What is 'bokeh'??
Chuck Fry
I see the word 'bokeh' mentioned here in lens discussions. What is it?
-- Chuck, confused
--
Chuck Fry -- Jack of all trades, master of none
chu...@chucko.com (text only please) chuc...@home.com (MIME enabled)
Lisp bigot, mountain biker, car nut, sometime guitarist and photographer
The addresses above are real. All spammers will be reported to their ISPs.
JP
http://homepages.adhoc.net/gzappi/foto/bokeh-e.htm
It refers to the quality of the out-of-focus image a lens makes.
JP
Chuck Fry <chu...@best.com> wrote in message
news:7phbfn$ljh$1...@shell5.ba.best.com...
Chuck Ross
http://active.uvic.ca/~vhchan/bokeh.html
http://zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/archives/1997/msg02265.html
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/bokeh.html
http://www.princeton.edu/~law/lenses.html
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0004Zn
And finally, for a really excellent PDF (Acrobat) 5-page dissertation
on bokeh, go to http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/ATVB.pdf
--
http://www.enteract.com/~ckross/
Digital and Film-Based Photography
remove "MYPANTS" to reply
Kingobo
the round-eyes".
And it seems to have worked.
Only me...
>
It's a meaningless term that Leica owners use to justify spending 150%
more than everyone else on a lens that's perhaps 6% better than everyone
else's.
David.
Chuck Ross
the Japanese, has been known for many, many years but called by different
names, such as "the quality of the out of focus areas of a photograph".
"Boke" is just a short way of saying it. And if you can't see the difference
for yourself, that doesn't mean that no-one else can.
In article <19990820033149...@ng-ce1.aol.com>, kin...@aol.com
(Kingobo) wrote:
> It's Japanese for Bullshit. It translates into English as " Pull one over on
> the round-eyes".
>
> And it seems to have worked.
> >I see the word 'bokeh' mentioned here in lens discussions. What is it?
> >
> > -- Chuck, confused
> >--
McEowen
photographs . . .
Per Gunnar Jensen
1: Now we all know you don't use Leica.
2: You must have a couple of Nicanolta lenses with real bad boke.
;-)
"Only me..." wrote:
>
> Chuck Fry <chu...@best.com> wrote in message
> news:7phbfn$ljh$1...@shell5.ba.best.com...
> >
> > I see the word 'bokeh' mentioned here in lens discussions. What is it?
> >
>
stef ten bras
McEowen wrote in message <19990820113418...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
>I guess the rest of us were concentrating on the IN focus portions of our
>photographs . . .
Yes this is an mistake often made when taking pictures.
For professional foto's you also concentrate on the parts which are not
in focus. This can be background but also other subjects or even the
same subject.
Large format camera's are extremely usefull to limit the part which is
in focus.
Personaly I like pictures with a limited DOF.
stef,
McEowen
in focus. This can be background but also other subjects or even the
Sounds like what you're referring to is good compostion and taking care to
avoid distracting elements in the photo. That to me speaks of the
photographer's ability. I thought this thread was about some magical quality of
the lens itself . . .
<<Personaly I like pictures with a limited DOF.>>
When appropriate, of course. Other times DOF is necessary to communicate
context, relationships, etc. Surely no one shoots ONLY photos with limited
depth of field.
Chuck Ross
(McEowen) wrote:
You seem to be missing the point; this thread was indeed about some
property of the lens itself, i.e. the -quality- of the out of focus
portions of the image. Not every lens results in pleasing circles of
confusion.
Only me...
Per Gunnar Jensen <per.gunn...@manu.no> wrote in message
news:37BD7BA5...@manu.no...
> Lets summarize:
> 1: Now we all know you don't use Leica.
> 2: You must have a couple of Nicanolta lenses with real bad boke.
> ;-)
Point one is rather obvious, and as for point two: I don't consider the
out of focus parts to be that important. Besides, the 7 leaf diaphragmed
Nikkors are hardly bad, are they? A pointless debate. My Zenzanon primes
for my Bronica produce prints that even you Leica users can only dream of.
It's all relative. Face it, you've paid FAR too much money for your optics
;-)
David.
McEowen
confusion.>>
How do you explain the difference? Is it a function of the shape of the
aperture (i.e. how round the opening) or is it a function of the glass.
Specifically, what qualities.
I admit the whole concept sounds like so much b.s. to me but I'm willing to
learn. How do you qualify it? Do you only see this "bokeh" phenomenon when
working close and the back ground is REALLY buzzed out or does it happen at
other distances and degrees of unsharpness?
Inquiring minds want to know.
LL
With all due respect, the term "bokeh" may be meaningless to you but its not
to me. I currently own Minolta AF lenses and one of the primary reasons I own
them is because of their pleasing bokeh/the way they render the out of focus
portions (circles of confusion/etc.) of the image (not to mention their
in-focus qualities of sharpness, color rendition, etc.). There is no way you
can tell me that I am justifying spending more than other brands because
Minolta doesn't cost more than most of the other Japaneese (and especially
the German) brands and by no means is Minolta a "snob brand" touted by people
trying to justify their expensive lens expenditures (Minolta, who?). There
are many other brands of lenses whose bokeh I find smooth/pleasing and don't
cost that much - Pentax (I like the smoothness of the bokeh of their 50mm
f/1.7 A lens in particular), many Canon lenses have excellent bokeh qualities
even though I am not overly fond of the non L lenses' image quality (I owned
a 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Canon USM EF lens that had very pleasing bokeh in its
out of focus areas but was really nothing special in terms of the sharpness
of its in focus rendition). There are other brands/lenses that have excellent
sharpness/contrast but harsh bokeh (I believe the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 may be
among them. I owned and used this lens but was not a good judge of or even
looking for its bokeh qualities back when I was using it). All this goes to
show is that some people who are aware of see bokeh or not and/or are pleased
with the bokeh of their particular lenses or not. In my opinion both
sharpness (edge contrast, overall contrast, resolution, tonal separation,
etc.) and bokeh are important qualities but if you use a lens always stopped
down or focused at infinity bokeh is not going to be a tremendous priority to
know or care about.
Regards,
Lewis Lang
In article <7pjnpl$h0g$1...@gxsn.com>,
"Only me..." <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Chuck Fry <chu...@best.com> wrote in message
> news:7phbfn$ljh$1...@shell5.ba.best.com...
> >
> > I see the word 'bokeh' mentioned here in lens discussions. What is it?
> >
>
> It's a meaningless term that Leica owners use to justify spending 150%
> more than everyone else on a lens that's perhaps 6% better than everyone
> else's.
>
> David.
>
>
--
Photography without a mind is like Kodachrome without sunshine - LL
Visit my web site "LEWISVISION" - http://members.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Fine art photography from the real to the surreal and beyond!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Joe
-------------------snipped------------------------------
>And finally, for a really excellent PDF (Acrobat) 5-page dissertation
>on bokeh, go to http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/ATVB.pdf
It is interesting reading, but less than convincing evidence.
I don't know about you guys , but I could not really tell what kind of
diaphram shapes by looking at the example pics without being told
beforehand, and I could not really convinced myself all this talk
about bokeh is anything beyond the placebo effect.
Joe
Kay Wee ANG
http://www.princeton.edu/~law/bokeh/
a webpage of bokeh:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/bokeh.html
a quite technical doc (here you can see an extreme of bad bokeh, the
triangular tower in the blured background consist of double images of
it):
http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/ATVB.pdf
i'm convinced that bokeh is not BS. you?
note: the content of the above links belongs to their respective
authors. I can only show you the link. Whether you believe it or not is
up to you.
Kay Wee ANG
Norcimmus
>1: Now we all know you don't use Leica.
>2: You must have a couple of Nicanolta lenses with real bad boke.
>;-)
David uses Nikon equipment, among other things. The vast majority of posts
which question the importance of bokeh are from Nikon people. Perhaps they
always get such good bokeh from their Nikkors that they lose sight of the fact
that users of lesser equipment may not be so fortunate. :-^
BTW, Minolta has a reputation for good bokeh.
Norc
Finnegan T. Tsai
Kay Wee ANG <kw...@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>a real-life pictorial example:
>http://www.princeton.edu/~law/bokeh/
>
Wow!!! Now I dont care what bokeh is or whether it does exist
in this real world or not. What I only care is where I can
find this beautiful and lovely lady in the pictures.
Do you happen to have her email address? j/k :)
-finney
Finnegan T. Tsai
>With all due respect, the term "bokeh" may be meaningless to you but its not
>to me. I currently own Minolta AF lenses and one of the primary reasons I own
Hi Lewis
Just a quick question... have you ever tried out the new Minolta lens
which you can control the 'bokeh'? I am really curious about
its real world performance.
BTW, I agree with you, Minolta does pay more attention to the rendition
of out-of-focus area, compared to other Japanese lens makers.
-finney
kopi...@my-deja.com
How do you explain the difference? Is it a function of the shape of the
aperture (i.e. how round the opening) or is it a function of the glass.
Specifically, what qualities.
<<<<<<<<<<
The quality of the out-of-focus areas, or "bokeh," is integral to the
optical design of a lens. It hinges most strongly on the lens designer's
overcorrection or undercorrection of spherical aberrations.
Overcorrection of spherical aberrations can result in doubling of
out-of-focus background lines and harsh tonal gradations (that is, not
rendering a broad range of tonalities in those gradations) and abrupt
edges to background shapes. The 50 mm f/1.4 Nikkor may best display
these effects.
Undercorrection of spherical aberrations will generally yield a broader
range of background tonal gradations, with a smoother look and smoother
edges which better blend together into what some photographers consider
a more pleasing background. That broader, smoother rendering of tones
usually also means a more natural appearance to the background. The
Leica 35 mm Summicron M may best show these attributes. The 35 mm f/2
EOS lens in the Canon line and the 85 mm f/1.4D lens in the Nikon line
are also fine examples. The Nikon 105 mm and 135 mm DC lenses change
"bokeh" by changing spherical aberration.
The number of aperture blades in a lens contributes to the shape of, and
therefore the smoothness of, highlights. But this is not the determining
factor of whether a lens has what is genereally seen as good or bad
"bokeh." The 85 mm f/1.4D Nikkor, with more pleasing backgrounds, has 9
aperture blades. But the 50 mm f/1.2 Nikkor, generally considered to
have displeasing "bokeh," also has 9 blades. On the other hand, the
75-150 Series E Nikkor and the 60 mm Micro-Nikkor, both with pleasing
background "bokeh," have the standard Nikon 7 aperture blades.
Generally, if a lens has pleasing "bokeh" in the background, it will
have displeasing character to out-of-focus areas in the foreground. Or
if the lens shows harsh background character it probabably shows
pleasing characteristics to out-of-focus foreground areas. But since the
background more often has out-of-focus areas than the foreground,
background "bokeh" is ususally what is considered in a lens.
Lens design is a science and an art of balancing corrections to optical
aberrations. The lens designer decides what, to him or her, is
suffucient correction of one problem without creating what is, again in
the designer's eye, unacceptable characteristics to the trade-off.
The best explanation of "bokeh" is in a series of articles in the
May/June, 1997 issue of Photo Techniques magazine (the American magazine
of that name, with an "s" at the end of the title; not the
similarly-named British publication). Back issues can be purchased
on-line at their website at http://www.phototechmag.com/
Larry
Finnegan T. Tsai
Mmmm... originally I thought there were only four kinds of Nikon people:
Pro-Photodo'ers, Anti-Photodo'ers, Pro 24-120 zoom'ers,
and Pro 28-105 zoom'ers.
Looks like there is a new species just born: Bad-bokehers.
*Sigh* It is getting harder and harder for me to find my real Nikon
identity.
-finney
Chuck Ross
(McEowen) wrote:
> <<Not every lens results in pleasing circles of
> confusion.>>
>
> How do you explain the difference? Is it a function of the shape of the
> aperture (i.e. how round the opening) or is it a function of the glass.
> Specifically, what qualities.
Basically, I gather it's a function of several things about the lens
design, including coma, spherical aberration and the shape of the diaphragm.
