Good bokeh? Bad bokeh?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Pablo, Jul 8, 2012.

  1. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Pablo, Jul 8, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Savageduck escribió:

    > On 2012-07-08 08:38:10 -0700, Pablo <> said:
    >
    >> I'm confused.
    >>
    >> I read this:
    >>
    >> <http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-

    Takumar-55mm-
    >> F1.8.html>
    >>
    >> And take this:
    >>
    >> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream>
    >>
    >> The bokeh seems harsh to me.
    >>
    >> Am I doing something wrong?

    >
    > Looking at the EXIF data for that image, you shot using manual exposure
    > at f/5.6, ISO 100, @ 1/499.
    >
    > If you are looking for softer bokeh, you might consider opening up
    > some, to say f/3.5, and making the appropriate upward shutter speed
    > adjustment.
    >
    > Examine result and adjust to taste.
    >


    I wanted enough DoF to include the various textures of the tree. Do you
    think I would have achieved that at 3.5?

    I wasn't *looking* for nice bokeh, but I expected a bit better than I got.

    I don't get another go. I drove 70km for that. Well, just went for a drive
    really and chucked the camera bag in the boot.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Jul 8, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:38:10 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:

    >I'm confused.
    >
    >I read this:
    >
    ><http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-55mm-
    >F1.8.html>
    >
    >And take this:
    >
    ><http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream>
    >
    >The bokeh seems harsh to me.
    >
    >Am I doing something wrong?


    "Bokeh" is just what is in the background that is out-of-focus. Your
    background is out-of-focus. Just what you want.

    The ugliness of the background is the mottled purplish color. The
    green's fine, but there's something in the background that is blue or
    purple that looks kinda ugly here. It's the color, not the bokeh,
    that is the problem.

    That same shot, with the same settings, but with a different foliage
    in the background would be what you wanted to achieve.

    There's some things you can do if you have Photoshop, but I'm not
    going to spend time explaining how if you don't have Photoshop. Any
    version, including Elements 9 or 10, with Replace Color or Match Color
    and Layer Masking will work.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 8, 2012
    #3
  4. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    tony cooper escribió:

    > On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:38:10 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:
    >
    >>I'm confused.
    >>
    >>I read this:
    >>
    >><http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-

    Takumar-55mm-
    >>F1.8.html>
    >>
    >>And take this:
    >>
    >><http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream>
    >>
    >>The bokeh seems harsh to me.
    >>
    >>Am I doing something wrong?

    >
    > "Bokeh" is just what is in the background that is out-of-focus. Your
    > background is out-of-focus. Just what you want.
    >
    > The ugliness of the background is the mottled purplish color. The
    > green's fine, but there's something in the background that is blue or
    > purple that looks kinda ugly here. It's the color, not the bokeh,
    > that is the problem.


    Thanks for the input.
    >
    > That same shot, with the same settings, but with a different foliage
    > in the background would be what you wanted to achieve.


    Actually, it's not foliage, rather a forest. Just pine trees and orangey
    ground. At the other side of a small valley.

    36º49'83"N 4º21'51.8"W

    <https://sites.google.com/site/montesdemalagaenbici/inicio/historia/lagar-
    de-torrijos-ecomuseo>

    > There's some things you can do if you have Photoshop, but I'm not
    > going to spend time explaining how if you don't have Photoshop. Any
    > version, including Elements 9 or 10, with Replace Color or Match Color
    > and Layer Masking will work.


    I have the Gimp, but I don't see the blue/purple to be able to remove it.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Jul 8, 2012
    #4
  5. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 21:47:13 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:

    >tony cooper escribió:
    >
    >> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:38:10 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I'm confused.
    >>>
    >>>I read this:
    >>>
    >>><http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-

    >Takumar-55mm-
    >>>F1.8.html>
    >>>
    >>>And take this:
    >>>
    >>><http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream>
    >>>
    >>>The bokeh seems harsh to me.
    >>>
    >>>Am I doing something wrong?

    >>
    >> "Bokeh" is just what is in the background that is out-of-focus. Your
    >> background is out-of-focus. Just what you want.
    >>
    >> The ugliness of the background is the mottled purplish color. The
    >> green's fine, but there's something in the background that is blue or
    >> purple that looks kinda ugly here. It's the color, not the bokeh,
    >> that is the problem.

    >
    >Thanks for the input.
    >>
    >> That same shot, with the same settings, but with a different foliage
    >> in the background would be what you wanted to achieve.

    >
    >Actually, it's not foliage, rather a forest. Just pine trees and orangey
    >ground. At the other side of a small valley.


    "Foliage" is leaves on trees, pine needle, bushes, and anything else
    growing. When you look at a forest, what you see is Foliage and some
    tree trunks. When we talk about "fall Foliage", we're talking about
    leaves on trees in the fall.

    It doesn't make any difference what it is...the color looks bad.
    That's what you want to change.
    >
    >> There's some things you can do if you have Photoshop, but I'm not
    >> going to spend time explaining how if you don't have Photoshop. Any
    >> version, including Elements 9 or 10, with Replace Color or Match Color
    >> and Layer Masking will work.

    >
    >I have the Gimp, but I don't see the blue/purple to be able to remove it.


    I haven't played around with Gimp for years, but - if you can -
    duplicate the background (primary) layer and play with that. Select
    that blue or purple color that looks so bad and adjust the hue to get
    it green or as close as you can so it will blend in with the other
    green areas.

    Doing this is going to change what the tree itself looks like, but
    don't worry about that at this time. If the adjustments work, then
    duplicate the original primary layer with it under the hue adjusted
    layer. Make the hue adjusted layer a mask and - with black as the
    foreground color (removes)- paint out the hue layer over the tree
    itself. You are creating a hole in this layer that allows the trunk
    to show as in your original.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 8, 2012
    #5
  6. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 12:42:40 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-07-08 12:15:08 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:38:10 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm confused.
    >>>
    >>> I read this:
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-55mm-
    >>> F1.8.html>
    >>>
    >>> And take this:
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream>
    >>>
    >>> The bokeh seems harsh to me.
    >>>
    >>> Am I doing something wrong?

    >>
    >> "Bokeh" is just what is in the background that is out-of-focus. Your
    >> background is out-of-focus. Just what you want.

    >
    >Pablo wants the shallow DOF, but not so shallow that the entire texture
    >of the tree is not captured in detail. As a result his exposure
    >settings are a compromise. The cost of that compromise is, the
    >background is not as OOF as he anticipated.


    It's sufficiently OOF, but still looks bad with blobs of disparate
    color. Even more OOF and you'd still have the blobs.

    If the background is OOF, some people think that this means that the
    background is just one hazy blur. Not so. An OOF background blurs
    the detail and objects, but doesn't remove color masses. It just
    makes the edges less distinct.

    In this case, the problem really isn't "bokeh". Bokeh is how points
    of light appear when out of focus. This image is about how color mass
    appears.

    Wiki's piece on bokeh shows this. Look at the small image of the girl
    with foliage in the background. The points of light are blurred, but
    you still see distinct areas of color: yellow and greens.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 8, 2012
    #6
  7. Pablo

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/8/2012 3:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-07-08 12:15:08 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:38:10 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm confused.
    >>>
    >>> I read this:
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-55mm-
    >>>
    >>> F1.8.html>
    >>>
    >>> And take this:
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream>
    >>>
    >>> The bokeh seems harsh to me.
    >>>
    >>> Am I doing something wrong?

    >>
    >> "Bokeh" is just what is in the background that is out-of-focus. Your
    >> background is out-of-focus. Just what you want.

    >
    > Pablo wants the shallow DOF, but not so shallow that the entire texture
    > of the tree is not captured in detail. As a result his exposure settings
    > are a compromise. The cost of that compromise is, the background is not
    > as OOF as he anticipated.
    >
    >> The ugliness of the background is the mottled purplish color. The
    >> green's fine, but there's something in the background that is blue or
    >> purple that looks kinda ugly here. It's the color, not the bokeh,
    >> that is the problem.

    >
    > I could be wrong, but I suspect the background is a vineyard, and what
    > you ID as "mottled purplish color" is soil and part of the vine trellis
    > work.
    >
    >> That same shot, with the same settings, but with a different foliage
    >> in the background would be what you wanted to achieve.

