HBW!

Anouilh

http://photographedublin.blogspot.com/2009/01/hbw-happy-bokeh-wednesday.html#links

Mr. Grieves

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Lovely round bokeh Mr.Grieves !
(Noob Q) Does this mean the lens has alot of blades or is a highly regarded prime lens ?

It means the aperture was wide open (f/1.8 on this lens), so the blades are open wider than the lens hole itself, so the shape of the bokeh is round, like the lens hole. If you stop down even to f/2.0, the bokeh takes a clunky pentagon shape.

dr strangelove

Christmas Day in city center - does this count?

Fionn

some excellent examples there!

heres some of mine from flickr

charybdis

Anouilh wrote: »

I find that photographing flowers from below, with the camera pointing sharply upwards, with leaves and dappled sunlight in the background gives very good effects.

Has anybody any tips that bring out the best Bokeh?

Some of my photos show the hexagonal shapes of the lens mechanism, rather than true circles.

In order to make your backgrounds or out-of-focus areas more diffuse you typically would want to use a shallow depth-of-field. Larger apertures, longer focal lengths, and proximity to your subject create shallower depth-of-field. When you photograph flowers (presumably up close) with a relatively distant background your depth-of-field is probably very shallow and your background is very diffuse as it is very far from the range of acceptable focus. This creates the diffuse effect you find pleasing.

This method, however, will only produce shallower depth-of-field. "Bokeh" is a qualitative, not quantitative term. It refers to the quality of the out-of-focus areas as opposed to the presence or area of the image occupied by them. Whether or not you can produce images with "best bokeh" will largely depend upon your personal preferences and the design of the lens you are using. Ideally, your lens would render out-of-focus areas with pure Gaussian distribution giving them an extremely diffuse, liquid like (or "creamy") appearance although you may prefer the diffusion created by lenses with less perfect distribution patterns. Extremely diffuse or circular highlights are by no means necessary for aesthetically pleasing out-of-focus areas of an image.

The hexagonal shapes are due to the shape of your lens' aperture diaphragm. The shape of the diaphragm is determined by amount and curvature of your lens' aperture blades. Set your lens to its widest aperture in either Aperture Priority or Manual mode to avoid using the diaphragm and thus produce circular shapes. More expensive lenses usually have more (and sometimes curved) aperture blades to produce out-of-focus highlights that appear more circular and smoother diffusion of out-of-focus areas at apertures lower than their maximum, but even the cheapest lenses produce circular highlights wide open.

Addendum: The term "bokeh" is heavily misused in discussing photographs of this nature, I assume this stems from a misunderstanding of the term itself and the appropriation of it to describe images that contain obviously shallow depth-of-field. It is probably best to think of the term in a similar way to how you would consider the term "sharpness" in that it is a qualitative measurement of some aspect of an image, usually determined more by the hardware that produced it, as opossed to a particular creative technique or style of imagery and in and of itself isn't particulary meritworthy. Not that I dislike the images in the thread, I just wouldn't conside their unifying aspect "bokeh", or should I expect "Sharpness Thursday" tomorrow?

DaireQuinlan

charybdis wrote: »

Addendum: The term "bokeh" is heavily misused in discussing photographs of this nature, I assume this stems from a misunderstanding of the term itself and the appropriation of it to describe images that contain obviously shallow depth-of-field. It is probably best to think of the term in a similar way to how you would consider the term "sharpness" in that it is a qualitative measurement of some aspect of an image, usually determined more by the hardware that produced it, as opossed to a particular creative technique or style of imagery and in and of itself isn't particulary meritworthy. Not that I dislike the images in the thread, I just wouldn't conside their unifying aspect "bokeh", or should I expect "Sharpness Thursday" tomorrow?

+1

I was hoping for a bunch of images in which the bokeh was actually involved in the composition, or deliberately introduced into the image. I was thinking of posting the following picture. I took it knowing what the christmas lights behind would blow up nicely. Its a cliched HBW shot though, so I ended up not posting :pac:

http://flickr.com/photos/dairequinlan/3193884649/

Anouilh

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/2842917716/sizes/o/

Pigwidgeon

christmas bokeh....