>
> I admit the whole concept sounds like so much b.s. to me but I'm willing to
> learn. How do you qualify it? Do you only see this "bokeh" phenomenon when
> working close and the back ground is REALLY buzzed out or does it happen at
> other distances and degrees of unsharpness?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
There's a lot written about the bokeh of various lenses, and much of it
is on the web. My first experience with really great bokeh was around
1970, when I got a Nikon 105mm/f2.5 lens, a lens with some of the most
beautiful bokeh ever encountered. Only at the time, I had no idea what
"bokeh" was, or whether there even was such a word, but there was no
denying the quality of images. Out-of-focus highlights were rendered in
absolutely luminescent circles, and the sharp areas of the image were
needle sharp. Some lenses have a nasty bokeh; including the Canon
28-105, altho the lens is quite sharp and contrasty otherwise.
I can assure you and others, the quality of bokeh is definitely not
a "placebo" effect.
Chuck Ross
<kw...@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> a real-life pictorial example:
> http://www.princeton.edu/~law/bokeh/
This is a really -EXCELLENT- example of good and bad bokeh! The top
picture's background is a classic picture of bad bokeh, while the bottom
picture shows beautiful, creamy bokeh in the background. Both picture's
backgrounds are equally out of focus.
Anyone who doesn't see this immediately needs new glasses!
Norcimmus
>Kay Wee ANG wrote:
>>a real-life pictorial example:
>>http://www.princeton.edu/~law/bokeh/
>What I only care is where I can
>find this beautiful and lovely lady in the pictures.
>
>Do you happen to have her email address? j/k :)
Too skinny. You wouldn't be interested at all, believe me!!!
On the other hand, I too would like to have her email address, but only for
professional reasons, you understand. ;-) ;-)
Norc
Chuck Ross
I rarely quote entire posts, but this time I wanted to...
In article <37BDC0DF...@my-deja.com>, kopi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> How do you explain the difference? Is it a function of the shape of the
> aperture (i.e. how round the opening) or is it a function of the glass.
> Specifically, what qualities.
> <<<<<<<<<<
>
--
Kevin Krumwiede
mce...@aol.com says...
> How do you explain the difference? Is it a function of the shape of the
> aperture (i.e. how round the opening) or is it a function of the glass.
I'm no physicist, but as I understand it, the two factors affecting it
most are the shape of the aperture and the distribution of light within
the aperture. Out-of-focus points take on the shape of the aperture, so
the more blades you have the closer you are to a smooth circular blur.
The light distribution factor is harder to explain. Basically, if the
optical design concentrates too much of the light around the edges of the
aperture, thin objects will appear as side-by-side double images rather
than single blurred lines. The extreme case is inherent in the design of
a mirror lens. Somebody posted a link to a very good example of this...
Krum
Paul Chefurka
Ross) wrote:
>In article <37BDBE0B...@ee.ualberta.ca>, Kay Wee ANG
><kw...@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
>> a real-life pictorial example:
>> http://www.princeton.edu/~law/bokeh/
>
>
>This is a really -EXCELLENT- example of good and bad bokeh! The top
>picture's background is a classic picture of bad bokeh, while the bottom
>picture shows beautiful, creamy bokeh in the background. Both picture's
>backgrounds are equally out of focus.
>
>Anyone who doesn't see this immediately needs new glasses!
There you have it, folks. An incontroverible illustration of the
subject. David "Only Me"? Over to you...
Paul Chefurka
Richard Wong
Chuck Ross
<zen...@idirect.com> wrote:
> Conventional lenses are 'back' blur anyway, so what's the big deal?
Is this really Dave "Only me"?
Wilfred Kazoks
If you go to this link http://www.princeton.edu/~law/bokeh/
you will see a fairly clear illustration of the concept of how an out of
focus area is rendered in different ways. OK so this example seems to
be created by using a lens that can control the optical design
characteristic which strongly influences "BOKEH".
Other lenses will probably display the effect somewhere in between
depending on the design compromises choosen. It is something lens
designers have always known about. I have a 1974 brochure for a Minolta
Himatic E rangefinder and the "BOKEH" of the lens was a feature of the
cameras design. A pair of photgraphs not unlike the examples in the link
above were used to illustrate the efect.
The out of focus areas are in my opinion every bit as important as the
infocus subject.
Regards Wilfred
LL
Film, then food, then lenses, (then cameras and developing if I'm really
rich). In answer to your question what the previous sentence refers to are my
priorities/lack of finances. I am afraid the 135 f/2.8 T/4.5 lens you refer
to is on my wish list due to financial/other considerations. Fortunately
enough for me anyway I am more than pleased with both the smoothness of the
bokeh and the selective depth of field of my 70-210 f/4 Maxxum lens. I like
to use it on my 600si, on my Leitz tiltall from far back (15 feet or more) at
around 100-200mm to blur out the background and to enlarge pleasant sections
out of the surroundings when I do portraits. However, the "variable bokeh?"
(my terminologogy) of the 135mm you describe intrigues me even though this is
a manual focus Maxxum lens (an oxymoron if ever I heard one). I believe
Popular Photography did a small picture comparison shot of a flower(s) (don't
ask me w/c issue, I'm not sure) a while aga showing the effects this lens and
its double aperture/etc. had on bokeh. Quite honestly, although Nikon seems
to be adding more 9 bladed (circular?) aperture lenses, I wish alll the lens
manufacturers (major and indies) would make bokeh more of a priority in their
lens designs. Up until the last few years, the sharpness of a lens was the
end all and be all of qualities to search for, but ever since a magazine
(Camera and Darkroom?) came out with their articles on bokeh it seems that
somebody in Japan was listening and starting to make this quality a priority
too. As to whether we'll see more lenses/designs that pay attention to bokeh,
as my photographer friend Ken Thomson likes to say, "we shall see..."
Regards,
Lewis (if it ain't bokeh don't fix it) Lang ;-)
In article <7pkg2g$4vp$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
--
Gary Frost
Get a Holga. It should cure your identity crisis with your camera.
Paul Chefurka
>Get a Holga. It should cure your identity crisis with your camera.
I heard it cured you from being able to identify the thing in your
hands as a camera...
Gary Frost
Yes, I think that's how it works....
LL
You gave us an excellent, clear, concise explanation of of "bokeh." However,
I am curious as to why you refer to the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 lens as having
"displeasing 'bokeh'." I own a copy of Photographer's Forum magazine
(February 1999) and bought it specifically for the article on Carrie
Branovan, a childrens fashion photographer who, and I'll quote from the
article "shoots almost exclusively wide open, using Nikon's fastest lens. On
my 50mm lens shooting at f/1.2, I'm able to shoot in almost no light. I
strive for very shallow depth of field which has a magical quality"." I was
especially pleased with the bokeh of the shots on pages 48, 50 and 51.
Perjaps the shallow depth of field on these shots is so alluring to me in
effect that my eye doesn't concentrate on the displeasing bokeh? Or perhaps
this lens's bokeh is not so displeasing to me anyway. Given, the out of focus
highlights behind the girl and the fountain in the upper left corner of page
48 look more like "coins/discs" with edges that are slightly brighter than
their darker centers, however, there is not so mush of a contrast between the
inner and outer parts of the circles of confusion that my eye is drawn there
and away from the subject and shallow depth of field effect. Why do you feel
the 50mm f/1.2's bokeh is "displeasing" - I'd really like to know. Its her
shots/use of this lens that has made me want to save up for a 50mm f/1.2
Nikon (and I consider myself a wide angle man!). Also, I've heard that
Nikon's 58mm Noctilux has less pleasing bokeh than even the 50mm f/1.2
"regular" Nikkor due to the Noctilux's better correction of aberrations. Is
this true? Have you shot with either one of these Nikkors? Whart are your
conclusions about their bokehs?
Regards,
Lewis (curious about bokeh) Lang
In article <37BDC0DF...@my-deja.com>,
kopi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> How do you explain the difference? Is it a function of the shape of the
> aperture (i.e. how round the opening) or is it a function of the glass.
--
R. Saylor
Ross) wrote:
>In article <37be...@nemo.idirect.com>, "Richard Wong"
><zen...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
>> Conventional lenses are 'back' blur anyway, so what's the big deal?
>
>Is this really Dave "Only me"?
At least Richard Wong and Dave are not as frustrating as that nut who
kept insisting that with a perfect lens nothing would ever be out of
focus. (This happened a few months ago.)
Richard S.
Joe
pics with different depth of field since diaphram size and depth of
field are not independent; who is to say the socalled bokeh is not the
result of different depth of field.
Joe
McEowen
below I believe provides some common ground from which I can momentarily stand
with my bokeh friends and then graciously part company.
Some lenses stand the test of time as "CLASSICS" -- the 105mm f2.5 Nikkor
mentioned below is one of my favorites -- Those of us who have been involved in
photography for awhile (in my case 25 years) have known this. In my circle we
just called them "sweet lenses." Maybe we never stopped to examine what it was
we liked about them. We just knew they were magical. It seems that folks have
started to put a name on at least one quality of these magic lenses in an
attempt to describe what makes them special.
I can accept that. Bokeh it is. But then you have to ask the question "so
what?" Buy the glass you think will help you communicate and then go do it.
Make nice pictures. Don't come back until you do . . .
kopi...@my-deja.com
First, if you like the background blur that a lens gives, then it very
much is good "bokeh" for your purposes. As the controversy this subject
stirs (in other posts, not yours) illustrates, appreciation of "bokeh"
or consideration of whether it is even important is as personal a matter
with each photographer as is appreciation of any artistic effect.
Specifically in regards to the 50 mm f/1.2 Nikkor, you describe one of
the classic ways defocused images are projected by a lens when you write
"the out of focus highlights behind the girl and the fountain in the
upper left corner of page 48 look more like "coins/discs" with edges
that are slightly brighter than their darker centers....."
An out-of-focus point of light is projected by a lens onto film
primarily in one of three ways:
1. A disk of uniform density. This usually happens only when a lens is
stopped down (so, to address Joe's post, yes, the "bokeh" of a lens can
change as the aperture setting changes).
2. A disk with a bright center and dark ring, or edge. This results in
better definition to out-of-focus subjects, and happens when spherical
aberrations are less controlled by the lens designer. This look is more
typical in Leica, Zeiss and Minolta lenses.
3. A disk with a bright ring and dark center (which is what you
describe seeing). This generally results in poorer definition to
out-of-focus subjects and doubling of out-of-focus shapes. And this
happens when spherical aberrations are more tightly controlled by the
lens designer. This look is more common among Nikon lenses.
(Although, let me be clear in citing manufacturers, that there are
exception to these generalities in all lens lines. Except maybe Zeiss --
while I'm not familiar with all Zeiss lenses, I've yet to see one with
bright ring design.)
Personally, I shoot with Nikons. But I dislike the 50 mm Nikkors because
of their strong use of bright ring "bokeh." It's not an inherintly bad
look. It does not in and of itself make a photo bad. It's just a look I
dislike. That's my personal artistic preference, nothing more (for a
normal lens I use the 35 mm f/1.4 Nikkor -- not the classicly great
"bokeh," but far prefereable to my eye to any of the 50 mm Nikkors).
Larry
Chuck Ross
another word, which I cannot remember to save my life, that describes
certain "natural" features of materials. Also a Japanese word that's
not duplicated in other languages that I'm aware of, but once you see it,
you know what it refers to. Anyone know that word?
In article <x7g11d2...@ukkii.tky2.3web.ne.jp>, k...@tky2.3web.ne.jp wrote:
> >>>>> In article
<ckross-2008...@207-229-149-190.d.enteract.com>,
ckr...@MYPANTSenteract.com (Chuck Ross) writes:
>
> CR> In article <19990820144435...@ng-ch1.aol.com>, mce...@aol.com
> CR> (McEowen) wrote:
> ...
> CR> There's a lot written about the bokeh of various lenses, and much of it
> CR> is on the web. My first experience with really great bokeh was around
> CR> 1970, when I got a Nikon 105mm/f2.5 lens, a lens with some of the most
> CR> beautiful bokeh ever encountered. Only at the time, I had no idea what
> CR> "bokeh" was, or whether there even was such a word, but there was no
> CR> denying the quality of images.
>
> The word 'bokeh' has been around for a while and used not only
> amongst pros or manufacturers. How long, I am not sure. I was
> reminded of this a while back when I was reading a reprint of a
> review of Nikon F + Nikkor S 50 F2 in Asahi Camera.