    >
    > I have a feeling that is easier said than done. Perhaps at a different
    > time of year?
    >
    >> There's some things you can do if you have Photoshop, but I'm not
    >> going to spend time explaining how if you don't have Photoshop. Any
    >> version, including Elements 9 or 10, with Replace Color or Match Color
    >> and Layer Masking will work.

    >
    > Yup!
    >
    >


    He can also make a rough selection, invert and feather it. then apply
    either a Gaussian, or surface blur to taste.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 9, 2012
    #7
  8. On 7/8/2012 7:47 PM, PeterN wrote:
    > On 7/8/2012 3:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2012-07-08 12:15:08 -0700, tony cooper <>
    >> said:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:38:10 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I'm confused.
    >>>>
    >>>> I read this:
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-55mm-
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> F1.8.html>
    >>>>
    >>>> And take this:
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream>
    >>>>
    >>>> The bokeh seems harsh to me.
    >>>>
    >>>> Am I doing something wrong?
    >>>
    >>> "Bokeh" is just what is in the background that is out-of-focus. Your
    >>> background is out-of-focus. Just what you want.

    >>
    >> Pablo wants the shallow DOF, but not so shallow that the entire texture
    >> of the tree is not captured in detail. As a result his exposure settings
    >> are a compromise. The cost of that compromise is, the background is not
    >> as OOF as he anticipated.
    >>
    >>> The ugliness of the background is the mottled purplish color. The
    >>> green's fine, but there's something in the background that is blue or
    >>> purple that looks kinda ugly here. It's the color, not the bokeh,
    >>> that is the problem.

    >>
    >> I could be wrong, but I suspect the background is a vineyard, and what
    >> you ID as "mottled purplish color" is soil and part of the vine trellis
    >> work.
    >>
    >>> That same shot, with the same settings, but with a different foliage
    >>> in the background would be what you wanted to achieve.

    >>
    >> I have a feeling that is easier said than done. Perhaps at a different
    >> time of year?
    >>
    >>> There's some things you can do if you have Photoshop, but I'm not
    >>> going to spend time explaining how if you don't have Photoshop. Any
    >>> version, including Elements 9 or 10, with Replace Color or Match Color
    >>> and Layer Masking will work.

    >>
    >> Yup!
    >>
    >>

    >
    > He can also make a rough selection, invert and feather it. then apply
    > either a Gaussian, or surface blur to taste.
    >

    What on earth is "bokeh"? A definition please since I can't find it
    anywhere else but this ng.C

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
     
    James Silverton, Jul 9, 2012
    #8
  9. Pablo

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <2012070816071886357-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
    >
    > On 2012-07-08 15:31:38 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 12:42:40 -0700, Savageduck
    > > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 2012-07-08 12:15:08 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    > >>
    > >>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:38:10 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> I'm confused.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I read this:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> <http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-55mm-
    > >>>> F1.8.html>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> And take this:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> The bokeh seems harsh to me.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Am I doing something wrong?
    > >>>
    > >>> "Bokeh" is just what is in the background that is out-of-focus. Your
    > >>> background is out-of-focus. Just what you want.
    > >>
    > >> Pablo wants the shallow DOF, but not so shallow that the entire texture
    > >> of the tree is not captured in detail. As a result his exposure
    > >> settings are a compromise. The cost of that compromise is, the
    > >> background is not as OOF as he anticipated.

    > >
    > > It's sufficiently OOF, but still looks bad with blobs of disparate
    > > color. Even more OOF and you'd still have the blobs.
    > >
    > > If the background is OOF, some people think that this means that the
    > > background is just one hazy blur. Not so. An OOF background blurs
    > > the detail and objects, but doesn't remove color masses. It just
    > > makes the edges less distinct.
    > >
    > > In this case, the problem really isn't "bokeh". Bokeh is how points
    > > of light appear when out of focus. This image is about how color mass
    > > appears.

    >
    > Agreed. This is not a particularly good image to demonstrate bokeh,
    > shallow DOF with OOF background maybe, but not true bokeh. However I
    > understand what Pablo is trying to do with the image, and there are all
    > sorts of ways of lessening the distraction of the background to
    > emphasize the tree.
    >
    > OOF+shallow DOF ? bokeh


    I think the basic problem is that the background just isn't very
    appealing. My temptation would be to go at night and try it with
    lights--kill the background completely. The field looks like it would
    be small enough to handle with a couple of speedlites, although
    positioning them might need some creativity.

    > >
    > > Wiki's piece on bokeh shows this. Look at the small image of the girl
    > > with foliage in the background. The points of light are blurred, but
    > > you still see distinct areas of color: yellow and greens.
    > >
    > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

    >
    > I have always understood that one of the major elements in producing
    > "pleasing bokeh" is the manner the iris blade elements impose their
    > shape onto the OOF light sources and intersperse the same soft edge
    > shape to the OOF background objects. There are certainly lenses which
    > are able to do this better than others.
    >
    > So "pleasing bokeh" is not just a case of OOF background due to shallow
    > DOF. Specific lenses will produce bokeh of different quality, but even
    > a lens with a reputation for producing this effect desired by some,
    > will fail if it is not set in a way to achieve the result.
    >
    > A soft, blurred, OOF background is not necessarily bokeh.
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 9, 2012
    #9
  10. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:54:03 -0400, James Silverton
    <> wrote:

    >On 7/8/2012 7:47 PM, PeterN wrote:
    >> On 7/8/2012 3:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2012-07-08 12:15:08 -0700, tony cooper <>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:38:10 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I'm confused.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I read this:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-55mm-
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> F1.8.html>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And take this:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The bokeh seems harsh to me.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Am I doing something wrong?
    >>>>
    >>>> "Bokeh" is just what is in the background that is out-of-focus. Your
    >>>> background is out-of-focus. Just what you want.
    >>>
    >>> Pablo wants the shallow DOF, but not so shallow that the entire texture
    >>> of the tree is not captured in detail. As a result his exposure settings
    >>> are a compromise. The cost of that compromise is, the background is not
    >>> as OOF as he anticipated.
    >>>
    >>>> The ugliness of the background is the mottled purplish color. The
    >>>> green's fine, but there's something in the background that is blue or
    >>>> purple that looks kinda ugly here. It's the color, not the bokeh,
    >>>> that is the problem.
    >>>
    >>> I could be wrong, but I suspect the background is a vineyard, and what
    >>> you ID as "mottled purplish color" is soil and part of the vine trellis
    >>> work.
    >>>
    >>>> That same shot, with the same settings, but with a different foliage
    >>>> in the background would be what you wanted to achieve.
    >>>
    >>> I have a feeling that is easier said than done. Perhaps at a different
    >>> time of year?
    >>>
    >>>> There's some things you can do if you have Photoshop, but I'm not
    >>>> going to spend time explaining how if you don't have Photoshop. Any
    >>>> version, including Elements 9 or 10, with Replace Color or Match Color
    >>>> and Layer Masking will work.
    >>>
    >>> Yup!
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> He can also make a rough selection, invert and feather it. then apply
    >> either a Gaussian, or surface blur to taste.
    >>

    >What on earth is "bokeh"? A definition please since I can't find it
    >anywhere else but this ng.C


    It's a pretentious word used to describe the appearance of a
    background that is out-of-focus. If you want to be *really*
    pretentious, rave about the "creamy bokeh" your lens produces.

    Chase down "bokeh" with Google and you will find it comes from the
    Japanese word "boke", which means "blur" or "haze". The "h" was added
    to make the word approximate the Japanese pronunciation of "boke".

    It's also a word that is misused more than it is correctly used. Used
    correctly, it describes the appearance of specular highlights in the
    background...the light shining off a leaf, for example. The whole
    leaf is out-of-focus, but the spot of light reflected is the "bokeh".

    Some people use it incorrectly to describe a background that is
    out-of-focus (as intended) due to a shallow depth-of-fied.





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 9, 2012
    #10
  11. Pablo

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 8, 11:38 am, Pablo <> wrote:
    > I'm confused.
    >
    > I read this:
    >
    > <http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-...
    > F1.8.html>
    >
    > And take this:
    >
    > <http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream>
    >
    > The bokeh seems harsh to me.
    >
    > Am I doing something wrong?
    >
    > --
    > Pablo
    >
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/http://paulc.es/piso/index.php


    Be careful what you read into people's reviews of lenses they bought.
    They're "reputation" (in their minds) is on the line so if the bought
    a dud when it comes to bokeh, they may be reluctant to admit it. I've
    got a 58mm f1.4 Voigtlander lens that has awful, jarring-looking bokeh
    at f1.4 (even though the lens wasn't really cheap) but stopped down to
    f4.0, and it gets really good. Also, the chromatic variant of
    spherical aberration plagues these old lens designs (lenses using old
    Zeiss designs and old, non-high dispersion glass) is a problem so you
    can get defocused colours (red/blue) which will end up visible in edge
    detail when light areas meet dark areas. This can cause some odd
    results. As can the microlenses used on the camera's sensor itself
    and how they interact with the lens on the camera. How much spherical
    aberration the lens has also effects bokeh. Note the "imaging
    doubling" of the out of focus branches in your shot. Rather than a
    smooth blurring, you got that effect.
    The thing to do is test. Run the gamut of lens apertures and see what
    you come up with, and in what situations. That way, you'll be better
    able to predict how a certain shot might look.
     
    RichA, Jul 9, 2012
    #11
  12. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    tony cooper escribió:

    > On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:54:03 -0400, James Silverton
    > <> wrote:


    >>What on earth is "bokeh"? A definition please since I can't find it
    >>anywhere else but this ng.C

    >
    > It's a pretentious word used to describe the appearance of a
    > background that is out-of-focus. If you want to be *really*
    > pretentious, rave about the "creamy bokeh" your lens produces.


    Pretentious it may be, but it works for most people.

    The closest the OED gets is:

    (yes I know, not in the least related, but scarily close)

    Bok globule, n.

    Pronunciation: Brit. /bÉ’k ˈɡlÉ’bjuËl/ , U.S. /ËŒbÉ‘k ˈɡlÉ‘bËŒjul/
    Etymology: < the name of Bart Jan Bok... (Show More)
    Astron.
    Categories »

    Each of many small interstellar clouds of gas and dust which appear as
    dark, roughly circular patches when viewed against a bright background (e.g.
    of stars or ionized gas), and which are associated with star formation; =
    globule n. 5.
    1969 Monthly Notices Royal Astron. Soc. 144 159 The existence of dark
    patches seen against many of the diffuse nebulae is well-known... These are
    the Bok globules and are due to small absorbing clouds between us and the
    nebulae.
    1977 Sci. Amer. June 67/2 Bok globules are among the coldest objects in
    interstellar space: most are only about 10 degrees Kelvin.
    1991 C. A. Ronan Nat. Hist. Universe 192/3 Bok globules..are thought to
    be protostar material contracting into stars.
    2001 Nature 11 Jan. 140/2 When the eighteenth-century astronomer Sir
    William Herschel first encountered a Bok globule in his telescope, he
    exclaimed: ‘Mein Gott, da ist ein Loch in Himmel’ (‘My God, there is a hole
    in the skies’).


    > Some people use it incorrectly to describe a background that is
    > out-of-focus (as intended) due to a shallow depth-of-fied.


    When I've criticised people for using the word 'gender' to describe
    somebody's sex, I've been shot down for not accepting that meanings change.
    Obvious examples being 'gay' and now, it would seem, 'bokeh'.

    In my adopted language, it's a bit easier; they say 'desenfoque' for
    anything intentionally OoF. I suppose we could just say 'blurred'.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Jul 9, 2012
    #12
  13. tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:54:03 -0400, James Silverton
    > <> wrote:
    >>On 7/8/2012 7:47 PM, PeterN wrote:
    >>> On 7/8/2012 3:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>> On 2012-07-08 12:15:08 -0700, tony cooper <>
    >>>> said:


    >>>>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:38:10 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I'm confused.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I read this:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-55mm-
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> F1.8.html>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And take this:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The bokeh seems harsh to me.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Am I doing something wrong?


    All you can do with the bokeh of particular lens is to increase or
    decrease the amount of blurring, you can't change the character of the
    bokeh. (Unless it's one of those specialised lenses with bokeh controls.)

