perfect bokeh

[BpmJames]

Hi guys, just a quick question.

How should the perfect bokeh look in a shot? Is there a perfect look or is it relevant to the shot itself? Iv seen shots where the bokeh looks circular but then iv seen others where it just looks blured.

Heres one of mine but im not sure about the background, c and c please?


Happy flower by Bpmjames, on Flickr

 

[vaizki]

Bokeh quality is a subjective thing, there is no absolute measure of what is good bokeh. Most people will consider bokeh good if the background is blurred in a pleasing way with colors transitioning nicely into each other with no hard edges visible. Also the highlights should render as round spots without very bright rims on them. If I got that wrong, shows you just how subjective it is

Some lenses that have a low amount of aperture blades (think nifty fifty with 5 of them) or nonstandard optical arrangements like mirror lenses or diffractive optics may exhibit non-circular, onion ring, cats eye etc bokeh "flaws".

In short, if it looks good, it's good

 

[vaizki]

Oh and C & C.. I think the whole image is quite underexposed, but could be this crappy monitor I'm on. The blacks are pretty crushed on this one, not sure if you can save detail from the flower and bugs any more?

The background could be more out of focus but even here you have a pretty good separation of background & the flower. This is quite tricky of course with a 3D subject such as a flower + bugs on it, as you need the DoF to get them all in.

Since this is Talk Photography and not a critique section, I'll be bold and post some shots of mine. They are test shots so no c & c

Canon 35/1.4L @ f/1.4 - note the lights on the mouse and how the keyboard keys disappear but you can still make out what it is. I think this is good bokeh because it's not "busy" even though there's a lot of stuff in the background.

Canon 70-200L IS II @ 70mm f/2.8 - This dartboard pic is crap, but shows painting-like bokeh from the sun coming between the trees. I'd say this is a very love it or hate it subjective bokeh. I quite like it when printed out but on the screen it's a bit fake looking.

Canon FD 55/1.2 @ f/1.2 mounted on a GF1 - This old warrior suffers from ringed bokeh which is not so pleasing on the highlights (and a definite lack of contrast) at f/1.2 - bad bokeh

Same FD 55/1.2 stopped down to about f/2 if I remember correctly.. The bokeh is better (but you can see the shape from the aperture blades).

What's the point of owning a f/1.2 if it isn't usable at that aperture - sold it

 

[BpmJames]

I couldnt get much of a lower aperture unfortunately as the kit lens wouldnt allow it. i think i need to train my eye for a good photo as i actually made this shot darker with pp. Maybe I should upload the original?

Jukka I like your first shot and i think the way youve made the dartboard look like a wine carrier is amazing lol

 

[BpmJames]

Here is the original without the pp


Original Happy Flower by Bpmjames, on Flickr

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Usually good bokeh translates into creamy smooth rendering of out of focus areas, with highlights appearing as evenly lit circles.
The background itself can play a very significant role creating the 'perfect' bokeh. Even the best lenses will create poor images with busy and very contrasty backgrounds. Too much bright (blown) highlights is not good, like having some strong and distinctive shadows.

Going back to OP's image I could only conclude how busy it looks. There is so much going on behind the main blossom, that one can't concentrate on the subject. To improve this, a field of needs to be matched. Floral compositions normally look best with longer lenses, 100-200mm, although there are exceptions, when background needs to be more dominating. Aperture selection is another important decision. Best bokeh is typically created shooting near-wide open, as long as the subject is reasonably preserved in sharp focus.
Finally, dead parts of plant are always best removed prior to taking the shot.