>
> To quote, "Nikkor S 50 F2 (subtitle: bokeh is worrisome)
> ... Since the aberration of the lens is not that small, the
> bokeh of the background when used wide open is distasteful and
> tends to deform the objects themselves. ..." (AC. Sept. 1959).
>
> The actual word they use is 'bokeh aji' (taste of bokeh, in
> literal translation) --- a phrase which is still commonly used.
> They use the word non-commitantly with no explanation which
> shows that the word has been around longer than that. I guess I
> should do a literature search at the library one of these days,
> when I have the time. The idea must have been around even
> longer.
>
> Personally, I know about bokeh but there are other things that
> worry me a lot more about my pics. If I become a lot better
> photog, maybe I can worry about bokeh more.
> ---
> Ken Aoki mailto:k...@tky2.3web.ne.jp
li...@ork.net
> At least Richard Wong and Dave are not as frustrating as that nut who
> kept insisting that with a perfect lens nothing would ever be out of
> focus. (This happened a few months ago.)
Except for special shots in which you want a part of the picture blurry,
why should anything in the picture ever be out of focus?
Only me...
Finnegan T. Tsai <ts...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:7pkhlb$5i9$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
>
> Mmmm... originally I thought there were only four kinds of Nikon people:
> Pro-Photodo'ers, Anti-Photodo'ers, Pro 24-120 zoom'ers,
> and Pro 28-105 zoom'ers.
What on earth does all that mean? What's a pro 28-105 zoomer????
You're not making any sense at all, you do know that don't you? ;-)
David.
Only me...
> Just a quick question... have you ever tried out the new Minolta lens
> which you can control the 'bokeh'? I am really curious about
> its real world performance.
If they're that concerned about bokeh, it's probably crap. Sounds like
a gimmick to me.
David.
Only me...
LL <lewi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7pkb4b$9lo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> David:
>
> With all due respect, the term "bokeh" may be meaningless to you but its
not
> to me. I currently own Minolta AF lenses and one of the primary reasons I
own
focus
> portions (circles of confusion/etc
[snip]
Well, that's nice then. However, why are you telling me this? Other
than one comment, that was meant to be a joke for those humour impaired
people on here, I'm not even part of this debate. If you want to know my
views, do a Deja News search on me and you'll get all the stuff I wrote the
last time I entered a thread like this. However, the fact is, after looking
at the "bokeh" of my shots taken with my Nikkors, and then looking at those
taken with Canon, and then Leitz and Zeiss optics, there's not really a vast
amount of difference. I'm not saying that there's no difference, just not
enough to get all excited about. I get lovely smooth, round, flawless out
of focus highlights from all my lenses, both Nikkor, and Zenzanon, and I
really don't see what all the fuss is about, and I certainly don't know why
people insist that you have to buy Zeiss lenses in order to get the best
bokeh at all. Maybe I'm just lucky, and happen to have lenses with good
bokeh or something, but I've certainly never considered bokeh when buying
lenses. I'm FAR more concerned with sharpness, contrast and speed, and so
should you be, as those things are far more important.
David.
R. Saylor
>Except for special shots in which you want a part of the picture blurry,
>why should anything in the picture ever be out of focus?
You're not trying to push my button, are you?
Richard S.
Joe B.
>R. Saylor <rlsa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> At least Richard Wong and Dave are not as frustrating as that nut who
>> kept insisting that with a perfect lens nothing would ever be out of
>> focus. (This happened a few months ago.)
>
>Except for special shots in which you want a part of the picture blurry,
>why should anything in the picture ever be out of focus?
Some people like to do lots of special shots.
Joe B. (remove glop for email)
LL
Thanks once again for taking the time/trouble of answerimg my bokeh questions
so clearly. I take it you don'town the 58mm Nikkor Noctilux so you can't
compare it directly with the regular 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor. Looking at the photos
of Carrie Branovan again I find that the depth of field is so shallow and the
circles of confusion (behind the waterfountain on page 48) are so small
(since they are probably quite aways in the distance and that the transition
from light to dark within the circles of confusion/"coins," though not
"buttery smooth" neither does the difference within the discs' light and dark
areas look so abrupt (the demarcation/transition between light and dark parts
of the discs) that it catches my eye, that any "imperfection" of this bokeh
is more than compensated for by the ultra thin depth of field which sets the
subject (girl and fountain) off into a different world. I find this kind of
visual effect (extremely shallow depth of field at 50mm at f/1.2) far more
pleasing than any of the more obvious/less natural (to me) soft focus effects
that can be achieved with the aid of a soft focus filter attached to the
lens. The wonderful thing about a 50mm f/1.2 (from the pictures that I've
seen) is that, regardless of the bokeh of the blur discs, you are still able
to include some of the environment whilst separating the subject from the
foreground and background planes with a slither of depth of field covering
the subject and the other planes "phasing into focus" and "phasing out of
focus." I find this effect both lyrical, real, and surreal all at the same
time. Even though I have seen and produced myself this kind of effect with a
telephoto (usually at 100mm or more) I prefer the bit of extra environment
and the closeness/intimacy of shooting the subject at a closer distance (at
200mm you need a megaphone or a Western Union telegram to shoot with your
subject and usually its harder to include more of the environment unless you
are photographing from real far back. Its a real shame there are no autofocus
50mm f/1.2 lenses made. Other than the obscenely expensive high quality 50mm
f/1 Canon L EF USM lens it seems that the speed barrier for mass production
50mm AF lenses is stuck at f/1.4. I have shot with Leica M lenses (older
non-aspherics 35mm f/2 Summicron and the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux) which both have
buttery smooth bokeh but the depth of field, though nice and shallow on
theses lenses is not shallow enough for me after seeing the effects you can
get wide open with a 50mm f/1.2. Leica makes a 50mm f/1 M lens that is also
very expensive but like the other M lenses lacks AF (which is nice for more
mobile subjects especially when shooting wide open). I heard rumors of a
autofocus rangefinder 35mm camera with interchangeable lenses Konica? or some
other brand?) that might be able to accept both the manual focus Leica M
lenses as well as newer AF rangefinder lenses but who knows whether they'll
ever have an AF 50mm f/1.2 or faster. Yes, I know with today's fast/pushable
films and zoom oriented lens production an ultra fast 50mm f/1.2 would be a
specialized niche market/virtual anachronism but I still yearn for a normal
lens with a normal field of view that can include a lot of environment yet
blur an out of focus portion of the image like a "virtual telephoto" in
effect. Those are my thoughts/pinings anyway.
Regards, thanks for your answers and happy shooting (whichever bokeh you
prefer),
Lewis Lang
In article <37BEB07D...@my-deja.com>,
--
LL
Why "should I be" FAR more "concerned with sharpness, contrast and speed,"
"as those things are far more important"? I do maximum depth of field shots
at f/16 and higher in which I need everything from a few inches to my lens
out to infinity in sharp focus and shots that are ultra selective focus (a
lot more of these now than I used to) so I do care very much about
sharpness/etc. but bokeh to me is equally important. No one has ever
complained about my 16x20" or 30x40" prints so I must be doing something
right in the sharpness/etc. department. If you are far more concerned about
sharpness/etc. than bokeh, fine, different strokes for different folks. My
tastes run from the large format selective depth of field portraits of Julia
Margaret Cameron to Bresson to Duane Michaels, some of Ansel Adams and
Weston's "f/64 work"/etc., etc. etc. so not only do I appreciate the ultra
depth of field but also the ultra shallow depth of field effects as long as
it fits both the subject and the photographers depth of field. Bokeh (large
blur circles/smooth or otherwise out of focus backgrounds) is no more of a
"gimmick" than large depth of field with its ultra small circles of
confusion. They are both qualities of how a lens images a subject. These
qualities can be used as tools or ignored but they are still there
regardless. If your Nikon and Zenzanons give you the quality/qualities you
want/need, God bless you. But to be a slave to either the f/64 cult of
sharpness (hmmm I wonder how many rocks/trees or line pairs this lens can
resolve) or the "cult of bokeh" ("my lens's bokehs better than your lenses
bokeh) are both meaningless pursuits (in my eyes). Neither is more or less
important - bokeh or ultra sharpness/ultra depth of field are merely tools of
the trade as much as a smile is for a portraitist or a rectilinear ultra wide
angle lens is for a landscape photographer. Use whatever makes the subject
sing. More awareness and/or concern/discussion about bokeh can only be a good
thing if used to appropriately enhance the subject/image by a conscientious
photographer - not every photographer lives in an ultra sharp world. F/64 no
apparent bokeh or F/1.2 with good bokeh, as long as it makes an image sing
their both "still rock 'n roll to me."
Regards,
Lewis (Billy Joel, John Boy, Rama lama ding dong ;-)) Lang
In article <7pms31$ii3$1...@gxsn.com>,
--
-Ken-
Finnegan T. Tsai
>You're not making any sense at all, you do know that don't you? ;-)
>
*Sigh* Dont you know that? Every die hard Nikon fan should have
the brandnew shinning 28-105mm zoom on his/her beloved camera?
Poor me... first, I cant afford the new lens, and the second,
even I have the money, probably every mailorder stores have
run out of the stock. It is very hard to be a true Nikon user,
you know? Wait wait... I even do not have the wonderful 24-120
zoom either!
-finney
Finnegan T. Tsai
>Finney
>
>Film, then food, then lenses, (then cameras and developing if I'm really
>rich). In answer to your question what the previous sentence refers to are my
Hi Lewis,
Thank you for the info. I have to say that you are one of the nicest
people I have met here. A decent and polite post is simply too hard
to find here these days.
Thanks!
-finney
SpooRL
A zoom? on one of my Nikons? Walk-er!
RS
SpooRL
I am partial to some of the effects described here under "bokeh." I find, for
example. that older Nikkor 105mm and 135mm lenses, used with extension, produce
a unique texture in images, particularly in the out-of focus areas, which can
occupy the majority of the frame with macro work. That is why the "Why not just
get a true Nikon Macro lens?" responses to inquiries about using tubes and
bellows are narrow and ignornant-sounding to me.
Spoo
LL
Your welcome. Thanks for your complements. I'm blushing pixels.
Regards,
Lewis Lang
In article <7pnjai$rv6$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
ts...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Finnegan T. Tsai) wrote:
--
Per Gunnar Jensen
or Leitax lenses, though.
:o)
Per Gunnar Jensen wrote:
>
> Lets summarize:
Only me...
> In article <7pms2t$ii3$1...@gxsn.com>,
> Only me... <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > What on earth does all that mean? What's a pro 28-105 zoomer????
> >You're not making any sense at all, you do know that don't you? ;-)
> >
>
> *Sigh* Dont you know that? Every die hard Nikon fan should have
> the brandnew shinning 28-105mm zoom on his/her beloved camera?
Why would I want a 28~105 zoom?
David.
Only me...
> David:
>
> Why "should I be" FAR more "concerned with sharpness, contrast and speed,"
> "as those things are far more important"? I do maximum depth of field
shots
> at f/16 and higher in which I need everything from a few inches to my lens
> out to infinity in sharp focus and shots that are ultra selective focus (a
> lot more of these now than I used to) so I do care very much about
> sharpness/etc. but bokeh to me is equally important. No one has ever
> complained about my 16x20" or 30x40" prints so I must be doing something
> right in the sharpness/etc. department.
If you're that concerned about sharpness, why are you using 35mm? Whenever
sharpness is an issue, away goes the Nikon, and out comes the Bronica. How
can you compete with MF users when you're talking about prints as large as
30x40? Even the best 35mm lens will look decidedly bad when compared to a
same size print from a 6x6 or 6x7 negative.
I've stated my views upon the subject in past threads, so I'm not
getting into another debate about it. I don't agree, simple as that.
Although there are clearly differences between the back focus
characteristics of one lens against another, 95% of all clients will
probably not even be aware of them. When you're photography pays your
mortgage, sharpness, contrast, and above all, the image itself is the
important thing. Most in this thread seem to forget that. You must spend
so much time looking at the background, that your photography must suffer as
a result.
David.
William Jameson
: Btw, I'm a Nicanolta user myself. Almost all my friends use Carl Zuiko
: or Leitax lenses, though.
: :o)
They do that so you won't borrow them. :-;
Bill Jameson
Aguyathome
sacrifice raw carrots for Bokeh by tossing them into the great volcano, Mana
Poopoo will have greater depth of field." It is rumoured that the great Ansel
Adams visited the volcano Mana Poopoo as a child on summer break.