Valentia

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

+1

I was hoping for a bunch of images in which the bokeh was actually involved in the composition, or deliberately introduced into the image. I was thinking of posting the following picture. I took it knowing what the christmas lights behind would blow up nicely. Its a cliched HBW shot though, so I ended up not posting :pac:

http://flickr.com/photos/dairequinlan/3193884649/

Ah! You should have posted

This one has those characteristics too:

Anouilh

charybdis wrote: »

...
I just wouldn't consider their unifying aspect "bokeh", or should I expect "Sharpness Thursday" tomorrow?[/i]

This has given me plenty to think about.

I used think that Bokeh was some defect in my ability to take sharp photos, before I looked at DOF.

Have you some examples of successful Bokeh, please?

fuzzywuzzy1

charybdis

Anouilh wrote: »

This has given me plenty to think about.

I used think that Bokeh was some defect in my ability to take sharp photos, before I looked at DOF.

Have you some examples of successful Bokeh, please?

Talking about it in terms of "success" suggests I haven't properly explained what it is. "Bokeh" is a term used to describe the quality of diffusion in the out-of-focus area of an image, both the extent of the diffusion of the distribution of the diffusion. The extent of the diffusion of the out-of-focus area of the image is directly proportional to how out-of-focus it is; shallow depth-of-field helps throw the out-of-focus area of an image further out-of-focus as the shallower the plane of acceptable focus becomes, less of the image is typically in focus and the out-of-focus area is further from the threshold of acceptable focus and therefore more diffuse. The distribution of the diffusion is typically determined by the design of lens used; you typically wouldn't have any control over any of this beyond your choice of lens but some lenses offer controls that can influence the distribution of the diffusion of out-of-focus area and image such as soft-focus controls, Nikon's Defocus Control, and Sony/Minolta's 135mm STF.

As I had said, the shape of out-of-focus diffuse points of light is also influenced by lens design. The number of blades in the aperture diaphragm and the similarity to circles of the shapes they form at various apertures, while not strictly a factor in the extent and distribution of diffusion of the out-of-focus area of an image can affect the hardness of transitional tonal areas of the out-of-focus area. It is important to understand that the aperture and the aperture diaphragm shape are different things and have very different effects on the out-of-focus areas of an image; aperture relates to depth-of-field, diaphragm shape relates to the shape of specular highlights and out-of-focus points of light.

It seems that people most commonly tend to appropriate the term "bokeh" to describe images that exhibit very shallow depth-of-field and/or extremely out-of-focus points of light. This use isn't entirely inaccurate as they all have extremely diffuse out-of-focus areas and as such bokeh can be an important aspect of the image, but the obvious ambiguity of people's understanding of the term in how they describe it is unhelpful in that it furthers and reenforces the same abstract misapprehension of the term. You would not use "bokeh" to talk about an image that is entirely in focus, such as one with a very deep depth-of-field or one where the focused subject was a uniform distance from the focal plane and filled the frame in the same way you wouldn't use the term "sharpness" to talk about an image that consists entirely of diffuse, out-of-focus colours.

However, this is all very ivory tower and rereading it I'm still not entirely happy with how I've explained it as I can still think of a whole lot of caveats and addendums to what I've said. You by no means have to understand anything I've said so far, the real issue at hand is a semantic one. The term "bokeh" refers to such a specific thing yet is so often misappropriated to describe something that may be conceptually similar, but entirely different. To continue my "sharpness" simile from earlier: referring to the out-of-focus portion of an image as "the bokeh" is like referring to the in-focus portion of an image as "the sharpness". Although the two terms aren't exactly equatable in usage, it's an interesting experiment to mentally substitute the word "sharpness" for "bokeh" when you encounter it online to get some idea of how inane the misuse of the term sounds.

Also, don't worry about your lens(es), they are capable of producing adequate bokeh just like they are capable of producing adequate sharpness. If you really want the shape of out-of-focus specular highlights and points of light to be rendered as circularly as possible, just shoot wide open (at you maximum aperture). Shooting at your maximum aperture will also produce images with out-of-focus areas like those you have seen in this thread, as will any measure taken to reduce depth-of-field.

If you are still interested in bokeh as I have defined it: a good illustration of the changing quality of the blur of the out-of-focus areas of an image with regard to deepening depth-of-field due to a reduction in aperture can be found here. On the same site, there is also a comparison of different lenses' performance at different focal lengths and apertures and a more technical article on the subject.

sheesh

pete4130

Anouilh

charybdis wrote: »

The extent of the diffusion of the out-of-focus area of the image is directly proportional to how out-of-focus it is;

...

It seems that people most commonly tend to appropriate the term "bokeh" to describe images that exhibit very shallow depth-of-field and/or extremely out-of-focus points of light. This use isn't entirely inaccurate as they all have extremely diffuse out-of-focus areas and as such bokeh can be an important aspect of the image, but the obvious ambiguity of people's understanding of the term in how they describe it is unhelpful in that it furthers and reenforces the same abstract misapprehension of the term.
...
You by no means have to understand anything I've said so far, the real issue at hand is a semantic one.

A very helpful series of ideas, which I've edited down to think about today...
It seems that Bokeh is not universally admired, despite the fact that it has become even more fashionable than HDR on photo sites.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157607863247982/page2/

Bokeh is not to photography what Sushi is to food, according to many Japanese writers.

simonp1

Anouilh

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/2279519238/sizes/o/

Dades

I am now totally confused as to what bokeh is.

Anouilh

Dades wrote: »

I am now totally confused as to what bokeh is.

You are not alone...

but we're gradually moving in on the problem...

http://lounge.techfocus.net/showthread.php?t=14832

Stephen

Posted a similar one in the random photos thread.

kgiller

charybdis wrote: »

Talking about it in terms of "success" suggests I haven't properly explained what it is. "Bokeh" is a term used to describe the quality of diffusion in the out-of-focus area of an image, both the extent of the diffusion of the distribution of the diffusion. The extent of the diffusion of the out-of-focus area of the image is directly proportional to how out-of-focus it is; shallow depth-of-field helps throw the out-of-focus area of an image further out-of-focus as the shallower the plane of acceptable focus becomes, less of the image is typically in focus and the out-of-focus area is further from the threshold of acceptable focus and therefore more diffuse. The distribution of the diffusion is typically determined by the design of lens used; you typically wouldn't have any control over any of this beyond your choice of lens but some lenses offer controls that can influence the distribution of the diffusion of out-of-focus area and image such as soft-focus controls, Nikon's Defocus Control, and Sony/Minolta's 135mm STF.

As I had said, the shape of out-of-focus diffuse points of light is also influenced by lens design. The number of blades in the aperture diaphragm and the similarity to circles of the shapes they form at various apertures, while not strictly a factor in the extent and distribution of diffusion of the out-of-focus area of an image can affect the hardness of transitional tonal areas of the out-of-focus area. It is important to understand that the aperture and the aperture diaphragm shape are different things and have very different effects on the out-of-focus areas of an image; aperture relates to depth-of-field, diaphragm shape relates to the shape of specular highlights and out-of-focus points of light.

It seems that people most commonly tend to appropriate the term "bokeh" to describe images that exhibit very shallow depth-of-field and/or extremely out-of-focus points of light. This use isn't entirely inaccurate as they all have extremely diffuse out-of-focus areas and as such bokeh can be an important aspect of the image, but the obvious ambiguity of people's understanding of the term in how they describe it is unhelpful in that it furthers and reenforces the same abstract misapprehension of the term. You would not use "bokeh" to talk about an image that is entirely in focus, such as one with a very deep depth-of-field or one where the focused subject was a uniform distance from the focal plane and filled the frame in the same way you wouldn't use the term "sharpness" to talk about an image that consists entirely of diffuse, out-of-focus colours.

However, this is all very ivory tower and rereading it I'm still not entirely happy with how I've explained it as I can still think of a whole lot of caveats and addendums to what I've said. You by no means have to understand anything I've said so far, the real issue at hand is a semantic one. The term "bokeh" refers to such a specific thing yet is so often misappropriated to describe something that may be conceptually similar, but entirely different. To continue my "sharpness" simile from earlier: referring to the out-of-focus portion of an image as "the bokeh" is like referring to the in-focus portion of an image as "the sharpness". Although the two terms aren't exactly equatable in usage, it's an interesting experiment to mentally substitute the word "sharpness" for "bokeh" when you encounter it online to get some idea of how inane the misuse of the term sounds.

Also, don't worry about your lens(es), they are capable of producing adequate bokeh just like they are capable of producing adequate sharpness. If you really want the shape of out-of-focus specular highlights and points of light to be rendered as circularly as possible, just shoot wide open (at you maximum aperture). Shooting at your maximum aperture will also produce images with out-of-focus areas like those you have seen in this thread, as will any measure taken to reduce depth-of-field.

If you are still interested in bokeh as I have defined it: a good illustration of the changing quality of the blur of the out-of-focus areas of an image with regard to deepening depth-of-field due to a reduction in aperture can be found here. On the same site, there is also a comparison of different lenses' performance at different focal lengths and apertures and a more technical article on the subject.

Guh?

Anouilh

kgiller wrote: »

Guh?

Doh!

http://dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=877190&postcount=50

humberklog

dakar

Dades wrote: »

I am now totally confused as to what bokeh is.

Hey if it ain't bokeh, don't fix it:P

Anouilh

Not quite Bokeh, but blurry enough

http://photographedublin.blogspot.com/2009/01/tracking-code.html

sheesh

dakar wrote: »

Hey if it ain't bokeh, don't fix it:P

here sir is your coat.

Fajitas!

Bokeh on a thursday?

HEATHENS!

mobileblog

Nisio

So bokeh is the pretty blurring of points of lights in an out of focus background? (but not just a pretty, out of focus background?)

kgiller

Nisio wrote: »

So bokeh is the pretty blurring of points of lights in an out of focus background? (but not just a pretty, out of focus background?)

Not quite. Actually i would say that a lot of the stuf posted in this thread isnt bokeh. Its a difficult thing to explain, and i think people have their own ideas about what it is.

Anouilh

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/2941443298/sizes/o/in/datetaken/

Anouilh

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/2300359594/sizes/o/

elven

I found an interesting comparison page that looks at the bokeh with different lenses:

http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

Dragan

Excellent. Made it in on a Wednesday! My first chance to post in this thread.

ThOnda

My first one in this thread too :-)

elven

wooo and with only a few minutes to spare!

ok, well, looking at the timestamp you had a good few minutes to spare.

I'll go back in my corner now...

4sb

Elven, I imagine this comparison and rating of bokeh on lenses must have been posted previously, but in case someone hasn't seen it

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_1/129000/129691/4/print/bokehrankings5.pdf


Its old, circa 2005 I think. My own Nikon 50mm gets a paltry 3 out of 10, and I believe it.

(Not posting a photo, so hope you dont mind that its into Thursday)

alexandros

http://alexandrosart.blogspot.com/

homerun_homer

I'm also slightly unsure of the true meaning of Bokeh, I just thought it was a fancier way of saying Depth of field shot, either way judging by some entrants this has to fit.

kgiller

alexander.t wrote: »

[IMG]http://i218.photo bucket.com/albums/cc290/athonis/fly.jpg[/IMG]

http://alexandrosart.blogspot.com/

This has no characteristics of bokeh whatsoever. Theres too many non-bokeh pictures going into this thread. Its annoying.

