The shameless bokeh thread

"It Made Explore" :) :)

Just a simple tourist type Snapograph taken at the South Bank London UK (at night) of one of the ornate benches along the Embankment.
As you can see this snap has a bit of noise etc which doesn't bother me in any way, but as there was a little bit in the original file I decided to emphasize it a bit to give a filmy type grainy effect.

My London (6)-03539 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

:ty: for looking., (y)
 
Last edited:
I do like some out of focus ( bokeh ) backgrounds, when it is smooth and silky. But sometimes I can find it distracting, and plays with my eyes, making it unpleasant to view some photos.
 
Why have so many people in this thead confused bokeh with extreme d.o.f?

So many images here have no bokeh at all.
 
f/2.8 said:
Why have so many people in this thead confused bokeh with extreme d.o.f?

So many images here have no bokeh at all.
Click to expand...
Sadly ,many photographers don't understand the concept that bokeh is supposed to represent. Images that clearly show a lenses bokeh are usually ones with shallow DOF, so some see the images & wrongly assume bokeh = shallow DOF. Others ask about lenses with lots of bokeh or no bokeh again these are not appropriate as bokeh is not quantitative.
Images like @Darren 's starling shots have out of focus highlights that easily allow us to assess the nature of the bokeh (circular, fairly smooth & even).
Some that I've taken with mirror lenses show the lenses distinctive doughnut bokeh without this overpowering the image, others with long thin OOF highlights form double images in the out of focus regions making the bokeh horribly confusing.
@THIRTYFIVEMILL 's portrait doesn't have such clear OOF highlights but the transition from dark to light along the top of the sofa does still allow the bokeh to be seen to some extent.
 
Petrochemist said:
Sadly ,many photographers don't understand the concept that bokeh is supposed to represent. Images that clearly show a lenses bokeh are usually ones with shallow DOF, so some see the images & wrongly assume bokeh = shallow DOF. Others ask about lenses with lots of bokeh or no bokeh again these are not appropriate as bokeh is not quantitative.
Images like @Darren 's starling shots have out of focus highlights that easily allow us to assess the nature of the bokeh (circular, fairly smooth & even).
Some that I've taken with mirror lenses show the lenses distinctive doughnut bokeh without this overpowering the image, others with long thin OOF highlights form double images in the out of focus regions making the bokeh horribly confusing.
@THIRTYFIVEMILL 's portrait doesn't have such clear OOF highlights but the transition from dark to light along the top of the sofa does still allow the bokeh to be seen to some extent.
Click to expand...

Yes. This is probably a better image for such purposes. Jupiter 3 (50mm f/1.5)


STUDYING - NIKON Z6 + VINTAGE RUSSIAN JUPITER 3 50MM F/1.5 by Vintage Photography, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I don't know if these'll work for anyone else but I quite like them. I had a 35mm with me and was going for a dreamy look so I took these at f1.4. The ducks were the point of focus in each.

6ApnLRC.jpg


mXJnkmH.jpg


wb1a5e4.jpg
 
I bought a couple of cheap Chinon lenses a while back, 28mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.4. These were taken with the 50mm but I think the wide open picture is too wide and the stopped down one works better.

E20OBMs.jpg


JZMCg8d.jpg
 
Last edited:
So without me reading all 28 pages of this thread, am I correct in thinking that 'bokeh' is simply the result of how different lenses and their aperture settings (delivering DoF) behave?

I am primarily a wildlife photographer and there are a lot of photographers who strive for flat featureless smooth backgrounds thereby offering no clue whatsoever about the wildlife subject's habitat/environment - I am not one of those photographers!

But there is a point at which a background can compete visually with the main subject and be distracting and so it's a question of balance (and personal taste). It's not always a personal choice within our control because it relies on the distance between the encountered subject and background too. However, repositioning ourselves can sometimes vary the background distance (if the target subject doesn't spook and fly off!).

Another factor, especially on close-ups/macro, is how different camera body sensors behave. Full-frame have shallower DoF than smaller m4/3 sensors but the deeper DoF can be a welcome advantage when photographing close-up/macro.

All this can be further influenced by Focus Stacking.

Here are a couple of my recent images with soft backgrounds....

ELEPHANT HAWKMOTH (Deilephila elpenor) by Robin Procter, on Flickr

^ ^ ^ I consciously wanted a hint of background vegetation and personally do not like black backgrounds on macro images.

DICING WITH DEATH! by Robin Procter, on Flickr

^ ^ ^ I had absolutely no choice with this one and had to instantly grab the opportunity to shoot. But I prefer that the background and hence habitat is evident. Perhaps it's not what you would term as 'bokeh'. I am proud to say that Olympus chose to feature this photo on Instagram together with its story and settings etc.

PLANET DRAGONFLY! by Robin Procter, on Flickr

^ ^ ^ Shot in 2019. I was aware of the light 'spike' when shooting and was very pleased it turned out like a planet.

First two shot on Olympus Pro system, third shot on Canon EOS D-SLR.
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
So without me reading all 28 pages of this thread, am I correct in thinking that 'bokeh' is simply the result of how different lenses and their aperture settings (delivering DoF) behave?

<snip>

^ ^ ^ I had absolutely no choice with this one and had to instantly grab the opportunity to shoot. But I prefer that the background and hence habitat is evident. Perhaps it's not what you would term as 'bokeh'. I am proud to say that Olympus chose to feature this photo on Instagram together with its story and settings etc.