LL
On the contrary, my photography has gained from the awareness I have spent on
both the in focus and out of focus areas of my images. To say that my
photography has suffered as a result of spending "so much time looking at the
background" is a spurious jibe at best. Have you seen any of my photography?
Do you even know what type of work I do? Do you even know the quality of my
slides/negs and the resulting prints I make? No, because it seems it is
easier for you to make your jibes without any basis in reality. Since I make
fine art prints up to 16x20" (and formerly out to 20x30" and 30x40") and use
the 35mm format my quality standards have to be much higher not lower than
most other commercial photographers. I find that the main problem in printing
large prints is not the camera lens, the film type or even the format but the
ability of the enlarger lens to make massive blow ups without suffering much
in degradation (loss of sharpness, color fringing, etc.). Obviously if you
start with a larger format there is a lot less magnification/degradation of
image quality to reach the same size blow up. But sharpness isn't everything
(and neither is bokeh). They are just tools to be aware of/utilized. I have
no idea who your clients are, what their standards are, etc. But I do know
what my standards are for image quality and they exceede most peoples
(clients or not). I frequently judge prints' sharpness from less than 10" to
right on top of the print no matter what the size of the print. Occaisionally
I'll even use a loup up against a test print. In my (slightly) more
persnickety past I've put slides under a microscope at 20x and more to see
where a film/lens combination begins to break up with reagards to
sharpness/grain. One area I do agree with you is that the image is the most
important thing and I (and my clients) have found that there is nothing lost
in going with 35mm (especially in surrealism, photojournalism, actor's head
shots and portraits up to about 16x20" or so) and often much is gained in
flexibility and convenience. The image itself is more important than format
and past a certain high level of quality (in my opinion) you run into
diminishing returns both in cost and what you can achieve with the equipment.
I love the quality/tonality of a 6x7 cm format image but for large depth of
field from just a half a foot all the way out to infinity it is simply not
the best tool to use for my wide angle work. Plus I don't like being shackled
to a weighty ball and chain when doing fast action people work or even with
slower paced portraiture or fine art people or still life set ups. I have
used 4x5" a lot in the past (mostly for still life work) but find that K-40
Tungsten (and Leica lenses) are more conducive to my way of seeing as opposed
to viewing an image upside down under a dark cloth. Even with an (4x5"
internegative) off of the original 35mm Kodachrome I find I can keep contrast
under control while little is lost in the way of sharpness. So again, for me
the format is just a tool and so is sharpness/tonality. Image quality is
something to be strived for, and to be aware of not worshipped. My
photography (image quality as well as more improtantly "creativity"/the
quality of the ideas/execution of the image has not suffered at all for
having been attentive to bokeh characteristics of lenses (as well as
sharpness), has all your attention to /worshipping? of sharpness improved the
creative quality of your images any? If not, why should I be concerned with
your preoccupation with sharpness alone? Why is sharpness (past a certain
level of quality) "FAR more important" than bokeh? You persue/achieve your
sharpness goals and I'll achieve/pursue my sharpness/bokeh goals. But don't
knock my photography without having seen it just to make yourself feel good
about your penchant for sharpness. If you are so concerned with sharpness as
opposed to bokeh why are you even on this bokeh thread?
Lewis Lang
In article <7pomkh$581$1...@gxsn.com>,
"Only me..." <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
--
Finnegan T. Tsai
>
Hey, same here! I use exclusively those Nikkor primes and zooms
rated over 4.0 by Photodo! How about you? Hehehehehehe
-finney
Geir Eivind Mork
says...
> > which you can control the 'bokeh'? I am really curious about
> > its real world performance.
> If they're that concerned about bokeh, it's probably crap. Sounds like
> a gimmick to me.
J. Greedy showed some test photos he have taken using the 135 STF lens
and I must say if that kind of bokeh is gimmick, it's just the gimmick my
eyes like to see in the out of focus area of images. If it wasn't for my
lack of spare cash, I would have bought it weeks ago.
--
[ http://Geir.Eivind.Mork.com ]-[ Namsos/Norway ]
* Minolta 700si / Autocord user
Kell Soopree & Sahkreb Luuhhh
>>why should anything in the picture ever be out of focus?
>
LOL!!!!
Ah, me, this was a GREAT laff! Thanks, guys!
Gary Frost
film resolution & grain is a big limiting factor in ultra-large prints.
Resolution and grain aside though, the nicest ultra-enlarged 35mm work
I have seen was done with a 4X5 inter-neg. Not precisely sharp but
suprisingly smooth.
Gary Frost
LL
Are J. Greedy's flower photos with the 135mm STF on the net? If so, what's
the URL so I/we can view them.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Lewis Lang
In article <MPG.122a85fb4...@news.online.no>,
--
LL
I no longer do 30x40's and rarely do even 20x30's anymore, most of my work is
16x20" and below now. This I don't consider "hard"/taxing on my ability as a
photographer or a printer. Any decent (O.K., very high quality) Nikon, Canon,
Leitz, Zeiss, etc. can deliver superb quality at standard viewing distances
(about 2 feet or so) when using Ektar 25 (now discontinued), Kodachrome 25,
and possibly (although I've shot it but haven't blown up huge prints from it)
Velvia. I've even had made (someone else printing to my specifications)
20x30's from Kodachrome 64 35mm w/c looked excellent from standard viewing
distances and "damn decent" when viewed ultra close (10 inches or less). No,
it won't be grainless at 16x20" and beyond but neither will my results be
"grainy" - or at least the grain doesn't intefere with the viewing of the
image. Even 4x5" film has grain when you blow it up to 16x20" and beyond if
you look close enough but I have long since given up being a "grain police"
(the attitude of "look, I can spot grain therefore my day is ruined" - I'm
much happier listening to Sting and his old band "The Police") and accept
high quality 16x20's and under without the ever-lengthening "chimpanzee arms"
I get from trying to focus via a chain an enlarger raised up to nearly its
maximum height for 30x40's. Now I enjoy my photography and high photographic
quality without being a slave to "ultimate quality." Happiness is in the
choosing/doing and I choose to make higher quality 16x20"s and spend my time
in the light/outdoors doing my people/etc. photography instead of living like
a mole in a darkroom trying to figure out how not to send a color paper into
reciprocity failure/color crossover when I made humoungous prints requiring
several minutes for exposure/dodging/burning. Oddly enough I enjoy the gritty
realism/surrealism of a slightly grainy 16x20" print made from TMax 400 and
"toned" through color filtration in an enlarger. Its by no means as fine
grained as Tech Pan/other fine grained films but I like the sharp edged
grittiness the grain has with this film. If I want ultra smooth tones and
great sharpness I'll expose Ilford XP2 Super at E.I. 250, possibly shoot with
my studio monolites at about f/13 or so and limit my enlargement size to a
mere 8x for ultra sharp, large/closely cropped headshots - with this black
and white chromogenic film and the elements just described I can get quality
8x10" prints that begin to approach 2 14 inch prints in sharpness/tonality. I
hear Fuji will be coming out with an ultra fine grained chrome film that will
be less grainey than Kodachrome 25 or Velvia, but I'm not absolutely sure
about its release date or what it will be called. Saturation a little higher
than pProvia/Sensia but not a "Velvia killer." I probably won't be making any
huge (larger than 16x20") blow ups from this film but the lack of grain is
tempting. In the meantime I concentrate on my photography which, even when
paying, for me is a synonym for fun. Konic Impresa is very good but oh for
the days of Ektar 25... To each their own...
Happy shooting (Tech Pan or whatever...).
Regards,
Lewis Lang
In article <37C0863F...@home.com>,
Gary Frost
C-prints with ektar 25 & reala. I'm just starting to do B&W.
I went up to 11X14 in 35mm and decided to use a larger film for larger
prints. The "proper viewing distance" theory implies that there is
no limit to enlargement, you just keep backing up to view the print.
Sometimes large prints (or paintings..) have a level of detail or
something that draws you in to look closer. Sometimes visible grain
or softness is not distracting and works for the print. Sometimes
these photographic artifacts work against the print.
Here's how it works for me, though I haven't explored the upper
bounds of 4X5 magnification...there's reason why Chris Burkett uses
an 8X10.
35mm: 4X6 to 8X10 ...max 11X14 4x - 8x 11x mag.
med format(6X9): 8X10 to 16X20 ...max 20X24 4x - 7x max 9x
4X5: 16X20 to 20X24 ...max? 4x to 5x ...could go higher
I use only Nikkor primes for 35mm. (for the big enlargements)
I'm using quality enlarger lenses from Schneider & Rodenstock, the
grain is nicely resolved in the print. Results agree with MTF and
grain data on the films. Yes, it's too bad Ektar 25 is no longer
made, and nothing has replaced it for grain & resolution in C41.
I was hoping (based on what I read) to get 16X20 from 35mm...
But then I might never have tried 4X5, now my favorite camera.
Gary Frost
Only me...
> David:
>
> On the contrary, my photography has gained from the awareness I have spent
on
> both the in focus and out of focus areas of my images. To say that my
> photography has suffered as a result of spending "so much time looking at
the
> background" is a spurious jibe at best. Have you seen any of my
photography?
No I haven't. Do you have a URL I could point my browser at? Is the
one in your signature file a web site URL that will take me to your work?
I'll give you my unbiased opinion if you want it.. or even if you don't for
that matter ;-)
> Do you even know what type of work I do?
Judging by your pre-occupation with bokeh, I would hazard a guess at
portrait shots taking up a sizeable amount of your portfolio.
Do you even know the quality of my
> slides/negs and the resulting prints I make? No, because it seems it is
> easier for you to make your jibes without any basis in reality.
I wouldn't go that far. I base it upon the fact that a lot of people
who regularly get embroiled in these threads, suddenly start debating with a
passion they never seem to exhibit in other threads. If I'm wrong, then I'm
wrong; if I'm right then I'm right. It's just an opinion at the end of the
day.
>Since I make
> fine art prints up to 16x20" (and formerly out to 20x30" and 30x40") and
use
> the 35mm format my quality standards have to be much higher not lower than
> most other commercial photographers.
Your standards of practice, of course, but the standards of your work
will be lower in terms of technical standards, because you're outclassed by
format size. My comment was out of real curiosity: Why DO you insist upon
using 35mm commercially, when you are far more likely to sell prints if you
use medium format? I use, and adore 35mm, but I'm also a realist. If
sharpness is an issue, I use medium format.
>I find that the main problem in printing
> large prints is not the camera lens, the film type or even the format but
the
> ability of the enlarger lens to make massive blow ups without suffering
much
> in degradation (loss of sharpness, color fringing, etc.).
Perhaps this plays a part, but you can not ignore the fact that 6x6 has
a neg size slightly over 3.5 times that of 35mm, so it's beyond argument
that it's 3.5 times sharper, and more detailed, if all else is equal, which
it usually is. The disadvantage is the format, not the enlarging lens,
which, if it was, would reduce medium format negs to the same quality,
surely? The fact that the same lens can enlarge a 6x6 neg, and produce a
superior print would lead me to believe that it's the 35mm neg that's the
weak link, not the enlarger objective.
>. In my (slightly) more
> persnickety past I've put slides under a microscope at 20x and more to see
> where a film/lens combination begins to break up with reagards to
> sharpness/grain.
I think this is where I start to wonder. If you go to such extreme
lengths to ensure, examine, and endeavour to achieve sharpness, how can you
limit yourself to 35mm? I'm simply curious, nothing more.
The image itself is more important than format
> and past a certain high level of quality (in my opinion) you run into
> diminishing returns both in cost and what you can achieve with the
equipment.
What? A Bronica SQ-Ai with 80mm, 120 back and waist level finder costs
less than a Nikon F5 (body only), so how can it be a case of diminishing
returns? We've reached a point where high end 35mm gear costs no less than
medium format. You get MUCH more quality for no more outlay.
> I love the quality/tonality of a 6x7 cm format image but for large depth
of
> field from just a half a foot all the way out to infinity it is simply not
> the best tool to use for my wide angle work.
What has depth of field got to do with format? If you were THAT
concerned about it, you'd be using a field camera, with movements and small
apertures that can control depth of field AND perspective to a MUCH higher
degree than 35mm ever will be able to.
