Bad Bokeh!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by paul, Mar 15, 2005.

  1. paul

    paul Guest

    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.
     
    paul, Mar 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. paul

    Eric Gill Guest

    paul <> wrote in news::

    > 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.
     
    Eric Gill, Mar 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. paul

    Guest

    > That's bad bokeh

    Made a lot worse by *way* too much sharpening, and lots of jpg
    artefacts thrown in. A nice photo ruined..
     
    , Mar 15, 2005
    #3
  4. paul

    paul Guest

    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.
     
    paul, Mar 15, 2005
    #4
  5. In article <>, paul <>
    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".
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Mar 15, 2005
    #5
  6. paul

    Larry Guest

    In article <150320050424302410%>,
    says...
    > In article <>, paul <>
    > 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.
     
    Larry, Mar 15, 2005
    #6
  7. Start here... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml


    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:150320050424302410%...
    > In article <>, paul <>
    > 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".
     
    Gene Palmiter, Mar 15, 2005
    #7
  8. Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    > In article <>, paul <>
    > 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" <> wrote in alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf: "I suggest
    Corry keep his uninformed opinions to a subject he knows something about
    (porno, hacking, terrorism)."
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Mar 15, 2005
    #8
  9. "paul" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Dave R knows who, Mar 15, 2005
    #9
  10. paul

    Guest

    Unclaimed Mysteries
    <> 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.
     
    , Mar 15, 2005
    #10
  11. paul

    paul Guest

    Dave R knows who wrote:

    > "paul" wrote
    >>
    >>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.

    >
    >
    > 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.



    Well at least I don't feel so bad about paying what I did. It was pretty
    fancy at the time & I took thousands of great pics with it & never even
    thought about the settings.
     
    paul, Mar 15, 2005
    #11
  12. paul

    Joe Johnson Guest

    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:150320050424302410%...

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


    As other reponders have indicated, the term is not new. Also, the effect of
    out-of-focus areas on the overall image quality can be decisive.
     
    Joe Johnson, Mar 15, 2005
    #12
  13. In article <>, Larry
    <> wrote:

    > > 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.


    I've never heard the word until about a year ago.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Mar 15, 2005
    #13
  14. paul

    Larry Guest

    In article <150320051515196072%>,
    says...
    > In article <>, Larry
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > > 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.

    >
    > I've never heard the word until about a year ago.
    >



    I hear it more now than I have in the last 30 or 40 years, but it was around
    when I was a kid in the school photography club (a long time ago).

    I remember reading about the initial use of the word but I dont remember any
    of the details. Surely someone here knows the details.



    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry, Mar 15, 2005
    #14
  15. paul

    paul Guest

    Randall Ainsworth wrote:

    > In article <>, Larry
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>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.

    >
    >
    > I've never heard the word until about a year ago.



    Me either.
     
    paul, Mar 16, 2005
    #15
  16. paul

    Larry Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>, Larry
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >>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.

    > >
    > >
    > > I've never heard the word until about a year ago.

    >
    >
    > Me either.
    >


    My first thought is, are you new to READING about photography??

    I have seen it in print, but the only time I ever heard the word spoken was
    in that photography club almost 50 years ago.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry, Mar 16, 2005
    #16
  17. paul

    paul Guest

    Larry wrote:

    > In article <>, says...
    >
    >>Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>In article <>, Larry
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>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.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>I've never heard the word until about a year ago.

    >>
    >>
    >>Me either.
    >>

    >
    >
    > My first thought is, are you new to READING about photography??



    Yep. I took 1 photography class in college 20 years ago, 4 years with a
    P&S digital then less than a year with a DSLR learning basically from
    scratch since I forgot everything & the P&S was so easy. I've got so
    many pics now, it's probably in the plans to publish a guide book for CA
    native plants. Here's the beginnings of organizing for that:
    <http://localhost/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Species/Eukarya/Plantae/Anthophyta/Dicots>


    >
    > I have seen it in print, but the only time I ever heard the word spoken was
    > in that photography club almost 50 years ago.
    >
    >
     
    paul, Mar 16, 2005
    #17
  18. paul

    Larry Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > Larry wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>, says...
    > >
    > >>Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>In article <>, Larry
    > >>><> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>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.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>I've never heard the word until about a year ago.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>Me either.
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > > My first thought is, are you new to READING about photography??

    >
    >
    > Yep. I took 1 photography class in college 20 years ago, 4 years with a
    > P&S digital then less than a year with a DSLR learning basically from
    > scratch since I forgot everything & the P&S was so easy. I've got so
    > many pics now, it's probably in the plans to publish a guide book for CA
    > native plants. Here's the beginnings of organizing for that:
    > <http://localhost/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Species/Eukarya/Plantae/Anthophyta/Dicots>
    >
    >
    > >
    > > I have seen it in print, but the only time I ever heard the word spoken was
    > > in that photography club almost 50 years ago.
    > >
    > >

    >


    I hope you do it, and I'll buy it!

    I have enough photos for several books, but not enough of any one type to
    fill even a small one.. <G>. It seems my taste in photo subjects is as
    esoteric as my taste in music. (which is esoteric in the extreme).


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry, Mar 16, 2005
    #18
  19. paul

    paul Guest

    Larry wrote:

    >>I've got so many pics now,
    >>it's probably in the plans to publish a guide book for CA
    >>native plants. Here's the beginnings of organizing for that:
    >><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Species/Eukarya/Plantae/Anthophyta/Dicots>
    >>
    >>
    >>>I have seen it in print, but the only time I ever heard the word spoken was
    >>>in that photography club almost 50 years ago.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    > I hope you do it, and I'll buy it!



    Cool, thanks. (I fixed the link above now).


    >
    > I have enough photos for several books, but not enough of any one type to
    > fill even a small one.. <G>. It seems my taste in photo subjects is as
    > esoteric as my taste in music. (which is esoteric in the extreme).



    Yeah, I think that is an advantage to specialize. Otherwise there's so
    many folks taking so many beautiful pictures, it's hard to know what to
    do with them all. Anyways it's fun, whatever comes of it!
     
    paul, Mar 16, 2005
    #19
  20. Larry <> writes:

    > In article <>, says...
    >> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >>
    >> > In article <>, Larry
    >> > <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >>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.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > I've never heard the word until about a year ago.

    >>
    >>
    >> Me either.
    >>

    >
    > My first thought is, are you new to READING about photography??


    Not that, either. I've been taking photographs and doing darkroom
    work for almost 40 years now, and reading about photography going back
    to then too; the Life Library of Photography and the Ansel Adams basic
    photo series and _The Pentax Way_ (for my screw-mount Pentax) and lots
    of other books.

    And I don't remember ever seeing or hearing "bokeh" until sometime
    this decade. It seems to have become a popular concept suddenly.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 16, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Annika1980

    PERFECT BOKEH WITH THE D60 !!!

    Annika1980, Sep 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,837
    badgerfish
    Sep 23, 2003
  2. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    3,131
    Michael Alan Chary
    Feb 23, 2005
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    560
  4. John

    Bad media, bad files or bad Nero?

    John, Dec 31, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,314
    Keith
    Jan 8, 2008
  5. Pablo

    Good bokeh? Bad bokeh?

    Pablo, Jul 8, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    72
    Views:
    1,553
    Paul Furman
    Jul 22, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page