PLANET DRAGONFLY! by Robin Procter, on Flickr

^ ^ ^ Shot in 2019. I was aware of the light 'spike' when shooting and was very pleased it turned out like a planet.

All shot on Olympus Pro system.
Click to expand...
Despite the frequent misunderstanding Bokeh does NOT mean shallow DOF, but the nature of the blur in out of focus highlights. Your last one shows the bokeh very well, better than the most of the shots in this thread.
The brightest bokeh ball seems to show some muck on your lens from the group of dark circles in it, (these don't show in the others so there may be some other cause). Both this one & the two other clearest ones show a bright ring round the edge of the OOF highlight which is characteristic of 'soap bubble' bokeh a much sought after characteristic, that's thrown the prices of certain legacy lenses through the roof.

Which lens did you use for the last shot?
 
Hi Robin, as said by @Petrochemist bokeh and a blurred BG/FG are not the same, (shallow DOF describes the in focus areas), but as with many things, (in photography), it is debatable, and bokeh "balls" are not the only bokeh. For me there are several different kinds of bokeh ........ including BAD bokeh ......... bokeh is not always pleasant as in the following:

unpleasant bokeh, IMHO
TP_Bokeh_bad.jpg


TP_Bokeh_bad_2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Petrochemist said:
Despite the frequent misunderstanding Bokeh does NOT mean shallow DOF, but the nature of the blur in out of focus highlights. Your last one shows the bokeh very well, better than the most of the shots in this thread.
The brightest bokeh ball seems to show some muck on your lens from the group of dark circles in it, (these don't show in the others so there may be some other cause). Both this one & the two other clearest ones show a bright ring round the edge of the OOF highlight which is characteristic of 'soap bubble' bokeh a much sought after characteristic, that's thrown the prices of certain legacy lenses through the roof.

Which lens did you use for the last shot?
Click to expand...

.... My last shot was on Canon 1DX-2 + EF 100-400mm L II + 1.4x III. First two were on Olympus M1X.

Isn't DoF a factor/influence on bokeh?
 
RedRobin said:
.... My last shot was on Canon 1DX-2 + EF 100-400mm L II + 1.4x III. First two were on Olympus M1X.

Isn't DoF a factor/influence on bokeh?
Click to expand...

IMHO, you can experience "bokeh" at any f stop f/8 and above - so you do not necessarily need a shallow depth of field to achieved/experience bokeh in your shots
 
BillN_33 said:
Hi Robin, as said by @Petrochemist bokeh and a blurred BG/FG are not the same, (shallow DOF describes the in focus areas), but as with many things, (in photography), it is debatable, and bokeh "balls" are not the only bokeh. For me there are several different kinds of bokeh ........ including BAD bokeh ......... bokeh is not always pleasing as in the following:

unpleasant bokeh, IMHO
TP_Bokeh_bad.jpg


TP_Bokeh_bad_2.jpg
Click to expand...

.... I don't find this background in your two images displeasing at all! For me it represents some light sparkle from shooting into the sunlight. I really like your first pic but not the second so much.

I think that whatever anyone wants to call it, all that matters is whether the photographer likes their own picture or not. Too much analysis of 'bokeh' is overthinking things rather like pixel-peeping.
 
BillN_33 said:
IMHO, you can experience "bokeh" at any f stop f/8 and above - so you do not necessarily need a shallow depth of field to achieved/experience bokeh in your shots
Click to expand...

.... Thanks. I have been mixing up DoF's influence on bokeh! If I stop and think about it you are right of course. But I tend to just judge a pic on whether I like it or not and not much else.
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
.... Thanks. I have been mixing up DoF's influence on bokeh! If I stop and think about it you are right of course. But I tend to just judge a pic on whether I like it or not and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Same here - if I like an image I keep it - if I don't usually it gets binned unless it represents something I want to be reminded of, or it's a record
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
another shot - bokeh, maybe, but I like to think that it is attractive

(I like to give bokeh the space to "breathe")

TP_bokeh_maybe.jpg



BUT I would say the following 2 images are NOT bokeh, just a different BG

TP_bokeh_Goldfinch_1.jpg


TP_bokeh_Goldfinch_2.jpg
Click to expand...

.... I'm sorry but I really don't like these at all as photographs. They are far too soft and blurry overall for my personal taste. BUT, they are excellent as digital paintings, IMHO.
 
RedRobin said:
.... I don't find this background in your two images displeasing at all! For me it represents some light sparkle from shooting into the sunlight. I really like your first pic but not the second so much.

I think that whatever anyone wants to call it, all that matters is whether the photographer likes their own picture or not. Too much analysis of 'bokeh' is overthinking things rather like pixel-peeping.
Click to expand...

The shots were taken at f/10
 
BillN_33 said:
Hi Robin, as said by @Petrochemist bokeh and a blurred BG/FG are not the same, (shallow DOF describes the in focus areas), but as with many things, (in photography), it is debatable, and bokeh "balls" are not the only bokeh. For me there are several different kinds of bokeh ........ including BAD bokeh ......... bokeh is not always pleasant as in the following:
Click to expand...
I agree the bokeh there doesn't help the images, but I don't find it too unpleasant.
Mirror lenses are well known for their doughnut bokeh, which sometimes looks great (IMO) but in other situations it's terrible.
I find it most unpleasant in this example ( where long highlights effectively get doubled up):
#FS test - Reflex + focal reducer by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

(Taken to test how IR & visual light together perform on a mirror lens coupled to a focal reducer - other lenses can show severe chromatic aberration with such a wide wavelength range)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top