Plus I don't like being shackled
> to a weighty ball and chain when doing fast action people work or even
with
> slower paced portraiture or fine art people or still life set ups.
A Nikon F5 with 105mm Nikkor weighs more than a Bronica SQ with 150mm
Zenzanon.
>has all your attention to /worshipping? of sharpness improved the
> creative quality of your images any? If not, why should I be concerned
with
> your preoccupation with sharpness alone?
I'm not pre-occupied with it. I just use medium format, where it's par
far the course, and don't worry about it.
>Why is sharpness (past a certain
> level of quality) "FAR more important" than bokeh?
Simply because lack of sharpness will not be tolerated by anyone, but
few would criticise a photo for it's bokeh characteristics.
>If you are so concerned with sharpness as
> opposed to bokeh why are you even on this bokeh thread?
I foolishly thought I could post a humorous comment, and have it taken
in the spirit it was delivered, but it would appear not.
David.
Only me...
I visited your web site, but it appears not to work.
David.
LL
You wouldn't happen to be from Oregon or Washington State would you? I used
to (and still do occaisionally) print at a Lab in Portland Oregon called
U-develop. Excellent place to do your own darkroom work (no, they don't pay
me to say this, I wish, I've just been going there for years...). Anyway,
back to what you said. I personally have found that there are different
levels of (high) quality required for different types of photography at
cetain print sizes. I print my 35mm full frame (whether from the original
chrome or a 4x5 interneg off of that chrome. This turns out to be "only" a
12.5x or 13x enlargement given at least a 1/4 of an inch for the 2 narrowest
borders on the paper and letting the other 2 "fatter" borders fall equally.
Since I rarely if ever crop, instead of saying I make 12.5x or 13x
enlargements I say I make 16x20's since that's the size of the paper I'm
using even though I don't use all of the paper for the image. So really I am
a lot closer to your "maximum" magnification of 11x than you might think.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, the magority of my work is people work
and you can get away with a lot less finer grain (although the grain is still
relatively fine off of the slow Kodachromes, Ektar 25, and I suppose, Velvia)
when peoples attention is on the people/characters, the idea of the shot
(many of my shots are highly conceptual, or the situation the character's in.
Although I like a nice grainless sky, a little grain (or even alot of grain)
wouldn't harm and might enhance many of my shots depending on each specific
shot I do. Resolution and edge sharpness need to be enough to carry the
details of the scene. Since I am not going after tiny rocks in the distance,
the detail in the bark of a tree, or a sky as smooth/grainless as marble or
jade 35mm more than fullfills my (and others') needs with this type of shot.
If people are going ultra close to my prints its to see more story-telling
details not to determine if the details have been resolved to the nth degree.
Landscape photography is another matter. Unless someone is going after highly
grainy moody landscapes then the name of the game is (the lack of grain)
since this type of formalistic photography relies on/people expect usually
grainless skies and the butterly smooth tonality that only medium format (at
smaller print sizes) and large format (at larger print sizes) can give. If I
was doing landscapes I'd probably be doing 8x10's or at least 4x5's for my
original format because part of the experience of viewing the landscape print
is the "ahhhhhhh" you get from looking at the smooth tonality and
grainlessness which makes you feel you are more looking at the actual scene
through the "window" of the print. Grain would usually interfere in this type
of photography unless the image was spectacular enough to compensate, and
even then... However, for me and most of my needs 35mm is fine and I am quite
happy to continue making my "virtual 16x20's and smaller prints knowing that
my quality exceedes most people/viewers of people photography. Heck, compared
with look of blow ups from Tri-X and its ilk at larger print sizes the look
of my finer grained 35mm work is "virtual large (O.K., medium) format quality
in its impact.
Happy shooting with whatever format rings your bell :-).
Regards,
Lewis (Let's hear it for Super 8! ;-)) Lang
In article <37C16A77...@home.com>,
LL
IÄ…ll try to answer your previous post to me and your present post to me in
this post. I canÄ…t promise IÄ…ll be concise but I will try to be thorough ;-).
FIRST
Regarding your having problems accessing my web site/getting it to work. I
really donÄ…t know what the problem is so all I can do is suggest you copy the
URL below and paste it into your browser. When I tried accessing my site
(just after receiving your post) I had no problems. Try again and see what
happens. The URL is:
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
SECOND
Your guess about my my work being primarily portrait shots would be
quasi-wrong and quasi-right (obviously depending what you define as Å‚portrait
workË›). What I donÄ…t do is the Charles Lewis/Mom and pop town photographer
kind of portrait/people work. What I do is actually a fusion between
photojournalistic people work and surrealism and ranges the gamut from one
end of that scale to the other. It (my work) might also be described as Å‚fine
artË› but I find that descriptor less and less meaningful other than its
benefit of implying that my work is closer to Salvador Dali than Bar Mitzvah
and wedding photography.
My Å‚preoccupation with bokehË› has really taken place during the last year or
two and its not a Å‚preoccupationË› per se,Ä… but an addition to my visual
awareness. Prior to my eyes being opened to the characteristics of bokeh I
was a deep focus/sharpness aficionado to an anal degree. I see both as
important. And as IÄ…ve said before they are just tools I can use to help
express a shot as best as possible. Obviously, if I compose a shot in which I
want all elements to be clear/distinctive (whether people or still life) my
Å‚preoccupationË› will be with maximizing both depth of field and sharpness and
the bokeh of a particular lens IÄ…m using will become meaningless to me...
until I see a shot that can benefit from selective focus, then IÄ…m back in
Å‚bokehvilleË› making sure the background that I select is not only
non-distracting/enhancing to the subject but relying on the smoothness of the
lensÄ…s bokeh to make sure that not only does the subject stand out in sharp
relief against a blurred background but that the blurred background be as
attractive as possible in its melding of colors/tones without any jarring
effects.
THIRD
Although I do Å‚debateË› with passion I donÄ…t believe I am the a lot of people
you refer to who regularly get embroiled in these threads. I think your wrong
but visit my web site and decide for yourself. Predominantly the images are
Å‚bokeh freeË› due to deep depth of field effects but a few really on good
bokeh for their effects. One such image is Å‚WESTERN MANË› in the WIDE EYE
GALLERY. The image was made with a 105 f/2.5 Nikkor at or near wide open to
blur the background. Another image that relies on good bokeh is Å‚GRADUATION
BOREDOMË› done with a 90mm f/2.5 Tamron lens (probably stopped down to f/4 or
slightly less). There are other images IÄ…ve done not on the web site that
rely on good bokeh.
FOURTH
I said:
> >Since I make
> > fine art prints up to 16x20" (and formerly out to 20x30" and 30x40") and
> use
> > the 35mm format my quality standards have to be much higher not lower than
> > most other commercial photographers.
>
Then you said:
> Your standards of practice, of course, but the standards of your work
> will be lower in terms of technical standards, because you're outclassed by
> format size. My comment was out of real curiosity: Why DO you insist upon
> using 35mm commercially, when you are far more likely to sell prints if you
> use medium format? I use, and adore 35mm, but I'm also a realist. If
> sharpness is an issue, I use medium format.
Whether you realize it or not your point of view is a narrow minded view of
Å‚technical standardsË› because technical quality does not exist in a vacuum -
it exists in a reality, and that reality for me is that for my shooting style
(sometimes fast people/event work) using a larger format would be a hindrance
to getting either the right moment or appropriate depth of field. I recently
photographed WoodstockÄ…s 30th anniversary (actually in Bethel, NY on YasgurÄ…s
farm). Can you imagine me trying to Scheimflug or guesstimate focus or even
focus with a rangefinder with a large format camera? The dancers were moving
fast and furious towards and away from me at a fast speed. Even with a
built-in motor drive on my 35mm there were some split second moments followed
by more split second moments just a split second away from each other that
even my 35mm AF camera couldnÄ…t keep up with the fast changing movement. With
f/8 and 400 speed film on an overcast day I was already pushing at the limits
of what a 35mm could record in reasonable depth of field and still have the
ability to stop action somewhat (no I donÄ…t remember the shutterspeeds I was
using because the light was fading and it was late afternoon). Sure I could
have shot it in 8x10 and gotten some nice selective focus blurred action
shots that would be totally grain free and have smooth tonality but thatÄ…s
not what I wanted. Neither did I want to imitate Ernst Haas with his slow
speed Kodachrome blurred motion bullfight shots. So I donÄ…t believe I am
being Å‚out classedË› by anyone as my work is either conceptual or
photojournalistic or a fusion of both (and/or something else, like
portraiture) because my photos/vision is not in a Å‚standardË› vein. I have
more than enough quality using the 35mm tools/films at hand to get my vision
across and donÄ…t worry about being caught by the Å‚grain policeË› because
thatÄ…s not where my head and the viewers heads are at.
I insist on using 35mm in fine art, though I have in the past used both
medium and large format, because 35mm gives more than enough
quality/sharpness/tonality for my/my clients needs. When someone buys a
16x20Ë› fine art print of mine like Å‚NEOTENYË› letÄ…s say, they are buying it
for the image and the concept and the surrealism, not for how many grains
they can count like angels dancing on the head of a pin. When I do more
commercial stuff like an 8x10Ë› actorÄ…s headshot I use Ilford XP2 Super and my
Maxxum 70-210mm f/4 lens (with my monolites) and get such great sharpness and
tonality that it begins to rival 21/4 format at that size in look and feel.
If anything 35mm film and modern day lenses are too sharp and need to be cut
down/softened with some kind of softening filter. ThatÄ…s the difference
between me and you... you use 35mm but your also a realist, when I use 35mm
IÄ…m a sur/realist and am not trying to compete against Ansel Adams and his
clones or even Jerry Yuelsmann (spelling?) or Chip Simmons. I am looking for
enough sharpness/tonality quality to artistically and technically convey the
ideas in my images and not on a quest for the Holy Grail of ultimate
sharpness or tonality. As long as the grain doesnÄ…t compete with the image a
little grain wonÄ…t kill me or prevent me from selling a print. And youÄ…d be
amazed at the high quality (edge sharpness and resolution you can get off of
35mm at medium magnifications (12x or 13x, which works out roughly to a full
frame 35mm format on a 16x20Ë› paper with about a 1/4 inch or so border, and
smaller). Add some now discontinued Ektar/Royal Gold 25 to the equation and
not only do you get high resolution but Å‚next format upË› kind of tonality
(although Kodachrome/other slide films seem to have the Å‚edgeË› over color
negative materials in the edge sharpness department). For more info on my
ways/whyÄ…s of working see my earlier post to Gary Frost.
FIFTH
I said:
> >I find that the main problem in printing
> > large prints is not the camera lens, the film type or even the format but
> the
> > ability of the enlarger lens to make massive blow ups without suffering
> much
> > in degradation (loss of sharpness, color fringing, etc.).
Then you said:
> Perhaps this plays a part, but you can not ignore the fact that 6x6 has
> a neg size slightly over 3.5 times that of 35mm, so it's beyond argument
> that it's 3.5 times sharper, and more detailed, if all else is equal, which
> it usually is. The disadvantage is the format, not the enlarging lens,
> which, if it was, would reduce medium format negs to the same quality,
> surely? The fact that the same lens can enlarge a 6x6 neg, and produce a
> superior print would lead me to believe that it's the 35mm neg that's the
> weak link, not the enlarger objective.
