Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Dear Jerry,

As long as you credit www.rogerandfrances.com, sure, dig in.

I completely agree about the peculiarity of paying more attention to the out of focus background than to the in-focus subject. Another quote:

"For some photographers, the problem soon arose that the bokeh tail soon started to wag the photographic dog. They became so obsessed with bokeh that they started composing pictures where the out-of-focus areas were more important than (or at least, as important as) the sharp areas. This sort of composition is possible, but it is also extremely difficult..."

You can't really control bokeh: it's a characteristic of the lens. But once you've learned to recognize how your lens handles out-of-focus areas, you can (a) avoid backgrounds that will probably not work well and (b) choose apertures that will give you the effect you want. With a 500mm, DoF is so small that unless your subject is a LONG way away, the background will be pretty out-of-focus anyway. But obviously, the wider the aperture, the more out of focus things will be. Hence

"The bokeh addicts started buying extreme-speed lenses, and using them wide open, because that was the easiest way to get the most bokeh. This meant ultra-high shutter speeds, or neutral density filters, or both. It also meant a lot of very unsuccessful pictures."

Cheers,

R.

ltruex Loc: Waco TX

Rodger, is closest and I hate to put my feet into these waters, but I will try it this way. Bokeh is a smooth transistion of focus from sharp to blurr, and even in the blurr a play of lights can add to the image impact. The effect is found in the design of the lens including the aperature, where the more blades the smoother a circle is formed, and provides a smooth transistion of focus (not concerned with DOF), just how the image form including what is behind the main toppic, for it all is part of the story...good bokeh can add interest build on image, and bad background clutter distracts...so what is good and bad, becomes an opinion and don't we know that it's not shared by everyone. Larry

pdwoodswood Loc: Lewisville, NC

Bokeh is artistic control by the photographer to achieve his personal interpretation of his subject, whether animate or in-animate

ltruex Loc: Waco TX

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Blah, blah, blah!

I have been selecting my DOF for years, leaving the backgound out of focus so it is not noticeable, so background does not detract from my subject. Now you tell me that I am suddenly artistic because someone adopted the word "bokeh" (which literally traslates to "senile" ), to describe my discareded background. Out-of-focus background (bokeh to the more sensitive) is like a peanut shell: The part you discard and forget, once you have the nut.

Sam55

I have a question that may or may not be related to this, but neverless, here goes. I notice that most, Maybe all new lens do not have the dof lines marked on the lens like all my older Canon lens do. Is this related to "bokeh" , or just the lens maker getting lazy?

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

With a full manual lens, you can select your DOF to include more foreground or more background. The colored lines helped you achieve this. It is called hyper-focus. Now, the use of an A-F lens dictates 1/3 foreground and 2/3 background, so selective DOF is rarely used.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Exactly. And if the discarded peanut shell is more obvious than the peanut, you've got bokeh problems.

No, you're not 'suddenly artistic'. You're just ignoring something you either don't see, or don't care about. To be cruel, it's much like the amateur snapshot, where the person in the foreground has a telegraph pole growing out of his head.

And 'senile' is only one of the translations; not even, as I understand it, one of the more important ones.

Denying the existence of bokeh is as short-sighted (as it were) as deciding that it's the most important thing in photography.

Cheers,

R.

tinosa Loc: Grand Rapids Michigan

I got this from a google search:
bokeh is influenced by the phenomena outside the focal plane like foreground / background brightness, lens aberration, speed of the lens, color and shapes & patterns of the subject, etc

pdwoodswood Loc: Lewisville, NC

R. I agree, "the blur" is very appropriate in some instances but is not the main objective. Paying due diligence to both in some situations is complimentary.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

My only take on this whole thing is some bewilderment at the photographers who choose a lens based on how well it delivers the out-of-focus areas of a frame.

pdwoodswood Loc: Lewisville, NC

Don't you consider your superb photographs as artistically inspired....If you don't you do yourself a great dis-service. IMHO

Al FR-153 Loc: Chicago Suburbs

I was taught DOF also. Of course, #5 flashbulbs with blue dots were the big thing of the day too.

The Japanese word is not Boke, it is actually BOKASU vb shade; blur; dim; obscure. At least according to my recent Japanese/English Random House dictionary.

Japan just happens to be where I learned it as 'Depth Of Field' too.

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

[quote=rivernan][quote=Nikonian72
Personally, I hate the term "bokeh". It was adopted just a few years ago. Matthew Brady must be spinning in hes grave!

me too. What ever happened to depth of field?[/quote]

Hmmmm, now that I have discovered the term in here I love it. Every time I read it I wanna jump up and dance. Hey baby let's Booookeh! :lol:

Al FR-153 Loc: Chicago Suburbs

Next thing you know Jim - they will be putting Vasoline on the lens to imitate good bokeh. :lol: