What is Bokeh?

[bunnspecial]

@bunnspecial what is the definition of "neutral" bokeh? like "normal" as in not something like the twist or a helios? or something different all together?

In this case, it means "neither good nor bad"-basically what I'm saying is that OOF highlights are just even disks of light, which isn't the most pleasing in the world(at least to me) but is in your face distracting or busy.

 

[r.harris1]

I had the old MF 500mm f4 P up until a couple of years ago. I miss it to this day, it was a stonking lens, even on a modern DSLR.

 

[bunnspecial]

I had the old MF 500mm f4 P up until a couple of years ago. I miss it to this day, it was a stonking lens, even on a modern DSLR.

Actually that was the only other AI-P lens I could think of, but covered myself by saying "a couple"

Never used one, but I expect it was!

If I had a need for a 500mm now, I'd probably be taking a serious look at the 500mm f/5.6PF. It's not AS light as a 500mm Reflex, but the Reflex-NIKKOR I have is honestly too light for a lens that length. Plus, the PF is a stop faster and actually gives you a controllable aperture(not to mention VR). I know the PF lenses have their own distinct look, but they are very good from what I've seen.

 

[Hughmac]

I've been meaning to make this post for a while, but finally got around to it. This is intended to address a personal pet peeve.

A word that gets thrown around a lot in photography is "Bokeh". It's a word that's often used to simply refer to a photo with shallow depth of field where the subject is in focus and the background is out of focus.

That's actually not a correct use, however. Bokeh is derived from a Japanese word that means "blur", however it is a term that refers to what the out of focus area looks like.

Bokeh is a characteristic of a particular lens, and there are a lot of very subjective terms that get thrown around like "creamy" or "smooth" or "busy" to describe it.

In general, though, the smoother the rendering of things like points of light in the background, the more aesthetically pleasing the bokeh is often considered to be. There are a few general rules that may give you some idea of what makes for "good" or "bad" bokeh, although this is by no means absolute. Subjectively "good" bokeh is often the result of residual uncorrected abberation in a lens(particularly spherical abberation). Here are a few I can think of:

1. Generally, the larger the aperture, the more potential a lens has to produce pleasing OOF areas

2. Telephoto lenses tend to universally be good, often for their relatively simple optical design

3. Along with that, often times simple lenses are good for good bokeh, although again this isn't hard and fast.

4. Going with my point about uncorrected spherical abberation, lenses that use things like aspherical elements(which are designed to correct speherical abberation in large aperture lenses) can end up with busier bokeh.

I took several photos this afternoon with varying lenses with different properties to try and illustrate this. Since it was cold outside today, you get to see a boring photo of Kentucky's finest soft drink, Ale-8-1, sitting on the windowsill with my back yard in the background.

In any case, here's a sort of classic example. This is a manual focus Nikon 105mm f/2.5 lens, a staple of the line-up for years. As a minor point, there are two different optical formulas for this lens. This is the older formula, which is in a "chrome nose" body-I slightly prefer its rendering, although in these examples I couldn't see a difference so you're only getting oneView attachment 1916374

With that said, there are areas where it could be called a bit "busy" so let's go to something different that might render a bit smoother-this is my 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR, a fairly complicated lens but one that still retains really smooth bokeh thanks to its large aperture and long focal length. Notice how the background essentially melts into just a smooth, even rendering of the grass and a very blury transition to the shed outback.

View attachment 1916375

To go the other way, though, let's look at a couple of other modern f/2.8 zooms-the 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S, and the 14-24mm f/2.8. Often, wide angle lenses in particular are not as pleasing

View attachment 1916377View attachment 1916378

Even wider primes aren't immune to "busier" bokeh. Here is another Nikon legend, the 35mm AI-s f/1.4. This lens has a large aperture and loads of uncorrected spherical abberation, but it's still not particularly great. I suspect that some of Nikon's advanced tricks-in particular the floating element("close range correction") play into that somewhat.

Although the background is nicely out of focus, the bokeh of this lens has one fatal flaw. Notice that OOF highlights are rendered as bright "rings"-often the opposite is desired where the light has a more Gaussian type distribution toward the center of the disk. This can make the bokeh of this lens somewhat distracting.
View attachment 1916383

I don't have any truly terrible lenses easily accessible. One of the worst designs for this is the reflex(or mirror) lens, which use to be common because it's a cheap way to get a really light and small telephoto(500mm is common) but they tend to render points of light as "donuts."

I'll wrap this up though with an example of a lens that has what some might call distracting but I call interesting Bokeh. This is a Lensbaby Twist 60, which uses one of the oldest computed(rather than trial and error) lens formulas called the Petzval. When these lenses first came on the market in the ~1890s, they had some of the best center sharpness around, but not a particularly flat field. What's more of note, though, is that they tend to render what's often called "Swirly" bokeh-I think you can see it clearly in this photo. This is something of a signature of Petzval lenses(although I've also seen it in a few other more advanced formulas, like the Auto-NIKKOR-S 5,8cm f/1.4) although there are other designs with their own signature bokeh.

View attachment 1916402

The same swirly effect can be achieved with a Fujian 50mm TV lens and suitable adapter, in this case at f/1.4



An extreme effect can also be given with an old Helios 44-2 58mm, especially if the front element has been reversed, but this may be one step too far...



Cheers

Hugh

 

[squawk7000]

@Hughmac , your examples show how a skilled photographer can use the 'interesting' bokeh to enhance a photograph. In your first example the swirl draws your eye to the rose and creates a frame.

post #23 by @bunnspecial is also useful. The second shot demonstrates to me how the background is another factor in bokeh. The smooth lawn creates a creamy out of focus area, while the leafy branch to right enhances the impact. By knowing the optical effects of the lens and careful selection of background a photographer can create very different photograph.

A very useful thread.

 

[whiteonline]

I love the Brenizer method to create a bokeh effect. Yes one can debate this as not being the "pure" bokeh generated by a single fast lens. This shot was generated by stitching 14 shots around the "prime" sharp in focus shot. Took this shot a few hours ago to illustrate..


View attachment 1920743

Nice shot.
But it’s not bokeh effect. You simulated large format depth of field (the large format “look”).

 

[bunnspecial]

Nice shot.
But it’s not bokeh effect. You simulated large format depth of field (the large format “look”).

And the whole point of this thread is that there isn't a "bokeh" effect (Again, see the OP for what bokeh actually is, and again it isn't an OOF background).

I debated about including artificial background blur as is baked into the iPhone now, but decided to not...

 

[USAntigoon]

Nice shot.
But it’s not bokeh effect. You simulated large format depth of field (the large format “look”).

It’s all-in the eye of the beholder..I clearly stated the concept of "bokeh" can be debated and yes..what’s in a name....I just created via stitching several shots, a wide angle shot with a vey shallow DOF of the prime object..

 

[mollyc]

Okay, I said I'd be back with some of my own samples. I know there are those among us who don't like Lensbaby images, but the fact is part of their appeal/look is the blur pattern they can make. Feel free to skip over my post if these offend you in some way. There are other Lensbaby users who might appreciate this post, and I mention other traditional lenses as well.

The first two are the Velvet 56. The leaf one is stopped down a bit, I would guess probably f/4-5.6. Unfortunately because they are manual lenses the apertures don't get marked in the exif, so unless I add it in as a keyword, I never actually know looking back where I shot it. But the leaf one is interesting to me becaue it has both circular (further back) and hexagonal bokeh (the headlights). I know we aren't supposed to like hexagonal (septagonal??) bokeh, but sometimes I really like the effect.

This second one is shot wide open, probably at 1.6. Notice the ring/circle shape of the water drops. This is a hallmark of this lens (and the other two Velvet lenses in that line).

Interestingly, my Nikon 50mm 1.8S lens (for Z mount) also exhibits this type of bokeh shape, although it's a bit more subtle; you can see it best in the foreground, though it might be too small here for web viewing to make it out. (If you are on a computer, you can click it to make it larger and see better.)

My Nikon 105mm macro lens (F mount) can be quite busy with the right (wrong???) background, but shooting with enough separation from the background still allows a good transition from the bokeh to the subject. This was at f/5 which probably made it a bit busier than it might have been at a wider aperture.

And lastly I will mention the Lensbaby Sol 45. It actually has a mechanism in front of the lens that you can swing out that they call bokeh blades. To be honest I don't like what it does with specular highlights or something like string lights. But I love the effect on a "closed" background and it can make your subject look almost 3D.

And here is one with string lights, and I've seen this also if shooting against a tree and the highlights between leaves. It's not my favorite. I think it's exacerbated here by shooting so closely, but it is an interesting look in relation to this conversation about bokeh.

 

[mollyc]

The same swirly effect can be achieved with a Fujian 50mm TV lens and suitable adapter, in this case at f/1.4



An extreme effect can also be given with an old Helios 44-2 58mm, especially if the front element has been reversed, but this may be one step too far...



Cheers

Hugh

I like your twisty examples. I think it goes to show that some of these looks are quite classic, even if not used often. ?

 

[whiteonline]

And the whole point of this thread is that there isn't a "bokeh" effect (Again, see the OP for what bokeh actually is, and again it isn't an OOF background).

I debated about including artificial background blur as is baked into the iPhone now, but decided to not...

Oh I agree. Was just commenting on the method used.

And yes, bokeh is blur as you described. But really, the use of the word bokeh means one should intend to comment on the quality of blur. (Gee, this has nice/busy/unpleasant bokeh). Bokeh is not a thing without an adjective.

 

[bunnspecial]

And yes, bokeh is blur as you described. But really, the use of the word bokeh means one should intend to comment on the quality of blur. (Gee, this has nice/busy/unpleasant bokeh). Bokeh is not a thing without an adjective.

Yes, that was the whole reason I made this post. I see things like "I want to take bokeh photos" all the time.

Granted I guess the point of this entire thread was to take photos of various types of bokeh ...

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

The 25mm f1.4 out of focus and pointed at ye ol’ artificial tannenbaum.

 

[squawk7000]

The 25mm f1.4 out of focus and pointed at ye ol’ artificial tannenbaum.
View attachment 1922036

hmmm. I purchased my copy when it was launched (I had money then). I think you've persuaded me to look it out and grab some snaps.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

hmmm. I purchased my copy when it was launched (I had money then). I think you've persuaded me to look it out and grab some snaps.

These days, the PL25 1.4 is relatively cheap for what it can do. I have the mk1 version, which just means it‘s noisier at what it does, but it still does it really well!

 

[bunnspecial]

Well, so that I can avoid posting a "gimmicky" lens baby photo, I called my favorite camera store today both for some catch-up and also looking for something specific.

I made a deal on a quarter plate camera. It's a no-name white oak body(so not one of the real beauties you see) but with solid bellows and has a good brass-bodied triplet on it.

With that said, he also has a quarter plate format Petzval brass lens in barrel(in barrel=no shutter) that he said was very soggy and had some element separation. He's willing to give it to me since he knows I can make something of it or will at least try(plus I also helped him decide where he was going for dinner tongiht, which he said was worth a lot ) . Hopefully with a cleaning and some fresh Canada Balsam I'll have a perfectly functional "real' Petzval.

It may be after the first of the year before I actually have time to make it to Louisville and get it, but he has it sitting there for me.

I may not miss my former employer in Louisville, but I sure as heck miss my favorite camera store...

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

White oak is one of the few woods that expands when it gets wet, so it was used in ships and wine barrels and such. White oak camera bodies, the first to attempt weathersealing?