyII wrote:
1st picture shared by an amateur trying to improve... (show quote)
The 3 images I attached are all examples of bokeh and they were supposedly all shot with one of the most bokehlishious lenses made, the same lens I use when I want bodacious bokeh, the Canon EF 85 f1.2L.
Jul 3, 2018 02:37:47 #
rmorrison1116 wrote:
The 3 images I attached are all examples of bokeh and they were supposedly all shot with one of the most bokehlishious lenses made, the same lens I use when I want bodacious bokeh, the Canon EF 85 f1.2L.
1 is OK
3 is good
They all give the idea.
Jul 3, 2018 03:34:32 #
lamiaceae wrote:
Those aren't real or optical bokeh, that is well done plain out of focus areas in the far background that were softened and blurred with Photoshop or some other PP program.
You know this for sure? Maybe you don't use F1.2 lenses or use light/background like Elena :)
Jul 3, 2018 06:28:32 #
lamiaceae wrote:
I think anyone interested in Bokeh should read through this Web Page https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/09/11/understanding-bokeh-the-art-and-science-behind-the-beauty-of-blur-part-1 and look at the examples. None are extreme creating an image that is bokeh made out of out of focus light sources as light balls as more as an effect than a help to the real subject of the image. If you Google "bokeh" you will get tons of pointless balls of light.
You say images of balls of light are pointless. That's one of the aspects of bokeh one would look at. Out of focus balls of light should be solid, round discs. An example of poor bokeh could be if those points of light were oval shaped or like doughnuts with a brighter outer portion and darker center.
The article you supplied a link for mentions that aspect of bokeh.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.