All else is not equal. When I shoot 35mm IÄ…ll normally use a much
slower/finer grained film (unless, as in the Woodstock example above I need a
much higher speed film for action stopping purposes) to equalize the
difference between 35mm and medium format. In a still life indoors IÄ…d use
Kodachrome 40 Tungsten which has a grain pattern equally small to Kodachrome
25. Outdoors I might use either Velvia or Konica Impresa or an Å‚ultra high
speedË› film like E100SW I used for my still life photographed in overcast
light with high winds entitled Å‚HOME IMPROVEMENTË› (on the web site under the
STRANGE TRINITY GALLERY). Also IÄ…ll use my Leitz Tiltall tripod. Set the
camera on self-timer (poor manÄ…s cable release). IÄ…ll use either my Zeiss
28mm or my Zeiss Distagon 16mm full frame fisheye (a lens type w/c I believe
may be completely unavailable for the 4x5Ë› format and the medium format
fisheyes, while they still can be rented canÄ…t give me the same ultra deep
depth of field as my 35mm format fisheye because their fisheyes are in the
longer 24mm or 35/37mm focal lengths with inherently a lot less depth of
field). And, if possible, IÄ…d blow it up far less in magnification (thatÄ…s
why I settled on 16x20Ë› as a maximum print size despite the greater impact of
20x30Ë› and 30x40Ë› prints) just because I donÄ…t want to Å‚crap outË› either the
capabilities of the 35mm format or the capabilities of the 35mm format
enlarger lens w/c is not really designed for ultra high magnification. When
possible IÄ…ll use a Schneider Companon because of its sharpness, clarity, and
its lack of color fringing (even up to 20x30Ä…s). Actually, your right, the
weakest link is not the lens, the weak link is the attitude of thinking that
just because a larger format is the right format to put above that lens in
the enlarger if it doesnÄ…t suit your shooting style/needs. Pardon me for
quoting myself again:
> The image itself is more important than format
> > and past a certain high level of quality (in my opinion) you run into
> > diminishing returns both in cost and what you can achieve with the
> equipment.
SIXTH
You said:
> What? A Bronica SQ-Ai with 80mm, 120 back and waist level finder costs
> less than a Nikon F5 (body only), so how can it be a case of diminishing
> returns? We've reached a point where high end 35mm gear costs no less than
> medium format. You get MUCH more quality for no more outlay.
Both the price and weight of the Å‚high endË› Bronica and the Nikon F5 is
somewhere between expensive and obscene, and not really necessary for the
kind of work I do. Not every photographer needs that degree of ruggedness or
of bankruptcy (beautiful machines capable of excellent image quality though
they be). I can get more than enough ruggedness and features out of my Contax
167MT and Zeiss lenses or my Minolta 600si/lenses or my Canon EOS 630 at a
fraction of the price or the weight of the gear you describe and put the
money I would have spent on gear into shooting film/buying lenses/etc. and
becoming a better photographer. Sometimes, and at least for me, a 2 1/4
format to increase tonality or an 8 f.p.s. motor drive is overkill in most of
my situations (even for Woodstock, 5 f.p.s. or even 3 f.ps. would be fine).
SEVENTH
I said:
> > I love the quality/tonality of a 6x7 cm format image but for large depth
> of
> > field from just a half a foot all the way out to infinity it is simply not
> > the best tool to use for my wide angle work.
Then you said:
> What has depth of field got to do with format? If you were THAT
> concerned about it, you'd be using a field camera, with movements and small
> apertures that can control depth of field AND perspective to a MUCH higher
> degree than 35mm ever will be able to.
See above. Try to Scheimflug on an overcast day with people dancing to
different places to Janis Joplin and other 60Ä…s songs.
For some still lifes, yes, large or larger format is an obvious choice but no
amount of Scheimflugging is going to give me the depth of field I can get
when using a 16mm fisheye stopped down. For more normalesque very wide angle
shots or normal lens shots I have shot still lifes on 4x5 with a 210mm lens
and gotten fine results but I find a rented 2 1/4 Hassey and a 40mm lens or a
rented (but formerly I owned them) Leica camera/lens also to work well. It
all depends on the amount of details I have in the still life, the degree of
tonality I need, etc. for each specific type of still life I take. I donÄ…t do
Å‚commercialË› still lifes, I do fine art surrealistic narrative based still
lifes. No one has ever complained that my five reddish orange Hitlers in my
shot Å‚SOUL DADDY: I WANT YOU/HEÄ…S SO HEAVYË› (STRANGE TRINITY GALLERY on my
web site) lacked tonality because it was only shot with a 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit
R lens, they accept the shot for what it is, a technically well done
conceptual piece.
EIGHTH
I said:
> Plus I don't like being shackled
> > to a weighty ball and chain when doing fast action people work or even
> with
> > slower paced portraiture or fine art people or still life set ups.
Then you said:
> A Nikon F5 with 105mm Nikkor weighs more than a Bronica SQ with 150mm
> Zenzanon.
A Minolta 600si with a 100mm Maxxum lens weighs less than either of the two
behemoths you mentioned. Less weight means more/easier mobility and more
energy to concentrate on making more creative shots. Carrying a lot of weight
around is physically tiring, especially at photojournalistic types of events.
Å‚My back is my assistantË› in other words since I carry my own gear every bit
of weight saved is a blessing.
NINTH
I said then you said:
> >has all your attention to /worshiping? of sharpness improved the
> > creative quality of your images any? If not, why should I be concerned
> with
> > your preoccupation with sharpness alone?
>
> I'm not preoccupied with it. I just use medium format, where it's par
> far the course, and don't worry about it.
I am also not preoccupied with sharpness (at least not as much as I used to
be ;-)) and use 35mm whenever and wherever appropriate w/c means for most of
my work unless I absolutely feel I must use a larger format (rare cases) then
I rent the larger format where/when appropriate.
TENTH
I said then you said:
> >Why is sharpness (past a certain
> > level of quality) "FAR more important" than bokeh?
>
> Simply because lack of sharpness will not be tolerated by anyone, but
> few would criticize a photo for it's bokeh characteristics.
Just because I use mostly 35mm doesnÄ…t mean my work lacks sharpness (quite
the opposite because I have to work hard to preserve sharpness with the
smaller format). What it all boils down to is that I have to please me first.
IÄ…m my toughest critic not a client or you or anybody else. Too bad at most
youÄ…ll probably ever see is low quality jpeg instead of one of my prints...
Whether anybody would criticize my lenses/my or anybodyÄ…s photo bokeh
characteristics is not the point - the point is that *I* must be satisfied
with the bokeh characteristics of a photo regardless of who else sees or buys
the print.
LASTLY
I said then you said:
> >If you are so concerned with sharpness as
> > opposed to bokeh why are you even on this bokeh thread?
>
> I foolishly thought I could post a humorous comment, and have it taken
> in the spirit it was delivered, but it would appear not.
Which comment was meant to be humorous? Where was the humor in it?
Regardless, again, it all boils down to two different point of views, to me,
it seems that sharpness is most important for you as a lensÄ…s characteristic,
for me there are many factors (sharpness and bokeh among them) of a lens that
I consider equally important for my shots.
Do you have anything youÄ…d like to contribute on the subject of this thread
(what is) bokeh? If not, fine, but I am not really interested in continuing a
discussion that has really nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Enough is enough already. All this explaining and re-explaining is tiring me
out. IÄ…ve explained how/why I work the way I do and why bokeh is important to
me to the nth degree on this post and in other posts in this thread. If so,
that is if you feel you do have something to contribute to the topic of this
thread, then IÄ…d be more than happy to converse with you about bokeh (until
either my passion or my patience wears out, whichever comes first ;-)).
Lewis
In article <7ps4sl$6og$1...@gxsn.com>,
"Only me..." <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
Finnegan T. Tsai
>
>http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
>
Sorry if this is out of topic.
LL, I have to say some of your photoworks are simply breathtaking!!!
Now I really wish I can afford the 16mm Distagon!!!
It is always nice to meet a talented photographer here!
-finney
LL
Thank you for your overwhelmingly postive comments about my work. It is kind
of ironic that not even I can afford my own 16mm Zeiss fisheye now! Back in
1989 I bought what was probalby the only on left in a New York City camera
store with some money my brother Michael (who had just died of cancer) had
left me. It (the lens) was in a dusty box, hidden behind some kind of
cabinets/etc. and the store salesman said he was hoping that he would be the
one to buy it - I almost had to force him to give it up by showing
him/mentioning to him the photography ad in a photography magazine showing
that the store had it/listed it, even back then it was hard to find any Zeiss
16mm fisheyes advertised (if memory serves me). Now they are in the several
thousand dolar range (haven't checked on the price recently). So now, not
only am I too poor to afford buy my own photographs, Im also too poor to
afford to buy (replace) my own lenses ;-).
I used to own the Leitz 16mm fisheye when I had the R system and found the
clarity/tonality of it to be slightly better than the Zeiss but my Zeiss is
still ultra snappy/contrasty and I've done some of my best work with it. I
have no problem "seeing fisheye" and took to it if you pardon me stringing
along the analogy "like a fish to water" when an aquaintance first let me use
their Olympus 16mm fisheye - this lending of the fisheye and my subesequently
renting Nikon's 16mm fisheye several times (when I had the Nikon system) is
what led me to make my subsequent purchase. (I have a damn good 20x30" blow
up off of Kodachrome 64 from this 16mm Nikkor lens of my shot YOUNG AMERICANS
#1).
Also ironically, to make this post "on topic" not only is my Zeiss fisheye
lens superbly sharp/contrasty both stopped down and wide open but the bokeh
of the background when the lens is used at wide open (and focused at close
distances) like all Zeiss lenses I've shot with is very smooth/creamy. If
bokeh was a flavor this lens's backgrounds would be butterscotch ;-).
My Yashica 50mm f/2 also has wonderfully smooth bokeh and is quite
sharp/contrasty when stopped down to roughly f/4 or smaller but it doesn't
quite have the contrast/snappiness of the Zeiss.
My ultimate "dream lens" in normal range would be the 55mm f/1.2 Zeiss which
I believe was made as a limited quantity special edition but I think it costs
about as much as my Zeiss fisheye. Yashica, years ago, made a 55mm f/1.2 ML?
lens that I'd like to get if/when I have extra money. At one time I owned the
current 50mm f/1.4 Zeiss lens that Pop (justifiably) raved about in their
50mm comparison test but I really want as shallow a depth of field effect as
I can get and still include much of the environment as possible. After seeing
some of Carrie Branovan's childrens fashion work shot with the 50mm f/1.2
Nikkor (regular, not "Noct") in a February? '99 Photographers Forum magazine
my visual apetite has been whetted for 50mm f/1.2 lenses because their
extremely shallow depth of field not only blurs just about any background a
decent distance away (5-7 feet or more?) from the subject but because the
selective focus effect is so natural yet lyrical/magical at the same time.
Simply slapping on a soft focus filter is usually too course of an
effect/manipulation for me and reminds me of the more standard kind of
portraiture w/c uses these filters and vingetters to (in my opinion) over
emphasize the subject through filter magic/special effects.
One of these years I'll start saving for a Contax 645 if enough poeple by my
fine art photographs ;-) but in the meantime I am more than happy with the
bokeh/other characteristics of the Zeiss (and other) lenses I do have. Viva
la 35!
Regards,
Lewis (bokeh my Zeiss/Minolta) Lang
In article <7pv4f2$334$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
ts...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Finnegan T. Tsai) wrote:
--
Photography without a mind is like Kodachrome without sunshine - LL
Visit my web site "LEWISVISION" - http://members.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Fine art photography from the real to the surreal and beyond!
Only me...
Just looked at your web site LL, and I'm quite surprised that someone
stuck in a Bokeh thread is producing work that seems to owe nothing of it's
brilliance to bokeh :-) They are truly good photos. The Silver Dreams
Gallery is (in my opinion) by far the best collection of photos. Some of
these are fantastic, and not entirely dissimilar to some of the stuff I did
whilst at College. However, you've taken it a step further. My work has
become less.. I won't say exciting, but less appealing perhaps due to the
restraints of working within a market, and essentially being told what to
do. I've gone back to being the way you used to be. Mainly sharp focus,
literal interpretations of the world around us. All I can say, is that if
you earn your living by taking photos like these, then you've been very
lucky. If you don't earn your main living by them, then I envy the fact
that you probably have more freedom than most professionals do.
If I have any criticism, it;s that I find a lot of the Wild Eye Gallery
a bit contrived. I much prefer the other two.
Good Stuff. Just make sure this bokeh thing doesn't compromise what is
undoubtedly a great visual awareness, as I can't really see how bokeh plays
a great part in any of these shots. They would be just as great if they
were shot using any lens. As is always the case: The pictures speak for
themselves. What's more important, is that you have your own style, that's
unsullied by such triviality. You may think you're concerned about bokeh,
but such concerns don't show in your work, which is a good thing.
David.
Only me...
> David:
>
> IÄ…ll try to answer your previous post to me and your present post to me in
> this post. I canÄ…t promise IÄ…ll be concise but I will try to be thorough
;-).
