Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Bad Bokeh!

Reply
Thread Tools

Bad Bokeh!

 
 
paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Livermore/2005-01-30-mines-road/full-set&PG=2&PIC=10>
That's bad bokeh (tsk tsk tsk). Yeuck!


Nikon 28-200 3.5-5.6
Pretty cool lens considering it's about $350 though quite soft at 200
but hey it's all I got now. I guess this example easily justifies a 50
f/1.8 prime. Does it justify a 70-200 f/2.8? Sigh.


I was so ignorant, my little 3MP oly C3030 had an f/2.8 lens & I didn't
even know. It was much better in low light than my D70 with this lens.
It cost $800 in 2000, it's probably worth $50 now but it had better blur
damnit.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Eric Gill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Nikon 28-200 3.5-5.6
> Pretty cool lens considering it's about $350 though quite soft at 200
> but hey it's all I got now. I guess this example easily justifies a 50
> f/1.8 prime. Does it justify a 70-200 f/2.8? Sigh.


70-200 f/2.8 seems to be a sweet spot for optics. Canon, Sigma and Nikon
all make killer glass on that range.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

Performance seems to be about equal, optics-wise: the real choice is
stabilization or not - i.e., is it worth twice as much.

There is no question whether to buy the basic lens or not: sooner or later,
you will.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
chrlz@go.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
> That's bad bokeh

Made a lot worse by *way* too much sharpening, and lots of jpg
artefacts thrown in. A nice photo ruined..

 
Reply With Quote
 
paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
paul wrote:
>...
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Livermore/2005-01-30-mines-road/full-set&PG=2&PIC=10>
>
> That's bad bokeh (tsk tsk tsk). Yeuck!
> ...
>
> I was so ignorant, my little 3MP oly C3030 had an f/2.8 lens & I didn't
> even know. It was much better in low light than my D70 with this lens.
> It cost $800 in 2000, it's probably worth $50 now but it had better blur
> damnit.


Here's an oly C3030 f/2.8 bokeh for comparison:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Rafael&PG=1>
I just pointed & shot. I had no clue.

I used it today for some technical needs for wifey in a crawlspace & it
didn't complain about autofocus or anything. I got 1 second exposures
braced against the wall under the building with a flashlight! The D70
with a 3.5 would have simply refused.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Randall Ainsworth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, paul <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
> bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.


Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".
 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
In article <150320050424302410%(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, paul <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> > Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
> > bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.

>
> Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
> Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".
>


We dont exactly have the word NOW.

We've had it since long before digital photography, and if I remember
correctly (I might not) since before the popularity of 35mm.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gene Palmiter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
Start here... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml


"Randall Ainsworth" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:150320050424302410%(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, paul <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> > Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
> > bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.

>
> Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
> Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".



 
Reply With Quote
 
Unclaimed Mysteries
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, paul <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
>>bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.

>
>
> Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
> Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".


Ooh! I got it. How about "graceful degradation of sharpness." Just kinda
rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it? I hereby patent "GDOS."(TM) Fear me.

Okay, actual questions:

1) Examples of what's considered good and bad bokeh have been published
in books, on the net, and elsewhere. Does good bokeh mean that a lens
images out-of-focus areas the *same* way the eye does, or in some way
that specifically looks better in a photograph?

2) Is there ever a time for goofy bokeh? I dislike the doughnut hole
look a lot, even when done on purpose. Perhaps if I had folded optics in
my eyes, it might look appealing.

Corry
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"Max Imo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf: "I suggest
Corry keep his uninformed opinions to a subject he knows something about
(porno, hacking, terrorism)."
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave R knows who
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005

"paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
> bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Livermore/2005-01-30-mines-road/full-set&PG=2&PIC=10>
> That's bad bokeh (tsk tsk tsk). Yeuck!
>
>
> Nikon 28-200 3.5-5.6
> Pretty cool lens considering it's about $350 though quite soft at 200 but
> hey it's all I got now. I guess this example easily justifies a 50 f/1.8
> prime. Does it justify a 70-200 f/2.8? Sigh.
>
>
> I was so ignorant, my little 3MP oly C3030 had an f/2.8 lens & I didn't
> even know. It was much better in low light than my D70 with this lens. It
> cost $800 in 2000, it's probably worth $50 now but it had better blur
> damnit.


Hehehe. I hear ya. The little Fuji S602Z has a constant f/2.8 as well, with
pretty good bokeh. When my 1D is overkill, and my 300D is still too much, I
bring this little Fuji out and I'm still blown away. I think a lot of people
figured out this was a winner because now they are hard to find on eBay: I
see only one right now for GBP 66.00. I've been wanting to get one for a
friend for a while. I think I paid $650 and last I saw one I think it was
under US $200.

I also have an Olympus D-40, which is another classic, top performer that
fits in a pocket. No real bokeh on this little guy. Paid $650 for that, too,
and it's now selling used for under $150.

The best of the oldies still hold their own.


 
Reply With Quote
 
clutch@lycos.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
Unclaimed Mysteries
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysterie s.net> wrote:

>2) Is there ever a time for goofy bokeh? I dislike the doughnut hole
>look a lot, even when done on purpose. Perhaps if I had folded optics in
>my eyes, it might look appealing.



I learned a new term two days ago, "ring blur". I was seriously
thinking of buying a 600mm mirror for my film camera but when I
checked out the sigma website and saw what 'ring blur' looked like, I
passed. I'll keep checking ebay for a non-folded optics deal.

Goofy looking is a kind phrase.

Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
integer >= 1 == True and integer.0 == False is bad, bad, bad!!! rantingrick Python 44 07-13-2010 06:33 PM
Bad media, bad files or bad Nero? John Computer Information 23 01-08-2008 09:17 PM
ActiveX apologetic Larry Seltzer... "Sun paid for malicious ActiveX code, and Firefox is bad, bad bad baad. please use ActiveX, it's secure and nice!" (ok, the last part is irony on my part) fernando.cassia@gmail.com Java 0 04-16-2005 10:05 PM
24 Season 3 Bad Bad Bad (Spoiler) nospam@nospam.com DVD Video 12 02-23-2005 03:28 AM
24 Season 3 Bad Bad Bad (Spoiler) nospam@nospam.com DVD Video 0 02-19-2005 01:10 AM



Advertisments