Check out Film Photography section of our forum.
Bokeh?!??
Jun 5, 2014 14:18:12 #
wilsondl wrote:
It's not blur it's how good the blur is! I like the blur my 135mm spirtone pre-set lens from the 1970's gives with it's 15 blade aperture. That's all I need to know. - Dave
Spiratone. A name out of the distant past. For those who don't know, Fred Spira had a little shop in the Flushing part of Queens in NYC. He ran a large discount mail order business (computers didn't exist then). His inventory was heavily discounted and viewed as cheap and of lesser quality by some. He also had a line of lenses which were looked down upon by those who bought more expensive gear. The Spiratone lenses were all of course full manual as auto didn't exist. As far as quality is concerned my Spiratone tripod works as well now as it did 40+years ago and I still use my Spiratone pistol grip bracket with my 7D. so much for poor quality. Those were the days when all the mail order houses ran pages of inventory at the back of all the photo mags of the time. Most of those outfits such as Cambridge and 47st photo no longer exist, but both B&H and Adorama can trace their history back to those times. I guess I am feeling nostalgic.
Jun 5, 2014 14:19:48 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Bret wrote:
Bokeh is outside the DoF...well out of focus. The bee is about 2 feet away at F13...not very much of a DoF with an 85mm macro lens.
Yes, think of it as the counterpart to sharpness. Of course we want things sharp, but we also need them to be clean, with little chromatic aberration and artifacts. In the OOF area, we don't want sharp, but we do want it clean.
Jun 5, 2014 14:51:05 #
mdorn wrote:
There's a lot of noise in that blur... should we call this bokehnoise? :-)
Nice shot though.
Nice shot though.
You can call it bokeh with spice :)
Jun 5, 2014 14:58:36 #
boberic wrote:
Spiratone. A name out of the distant past. For th... (show quote)
Wow - those are some names from the past. I do remember them, now.
Jun 5, 2014 15:08:48 #
Jun 5, 2014 15:28:27 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Nikonian72 wrote:
Here we go again!
The only inappropriate response so far. :-(
Someone relatively new to the forum asks a question which has been asked by others many times. He said he did a search, it was overwhelming. Why should he not ask it again? If you think this is a useless topic for you, there is a much better option than what you posted. At this point, I suggest "Unwatch".
MadMikeOne, your topic is very reasonable, please continue to ask questions about topics which you are curious about.
Jun 5, 2014 17:40:54 #
amehta wrote:
The only inappropriate response so far. :-(
Someone relatively new to the forum asks a question which has been asked by others many times. He said he did a search, it was overwhelming. Why should he not ask it again? If you think this is a useless topic for you, there is a much better option than what you posted. At this point, I suggest "Unwatch".
MadMikeOne, your topic is very reasonable, please continue to ask questions about topics which you are curious about.
Someone relatively new to the forum asks a question which has been asked by others many times. He said he did a search, it was overwhelming. Why should he not ask it again? If you think this is a useless topic for you, there is a much better option than what you posted. At this point, I suggest "Unwatch".
MadMikeOne, your topic is very reasonable, please continue to ask questions about topics which you are curious about.
Thanks for the support - much appreciated.
Check out Printers and Color Printing Forum section of our forum.
Jun 5, 2014 17:43:07 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
Here we go again!
Your remark was juvenile and unhelpful. You could have simply chosen to ignore my post and move on. Oh wait, that would have required a modicum of maturity.
Jun 5, 2014 22:52:07 #
MadMikeOne wrote:
That helped A LOT! DOF and bokeh are not the same. I am finally getting it.
Thank you so very much.
Thank you so very much.
The first is NOT a pretty picture, but it sort of demonstrates Depth of Field and Bokeh. This is an old Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 lens from the late 1960s with the Ed Mika conversion to EOS mount on a Canon T3i
The DOF which is very thin, and the bokeh (the quality of the out of focus areas) are both apparent. The images are untreated, so color fringing and other issues are identifiable.
Comments or better examples anyone?
Jun 5, 2014 23:01:42 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
MadMikeOne wrote:
I keep seeing forum members referring to "bokeh". Could someone please explain what it is, how to get it, and when it might be wanted?
Just dumb it down for me.
Thanks guys and girls
Just dumb it down for me.
Thanks guys and girls
"Bokeh" is the quality of the out of focus blur.
Anyone telling you any different and putting all sorts of caveats or broadenings on the definition are wrong IMHO.
So, it is not the DOF, it is not the blur.
And by extension, there is not such a thing as bad bokeh. There can't be. Bokeh is good blur, bad blur is just .. blur.
Jun 5, 2014 23:08:28 #
Peterff wrote:
The first is NOT a pretty picture, but it sort of demonstrates Depth of Field and Bokeh. This is an old Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 lens from the late 1960s with the Ed Mika conversion to EOS mount on a Canon T3i
The DOF is very thin, but the bokeh (the quality of the out of focus areas) are apparent. The images are untreated, so color fringing and other issues are identifiable.
Comments or better examples anyone?
The DOF is very thin, but the bokeh (the quality of the out of focus areas) are apparent. The images are untreated, so color fringing and other issues are identifiable.
Comments or better examples anyone?
Thanks for the examples. Things are finally becoming clearer as far as the blur is concerned.
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.
Jun 5, 2014 23:11:07 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
lighthouse wrote:
"Bokeh" is the quality of the out of focus blur.
Anyone telling you any different and putting all sorts of caveats on the definition are wrong IMHO.
So, it is not the DOF, it is not the blur.
And by extension, there is not such a thing as bad bokeh. There can't be. Bokeh is good blur, bad blur is just .. blur.
Anyone telling you any different and putting all sorts of caveats on the definition are wrong IMHO.
So, it is not the DOF, it is not the blur.
And by extension, there is not such a thing as bad bokeh. There can't be. Bokeh is good blur, bad blur is just .. blur.
If bokeh is the "quality", can't it be good or bad?
Jun 5, 2014 23:14:52 #
Some people would say that bokeh can have good and bad qualities, especially from reflex telephoto lenses....
Here are a couple more examples from a manual focus 500mm reflex lens, the last two hand held....
Here are a couple more examples from a manual focus 500mm reflex lens, the last two hand held....
Jun 5, 2014 23:19:01 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
amehta wrote:
If bokeh is the "quality", can't it be good or bad?
No.
If it is good quality blur, it is bokeh.
If it is bad quality blur .. it is blur.
Jun 5, 2014 23:21:20 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
Peterff wrote:
Some people would say that bokeh can have good and bad qualities, especially from reflex telephoto lenses....
Here are a couple more examples from a 500mm reflex lens....
Here are a couple more examples from a 500mm reflex lens....
At the sizes shown I would say blur, blur, bokeh.
Enlarged a bit might be blur, blur, blur.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.