Thorough? LOL Do a word count on your reply to me, and you'll
realise that thorough doesn't even come close to describing it ;-)
>
> FIRST
>
> Regarding your having problems accessing my web site/getting it to work. I
> really donÄ…t know what the problem is so all I can do is suggest you copy
the
> URL below and paste it into your browser.
I'll try it again later. Other's have given good reviews of your stuff,
so I'll make a point of it.
> SECOND
>
> Your guess about my my work being primarily portrait shots would be
> quasi-wrong and quasi-right
That's neither here or there, as I'll see it later, and I'll let you
know what I though.
> THIRD
>
> Although I do Å‚debateË› with passion I donÄ…t believe I am the a lot of
people
> you refer to who regularly get embroiled in these threads. I think your
wrong
> but visit my web site and decide for yourself.
Again, I'll do so after I've written, this, and done a few other things
that I'm behind with today.
> FOURTH
> Whether you realize it or not your point of view is a narrow minded view
of
> Å‚technical standardsË› because technical quality does not exist in a
vacuum -
> it exists in a reality, and that reality for me is that for my shooting
style
> (sometimes fast people/event work) using a larger format would be a
hindrance
> to getting either the right moment or appropriate depth of field. I
recently
> photographed WoodstockÄ…s 30th anniversary (actually in Bethel, NY on
YasgurÄ…s
> farm). Can you imagine me trying to Scheimflug or guesstimate focus or
even
> focus with a rangefinder with a large format camera?
No I can't, such an environment is not one where you would be overly
concerned about bokeh, or even the background itself to such a degree. It
wouldn't be possible. As you said, it's one fleeting moment after another
fleeting moment. However, in a more relaxed picture taking environment,
where one has the time to at least give a cursory glance to the rest of the
viewfinder, no matter what you achieve with 35mm, you can easily achieve as
easily with other formats. For instance, any situation where you put your
camera on a tripod. If it's on a tripod, it doesn't matter in the slightest
if your using 35mm or 120. Unless all your work is hand-held of course.
You are giving a rather extreme example of 35mm usage here.
> FIFTH
> All else is not equal. When I shoot 35mm IÄ…ll normally use a much
> slower/finer grained film (unless, as in the Woodstock example above I
need a
> much higher speed film for action stopping purposes) to equalize the
> difference between 35mm and medium format.
That seems to imply that you can't use the same slow films in 120. When
I use 120, things are equal. I use the same films, and I use lenses of
equal, or higher quality. It's only not equal if you use faster films with
a 120 camera, which would make no sense at all, unless there was a specific
reason for needing faster film, and if so, you would also be needing it if
you were using 35mm too. My point was simply that, excluding action
situations obviously, there's no reason why you can't use the same film, and
quality optics that you use with 35mm. Aesthetic consideration aside, and
looking at this from a purely pragmatic standpoint, there's little reason to
use 35mm in a lot of situations, other than personal preference - which is
fine of course. However, in most cases, things ARE equal in terms of the
quality of available materials. As APS has improved materials now available
for 35mm, the same can be said for 120 too.
> SIXTH
>
> Both the price and weight of the Å‚high endË› Bronica and the Nikon F5 is
> somewhere between expensive and obscene, and not really necessary for the
> kind of work I do. Not every photographer needs that degree of ruggedness
or
> of bankruptcy
I wouldn't call buying Contax and Zeiss optics exactly inexpensive ;-)
Again, a new 167MT and short telephoto zeiss lens will probably be about the
same as the Bronica in terms of initial outlay. I consider Contax to be
expensive when you consider what you get for your money, and the only reason
they are so expensive (so people keep telling me) is because they're so
fantastically well built, and rugged.
> SEVENTH
> For some still lifes, yes, large or larger format is an obvious choice but
no
> amount of Scheimflugging is going to give me the depth of field I can get
> when using a 16mm fisheye stopped down. For more normalesque very wide
angle
> shots or normal lens shots I have shot still lifes on 4x5 with a 210mm
lens
> and gotten fine results but I find a rented 2 1/4 Hassey and a 40mm lens
or a
> rented (but formerly I owned them) Leica camera/lens also to work well.
Which is all I was saying. That 5X4 woudl be better, and if you use 5x4
for more "normalesque" pictures that require big DOF, then.... there you go
:-)
> EIGHTH
> A Minolta 600si with a 100mm Maxxum lens weighs less than either of the
two
> behemoths you mentioned. Less weight means more/easier mobility and more
> energy to concentrate on making more creative shots. Carrying a lot of
weight
> around is physically tiring, especially at photojournalistic types of
events.
> Å‚My back is my assistantË› in other words since I carry my own gear every
bit
> of weight saved is a blessing.
You don't just shoot journalistic events though. If the camera is on a
tripod, what it weighs is irrelevant. I see your point about being light of
course, but that's the reason 35mm exists in the first place. You have
already told me that you DO use MF and large format gear, which is slightly
at odds with what you originally said, and is really making my argument
redundant. I was arguing on the basis that you ALWAYS used 35mm
exclusively,
for everything. Seeing as you don't, this all seems a bit superfluous.
>
> NINTH
> I am also not preoccupied with sharpness (at least not as much as I used
to
> be ;-)) and use 35mm whenever and wherever appropriate w/c means for most
of
> my work unless I absolutely feel I must use a larger format (rare cases)
then
> I rent the larger format where/when appropriate.
Again. It would seem the way you work is pretty much the same as mine
after all. IF you need a larger format, you'll use one. Wasn't that the
essence of my argument? That if you require a larger format, or more
detail/tonality, you should use a larger format instead.
> TENTH
> Just because I use mostly 35mm doesnÄ…t mean my work lacks sharpness (quite
> the opposite because I have to work hard to preserve sharpness with the
> smaller format).
This is true, but I work just as hard to preserve sharpness when I use
MF too. You imply that using MF means you can relax your standards.
> Whether anybody would criticize my lenses/my or anybodyÄ…s photo bokeh
> characteristics is not the point - the point is that *I* must be satisfied
> with the bokeh characteristics of a photo regardless of who else sees or
buys
> the print.
Fair enough. By the same argument, I'll probably carry on not being
concerned about bokeh in the slightest. As you said earlier, the image is
what counts anyway.
> LASTLY
>
> Which comment was meant to be humorous? Where was the humor in it?
My very first comment, which you may have not seen, was simply in reply
to the title of this thread, and I wrote, "It's a word Leica users use to
justify their overpriced lenses" or somehting very similar to that. It was
meant to be a joke, but I was pounced on by the equipment nerds all the
same.
>
> Do you have anything youÄ…d like to contribute on the subject of this
thread
> (what is) bokeh?
Actually, I don't. As I said, I just made a joke, and then I got
dragged into it by people with a humour deficiency. ;-)
>If not, fine, but I am not really interested in continuing a
> discussion that has really nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
> Enough is enough already.
With all do respect, this is coming from someone who has written,
perhaps the longest post this NG has seen in a long time in replying to me.
;-) I don't know where you get the energy.
David.
SpooRL
>if your using 35mm or 120.
Really. A Hassie is a fast to use as a Nikon F100? What about film changing?
RS
LL
Thanks for your positive comments about my photography. I am not "stuck in a
bokeh thread" I freely choose to be here and discuss this (aggregate of) lens
characteristics with others. Most of my work is anything but "literal" but
surrealistic, even my photojournalistic work is surreal when I can make it
that way. I do 95-99% of my work in 35mm so I believe my comments still hold
true. And yes there are even times at events when I like to blur out the
background with a wide angle (and occaisionally a telephoto lens) so bokeh is
important to me, especially so in the past year or so. Bokeh is not as you
put it "a triviality" and it is showing more and more in my work now (and
hopefully in the future). There is also very early work that I did with my
Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 that depended on good bokeh even if I didn't know the term
for it then. If I ever go back/add on Nikon I'll be sure to get a 105 f/2.5
lens (even though I prefer a 135mm for the perspective it gives tight head
shots) both for its sharpness/tonal/color rendition and its very smooth
bokeh. For now I'm more than pleased with my present Minolta and Tamron
lenses. My web site contains work from my early period (mostly
photojournalistic), my "middle period" (mostly surrealism), and my "current
period" (mostly a mixture/fusion of photojournalistic and surreal, although I
occaisionally go all one way "HOME IMPROVEMENT" (Surrealism) or the other
"JUST ANOTHER DAY." Also, as you might have guessed, the web site only shows
a fraction of my work and there are shots both within the website ("WESTERN
MAN" and "GRADUATION BOREDOM" come to mind) and not on the site that heavily
rely on the good bokeh of the background blur to enhance the subject. As for
the weight/expense of my gear I believe my Contax 167MT (or even an Aria,
brand new) are in the high fives, tell me w/c current Bronica body I can get
that is in that price range, especially with the prism and motor drive/winder
necessary to make it comparatively feature to a 35mm camera like my Contax
167MT or Minolta 600si. Even a Pentax 645 (manual, not AF) used would go for
a much higher price than my Contax or Minolta gear so you arguments
concerning price, in my opinion, don't hold water (or cash ;-)). I rarely use
tlelphoto lenses so I own a used 70-150 Tamron zoom (very sharp but prone to
flare) and a Minolta Maxxum 70-210 f/4 lens which are more than sharp enough
for my needs and both have pleasing bokeh. The Tamron I got for about a $100
used and the Mionlta cost me about $145 including shipping. Where can you get
an equivalent Bronic zoom (or even prime) used for that kind of money. Since
I don't go above 16x20" most of the time, and most of the people I photograph
pay for 8x10" prints or smaller I find the extra cost and weight of a medium
or larger format system a hindrance, even for slower less event tpye/ more
portrait kind of work. If I knew I was going to need smooth toned/grainless
20x24's I'd consider renting a 645 system for a day, but as I said, this a
very rare case for me (less than 5% of the time). Anyway, I prefer the
flexibity and speed I get out of 35mm, and as I said before, its plenty/more
than sharp enough for me.
Now let's get back to bokeh...
Lewis ("Bokeh to the Future") Lang
In article <7q0qti$mv8$1...@gxsn.com>,
"Only me..." <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> David.
>
>
--
Photography without a mind is like Kodachrome without sunshine - LL
Visit my web site "LEWISVISION" - http://members.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Fine art photography from the real to the surreal and beyond!
Only me...
SpooRL <spo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990825121553...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
> >If it's on a tripod, it doesn't matter in the slightest
> >if your using 35mm or 120.
>
changing?
Well, like I said, if your using a tripod to begin with, speed can't be
that important. However, if it is, I'll just make sure that all of my backs
(4 of them) are loaded. Besides, I'll usually have an assistant with me,
who will be loading one back, whilst I'm using the other. MUCH faster than
any 35mm system :-)
Changing a 120 back is MUCH faster than changing a 35mm film. That's
the beauty of 120. I can swap and change backs at any time, even halfway
through a roll, and then just carry on without even having to wind back to
the same place. I can use mono, colour print, or colour slide all at the
same time, on the same shoot, all by using one camera. How can you think
35mm is faster, or more convenient that that? Having said all that, I CAN
actually load a 120 film about as fast as loading a 35mm film. I've been
doing it for years, and I'm pretty fast at it.
David.
LL
I'll grant you that you are as fast a back changer as you claim to be.
However, for more photohournalistic work it is not uncommon for me to shoot
20 or more rolls (36 and/or 24 exposure), to have to carry along let alone
have to buy 20 camera backs in the first place is not only cost prohibitive
(for me) but "back prohibitive" (forget about the camera, my own back
wouldn't stand up to carrying around that much weight all day long. Is your
work more static oriented (lots of tripod use) portraiture? If so, I believe
I understand your previous postings that were in favor of 2 1/4 over 35mm for
the jump in quality. However, format choice is a personal matter, and for
more photojournalistic work, for me, 35mm is still the fastest way to go,
especially when I have to do lots and lots of film changes like I did at
Woodstock and want to go home with my own "back" intact at the end of the
day(s). Still, format is a personal choice, and if medium format works for
you, God bless you.
Lewis
In article <7q278k$dk2$1...@gxsn.com>,
"Only me..." <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> SpooRL <spo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990825121553...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
> > >If it's on a tripod, it doesn't matter in the slightest
> > >if your using 35mm or 120.
> >
> > Really. A Hassie is a fast to use as a Nikon F100? What about film
> changing?