Dragan

homerun_homer wrote: »

I'm also slightly unsure of the true meaning of Bokeh, I just thought it was a fancier way of saying Depth of field shot, either way judging by some entrants this has to fit.

I found this a very interesting read.


http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/01/what-is-bokeh.html

elven

Can we change the name of the thread then to:

"Happy Pleasing-Blur-In-Out-Of-Focus-Areas-Which-Some-People-May-Or-May-Not-Think-Of-As-Bokeh Wednesday!"

*sigh*

When it comes to talking about what is bokeh and what isn't, it'd be really helpful if you took examples and pointed out why. There's entirely too much lengthy pontificating on the subject and not enough clear, concise description. People say it doesn't mean just out of focus blur, but the quality of the blur - but then to go on to say "hey, nice bokeh". Surely if bokeh means the quality rather than the existence, the word 'nice' wouldn't be required in that sentence? Surely then it'd be "hey, that's some bokeh blur!" which obviously doesn't make sense.

I understand:

• It refers to the actual blurry bit behind (or sometimes in front of) whatever is actually in focus.
  
• It does not only refer to the circles you get from points of light being out of focus.
  
• It can refer to a completely smooth background with no actual discernable shapes.
  
• It can be used with another adjective, like nice, or funky, or icky.

Yes?

Can I get picky on the phrase 'depth of field' here too?

Dragan

I have only been reading up on Bokeh and narrow DOF since i got the nifty fifty, as it's the first time i have really been able to explore either.

From what i can see, the whole "bokeh" thing is largely up in the air for the photographic community, as a common concensus cannot be reached as to what is, and what is not, bokeh.

For me, the easiest way to show bokeh is to simply have something in the background of your shot emitting light, or multiple light sources, that will clearly show the "blur" that is at the heart of what most people see as being bokeh.

I think for a shot to be truly bokeh, you need to be able to see that effect of the lens quite clearly, so the above is simply my foundation point. I think there is easy bokeh to do, such as the shot that i posted, and then harder bokeh to do, such as the shot that you posted Elven. Either way, i think once the break down is obvious and a certain relativity of distance between the subject and the backgroud is in play....then you have bokeh.

For me.

DaireQuinlan

elven wrote: »

Can we change the name of the thread then to:

"Happy Pleasing-Blur-In-Out-Of-Focus-Areas-Which-Some-People-May-Or-May-Not-Think-Of-As-Bokeh Wednesday!"

*sigh*

When it comes to talking about what is bokeh and what isn't, it'd be really helpful if you took examples and pointed out why. There's entirely too much lengthy pontificating on the subject and not enough clear, concise description. People say it doesn't mean just out of focus blur, but the quality of the blur - but then to go on to say "hey, nice bokeh". Surely if bokeh means the quality rather than the existence, the word 'nice' wouldn't be required in that sentence? Surely then it'd be "hey, that's some bokeh blur!" which obviously doesn't make sense.

I understand:

• It refers to the actual blurry bit behind (or sometimes in front of) whatever is actually in focus.
  
• It does not only refer to the circles you get from points of light being out of focus.
  
• It can refer to a completely smooth background with no actual discernable shapes.
  
• It can be used with another adjective, like nice, or funky, or icky.

Yes?

Can I get picky on the phrase 'depth of field' here too?

"She was so ... quiet ! Very helpful all the time though, always glad to lend a hand. Then that one day there was some discussion about Borkay ? Bouquet ? Something to do with flowers I think. And she just snapped ! Just like that !

It was amazing the way she tracked them all down, all the posters on that thread, And then what she did to them ... and posted it all on her flickr stream .....

.
.
.
.
.
I'll never get those images out of my head
.
.
.
.
"
[Interview terminated at this point. Interviewee grew too emotional]

alexandros

kgiller wrote: »

This has no characteristics of bokeh whatsoever. Theres too many non-bokeh pictures going into this thread. Its annoying.