>
> Well, like I said, if your using a tripod to begin with, speed can't be
> that important. However, if it is, I'll just make sure that all of my backs
> (4 of them) are loaded. Besides, I'll usually have an assistant with me,
> who will be loading one back, whilst I'm using the other. MUCH faster than
> any 35mm system :-)
>
> Changing a 120 back is MUCH faster than changing a 35mm film. That's
> the beauty of 120. I can swap and change backs at any time, even halfway
> through a roll, and then just carry on without even having to wind back to
> the same place. I can use mono, colour print, or colour slide all at the
> same time, on the same shoot, all by using one camera. How can you think
> 35mm is faster, or more convenient that that? Having said all that, I CAN
> actually load a 120 film about as fast as loading a 35mm film. I've been
> doing it for years, and I'm pretty fast at it.
>
> David.
>
>
--
Photography without a mind is like Kodachrome without sunshine - LL
Visit my web site "LEWISVISION" - http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.
Only me...
Being more interested in Bokeh (not I didn't say preoccupied?:-))
that I am, I'd like your opinions on the Nikkor 35 ~ 70 f2.8D, if of course
you've used this lens. I was wondering because it's perhaps my most used
lens. As you know, I'm not one fro paying that much attention to these
things, but I notice that the bokeh seems smooth when wide open. I take a
lot of portraits, or at least shots of people, with this lens at it's
longest, and usually wide open.
Anyone else on here any comments about the above lens? I'll not be
getting rid of it, even if all you bokeh pundits tell me it's the worst lens
in the world, as I love it. However, I'm curious. Good bokeh, or bad bokeh?
David.
Finnegan T. Tsai
Yes, David, the 35-70/2.8, with the 85/1.4, the 105/2.5, and sure,
those DC AF lenses are those Nikkors with better bokeh.
I found I was using the 35-70/2.8 more than the 85/1.8
to take portraits. This does not mean the 85/1.8
is a bad lens. You just have to know the trait of a lens
and adjust yourself accordingly. I tried not to put
something bright/shinning in the background while
using the 85/1.8, for instance. Many photographers
would not put things which can cause distraction
in the background anyway. For them, the bokeh may not
mean much.
BTW, I am using the Zeiss 85/1.4 a lot, too. I plan
to do a side by side comparison between the Zeiss 85/1.4
and the Nikkor 85/1.4D AF. I will scan the slides with
a film scanner, and hopefully, find a website to post the
result. Stay tuned.
-finney
Chuck Ross
In article <37e8e792....@news.casema.net>, jas...@janssen.dynip.com
(Jasper Janssen) wrote:
> gch...@aol.com (GChuven) wrote:
>
> >This is it, exactly. Most people do not realize it, but bokeh is a Hebrew
> >term. Perhaps the big-shots at B&H Photo refer to good lenses as
"bokeh tov",
> >and the bad ones as "bokeh rah."
> >However, no need to go into mourning over the matter.
>
> Jesus. I've never before felt the need to go killfiling aol.com, but
> this group seems to be infested with a lot of terminally clueless
> morons from aol.
>
> Have you by any chance looked at a map of the world lately? If you
> have (which I doubt), you may have seen a nice group of islands to the
> eastern part. If you'd look closely, you might see "Tokyo", or even
> "Hiroshima" or "Nagasaki", if those are more familiar names, written
> on them. If you find that, you may also see, in slightly larger
> letters, a word there. It is spelled Jay...Ay.. Pee.. Ay again.. Enn.
> What does that spell, GChuven? Right. Japan. Now go into your favorite
> bookstore (if, in fact, you have one, although I doubt you can even
> read), and look up a Japan-English dictionary. Come back when you look
> up the word "bokeh" in it.
>
> God al-fucking-mighty.
>
> Jasper
It was a joke, son.
--
http://www.enteract.com/~ckross/
Digital and Film-Based Photography
remove "MYPANTS" to reply
Jasper Janssen
>Jasper, you'd be terrific if you only had a sense of humor at all...
My sense of humor goes away when the antisemitic, white power,
etc.etc. creeps creep in. Sorry if I upset you.
>In article <37e8e792....@news.casema.net>, jas...@janssen.dynip.com
>(Jasper Janssen) wrote:
>
>> gch...@aol.com (GChuven) wrote:
>> >This is it, exactly. Most people do not realize it, but bokeh is a Hebrew
>> >term. Perhaps the big-shots at B&H Photo refer to good lenses as
>"bokeh tov",
>> >and the bad ones as "bokeh rah."
>> >However, no need to go into mourning over the matter.
<snip my Rant For The Day, and quite a good one, if I do say so
myself>
>
>It was a joke, son.
Somehow, on clear reflection, what GCguven said _still_ doesn't sound
like a joke to me. Maybe I've been around too many usenet.kooks who do
mean what they're saying, but if it was a joke, it was a damn bad one.
IMHO.
Jasper
LL
I haven't owned Nikon since the Bush (senior) era so I really can't give you
any kind of reply on it (sorry, wish I could). I have seen printed results
from this lens (Popular Photography several years ago had a double page
spread of some mountains/canyons out west) but only stopped down, if I recall
the photo data correctly. Superb sharpness and a lens I wish'd I'd owned
before I got rid of my Nikon equipment (actually traded for something else).
You said:
"but I notice that the bokeh seems smooth when wide open. I take a
lot of portraits, or at least shots of people, with this lens at it's
longest, and usually wide open."
Good! I'm glad to read that you are/becoming aware of the bokeh of your lens
as bokeh can be be a very important factor, especially in selective focus
portaiture.
You also said:
"I'll not be getting rid of it, even if all you bokeh pundits tell me it's
the worst lens in the world, as I love it. However, I'm curious. Good bokeh,
or bad bokeh?"
Doubley good for you. This is not said patronizingly but to emphasize a
point. What counts most "at the end of the day" is sticking to your own
experiences/preferences/satisfaction about a lens's qualities regardless of
whether others give it a good or a bad rap. In a previous post (this? or some
other thread?) someone mentioned that Nikon's 50mm f/1.2's bokeh was less
than pleasing. In fact it was this lens and its bokeh/selective focus effect
and, of course, the excellent child fashion photography of Carrie Branovan
(w/c to me is treading virtually on the edge of portraiture, w/c is one of
the reasons I find it so fascinating) which got me so intensely interested in
50mm f/1.2's, selective focus w/ a normal lens and bokeh in the first place
(that, and that Photo Techniques? May/June '97 articles on bokeh). For those
interested, Carrie Branovan's work appeared in the February issue of
Photographer's Forum magazine.
The best thing you can do (besides observing the bokeh effects you get w/
this lens and others' comments on this lens) is to go purposely shoot
people/things that would allow you to judge the character of the bokeh of
this lens (lights at night, specular reflections in water - and for the
brave, denuded tree branches and other more ugly/distracting backgrounds).
You might want to even do a comparison between this lens and other lenses you
have wide open to see if there is a marked difference in the way they render
the same backgrounds. Becoming bokeh conscious doesn't mean you give up your
creative eye for making an interesting photograph, nor does it have to mean
you loose your penchant, ahem, "interest" in sharpness. It just means that
you are aware of another factor, sometimes subtle, sometimes not, that
influences your photography. Awareness is a good thing (even bokeh awareness
;-). You might find you prefer the 35-70mm in some situations if it has a
more pleaseing bokeh than another alternative lens in your bag (or you may
find out vice versa), either way, if you have the time/money/inclination it
may be worth a try.
"Bokeh on dude,"
Lewis (Bill and Ted's Bokeh Adventure) Lang
In article <7q65li$182$2...@gxsn.com>,
"Only me..." <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> LL:
>
> Being more interested in Bokeh (not I didn't say preoccupied?:-))
> that I am, I'd like your opinions on the Nikkor 35 ~ 70 f2.8D, if of course
> you've used this lens. I was wondering because it's perhaps my most used
> lens. As you know, I'm not one fro paying that much attention to these
> things, but I notice that the bokeh seems smooth when wide open. I take a
> lot of portraits, or at least shots of people, with this lens at it's
> longest, and usually wide open.
>
> Anyone else on here any comments about the above lens? I'll not be
> getting rid of it, even if all you bokeh pundits tell me it's the worst lens
> in the world, as I love it. However, I'm curious. Good bokeh, or bad bokeh?
>
> David.
>
>
--
Photography without a mind is like Kodachrome without sunshine - LL
Visit my web site "LEWISVISION" - http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.
R. Saylor
<snip>
>Awareness is a good thing (even bokeh awareness
>;-). You might find you prefer the 35-70mm in some situations if it has a
>more pleaseing bokeh than another alternative lens in your bag (or you may
>find out vice versa), either way, if you have the time/money/inclination it
>may be worth a try.
>
I snipped this response to cut down on bandwidth usage, but all of it
is excellent advice.
The out-of-focus portion of a portrait or still-life may occupy 50% or
more of the image. The human eye takes in the entire image, not just
the subject. A smooth (liquid-like) out-of-focus area can make the
difference between an excellent photo and a so-so one.
Richard S.
LL
You said:
"A smooth (liquid-like) out-of-focus area can make the difference between an
excellent photo and a so-so one."
I wished I said that, I'm glad you did.
Regards,
Lewis (nothing more to put inside these brackets but I had to write something
so I wrote this) Lang
In article <37c9a37e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
--
Photography without a mind is like Kodachrome without sunshine - LL
Visit my web site "LEWISVISION" - http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.
Photonut
is simple.. how pleasing to your eye is what is out of
focus. In theroy each lens manufacturer does it
differrently. THen there is a divide between the Japs and
the Europeans. End of story
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Only me...
> The best thing you can do (besides observing the bokeh effects you get w/
> this lens and others' comments on this lens) is to go purposely shoot
> people/things that would allow you to judge the character of the bokeh of
> this lens (lights at night, specular reflections in water - and for the
> brave, denuded tree branches and other more ugly/distracting backgrounds).
> You might want to even do a comparison between this lens and other lenses
you
> have wide open to see if there is a marked difference in the way they
render
> the same backgrounds.
I'll do just that... when I have time that is. I seem to be living in
airports these days :-)
David
LL
Hmmm... spending too much time at airports? How about shooting the out of
focus specular highlights off of jets (and perhaps a nice in focus silhouette
of some "in focus" people looking out the airports window ;-). Watch your
gear (as you know) as you are looking for/shooting bokeh effects/images for
your test. To quote myself "better paranoid than sorry" especially when it
comes to photo gear.
Happy bokeh hunting,
Lewis
In article <7qd4vg$7oc$1...@gxsn.com>,
"Only me..." <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> LL <lewi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
--
Photography without a mind is like Kodachrome without sunshine - LL
Visit my web site "LEWISVISION" http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.h
Only me...
> David:
>
> Hmmm... spending too much time at airports? How about shooting the out of
> focus specular highlights off of jets (and perhaps a nice in focus
silhouette
> of some "in focus" people looking out the airports window ;-). Watch your
> gear (as you know) as you are looking for/shooting bokeh effects/images
for
> your test. To quote myself "better paranoid than sorry" especially when it
> comes to photo gear.
My gear is usually well packed in Aluminium flight cases, and checked
in, and my eyesight is usually well modified by several large vodkas :-) I
always get a window set, get drunk, and then sleep the whole flight :-)
David.
GChuven
this group seems to be infested with a lot of terminally clueless
morons from aol.
>>
I left out the swear words, but my friend, perhaps it is you who is clueless as
well as crude. For almost 40 years I have photographed in several formats. I
never heard of "bokeh", nor do I now see a need to learn it as I learned
composition, DOF, hyperfocal, etc. A camera is only as good as the
photographer. If you don't appreciate someone's sense of humor, that is fine.
However, you ought to choose proper wording for publication (or send a private
email).
GChuven aka Gary the Jew (Hebrew-speaker, that is)
mber...@popd.ix.netcom.com
I understand the bokeh of the Rodenstock Sironar-S series is great.
Marc
Per Gunnar Jensen
William Jameson wrote:
>
> Per Gunnar Jensen (per.gunn...@manu.no) wrote:
> : Btw, I'm a Nicanolta user myself. Almost all my friends use Carl Zuiko
> : or Leitax lenses, though.
> : :o)
>
> They do that so you won't borrow them. :-;
>
> Bill Jameson