My bad.
I see what you mean.

elven

I just laughed way too loud in a quiet office.

charybdis

elven wrote: »

Can we change the name of the thread then to:

"Happy Pleasing-Blur-In-Out-Of-Focus-Areas-Which-Some-People-May-Or-May-Not-Think-Of-As-Bokeh Wednesday!"

*sigh*

When it comes to talking about what is bokeh and what isn't, it'd be really helpful if you took examples and pointed out why. There's entirely too much lengthy pontificating on the subject and not enough clear, concise description. People say it doesn't mean just out of focus blur, but the quality of the blur - but then to go on to say "hey, nice bokeh". Surely if bokeh means the quality rather than the existence, the word 'nice' wouldn't be required in that sentence? Surely then it'd be "hey, that's some bokeh blur!" which obviously doesn't make sense.

I understand:

• It refers to the actual blurry bit behind (or sometimes in front of) whatever is actually in focus.
  
• It does not only refer to the circles you get from points of light being out of focus.
  
• It can refer to a completely smooth background with no actual discernable shapes.
  
• It can be used with another adjective, like nice, or funky, or icky.

Yes?

Can I get picky on the phrase 'depth of field' here too?

Dragan wrote: »

I have only been reading up on Bokeh and narrow DOF since i got the nifty fifty, as it's the first time i have really been able to explore either.

From what i can see, the whole "bokeh" thing is largely up in the air for the photographic community, as a common concensus cannot be reached as to what is, and what is not, bokeh.

For me, the easiest way to show bokeh is to simply have something in the background of your shot emitting light, or multiple light sources, that will clearly show the "blur" that is at the heart of what most people see as being bokeh.

I think for a shot to be truly bokeh, you need to be able to see that effect of the lens quite clearly, so the above is simply my foundation point. I think there is easy bokeh to do, such as the shot that i posted, and then harder bokeh to do, such as the shot that you posted Elven. Either way, i think once the break down is obvious and a certain relativity of distance between the subject and the backgroud is in play....then you have bokeh.

For me.

The term is quite clearly defined and specific, albeit widely misunderstood and misapplied. I assume there is so much confusion over the term as it sounds exotic and excitingly technical; factors that have probably been a major cause of the flickr-style, groin rubbing, breathless exclamation of it in grammatically nonsensical ways at every vaguely applicable opportunity. As I have said before, I think it is useful to regard it in a similar fashion to how you regard the term "sharpness", or "contrast", or "colour rendition", or "barrel distortion", or other common terms used to talk about technical aspects of photography and lenses; these aspects and abilities of a lens will not necessarily be apparent in all images produced with that lens, but will be readily apparent in some, much in the same way many photographs in this thread heavily feature the ability of a lens to render out of focus areas of an image in a pleasing way. I suggest you reread some of the posts in this thread and mentally substitute another term relating to a lens' performance for "bokeh" to get some idea of how the term is being (grammatically) misused.

Obviously, if you disagree, you can reject my reality and substitute your own, but the proliferation of the idea that the presence of out of focus highlights in a photograph is somehow inherently meritworthy really should be subject to critical review and counterpoint.

I appreciate the point about explaining it as opposed to pontificating ad nauseam but despite the dearth of understanding there's already a wealth of information available on the subject, the Wikipedia article is as good a place as any to start and you can also JFGI.

Valentia

So, there ya go! You can have a shot that is zero depth of field and 100% bokeh. Or a shot with no DOF is a load of bokeh!

DaireQuinlan

Valentia wrote: »

So, there ya go! You can have a shot that is zero depth of field and 100% bokeh. Or a shot with no DOF is a load of bokeh!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and bokeh.

Anouilh

http://www.flickr.com/groups/88081697@N00/discuss/72157612935723277/

The Bokeh group above has some interesting discussion on the differences between DOF and Bokeh.

I think it's relatively simple. If you can see circles of light, out of focus and blurry, which show qualities in the lens rather than shallow DOF, the photo has Bokeh.http://photos3.pix.ie/7D/3D/7D3D702E2CF84715BB7C64F5185296E5-500.jpg