    >>>>> "Bokeh" is just what is in the background that is out-of-focus. Your
    >>>>> background is out-of-focus. Just what you want.
    >>>>
    >>>> Pablo wants the shallow DOF, but not so shallow that the entire texture
    >>>> of the tree is not captured in detail. As a result his exposure settings
    >>>> are a compromise. The cost of that compromise is, the background is not
    >>>> as OOF as he anticipated.
    >>>>
    >>>>> The ugliness of the background is the mottled purplish color. The
    >>>>> green's fine, but there's something in the background that is blue or
    >>>>> purple that looks kinda ugly here. It's the color, not the bokeh,
    >>>>> that is the problem.
    >>>>
    >>>> I could be wrong, but I suspect the background is a vineyard, and what
    >>>> you ID as "mottled purplish color" is soil and part of the vine trellis
    >>>> work.
    >>>>
    >>>>> That same shot, with the same settings, but with a different foliage
    >>>>> in the background would be what you wanted to achieve.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have a feeling that is easier said than done. Perhaps at a different
    >>>> time of year?
    >>>>
    >>>>> There's some things you can do if you have Photoshop, but I'm not
    >>>>> going to spend time explaining how if you don't have Photoshop. Any
    >>>>> version, including Elements 9 or 10, with Replace Color or Match Color
    >>>>> and Layer Masking will work.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yup!
    >>>
    >>> He can also make a rough selection, invert and feather it. then apply
    >>> either a Gaussian, or surface blur to taste.
    >>>

    >>What on earth is "bokeh"? A definition please since I can't find it
    >>anywhere else but this ng.C


    > It's a pretentious word used to describe the appearance of a
    > background that is out-of-focus. If you want to be *really*
    > pretentious, rave about the "creamy bokeh" your lens produces.


    > Chase down "bokeh" with Google and you will find it comes from the
    > Japanese word "boke", which means "blur" or "haze". The "h" was added
    > to make the word approximate the Japanese pronunciation of "boke".


    > It's also a word that is misused more than it is correctly used. Used
    > correctly, it describes the appearance of specular highlights in the
    > background...the light shining off a leaf, for example. The whole
    > leaf is out-of-focus, but the spot of light reflected is the "bokeh".


    > Some people use it incorrectly to describe a background that is
    > out-of-focus (as intended) due to a shallow depth-of-fied.


    I tend rather to agree with the Wiki article on bokeh, which suggests
    that some people incorrectly describe it as the appearance of out of
    focus specular highlights. The appearance of these highlights is the
    simplest and easiest way to see the basic character of the bokeh of a
    particular lens, but it is not restricted to the appearance of those
    highlights. You can have harsh ugly bokeh without any highlights in
    the image.

    For example, the kind of poorly corrected spherical aberration at wide
    apertures which gives a brighter edge than centre to OOF highlights
    will do the same to all high contrast edges, just less obviously. In
    the case of long thin things like blades of grass or plant stems it
    will give rise to a doubled image appearance. The most extreme form of
    this is seen in the notorious "doughnut" bokeh of reflex lenses, which
    have a doughnut shaped aperture.

    An optically perfect lens would turn OOF point light sources into
    evenly lit sharp edged images of the iris shape, usually an
    approximate circle, such as a hexagon. Hence the "doughnut" bokeh of
    the reflex lenses with their fixed aperture and central mirror
    obstruction. Hence the bokeh trick of making your own auxiliary iris
    of a cute shape, like a heart shape, and photographing lots of tiny
    lights with it, like Xmas tree lights.

    Odd numbers of iris blades reduce corner diffraction effects on bright
    lights. Curved iris blades and more of them make it more like a
    circle. Prime numbers are best because there's never any diametrical
    coincidence of two corners. So the best iris blades have a prime
    number of curved blades, the more the better.

    There remains the problem of the sharp aperture edge. The ideal
    "smooth creamy" bokeh is produced by a soft blurred edge to OOF
    highlights. That's usually achieved (by accident or design) by leaving
    some natural optical defects of the lens incompletely corrected. You
    get nicer bokeh at the cost of less microcontrast of the sharply
    focused parts, which inevitably means a softer image with some loss of
    low contrast detail.

    Spherical aberration gives asymmetrical bokeh on either side of sharp
    focus. OOF near objects will have harder edged bokeh, and OOF distant
    objects softer, or vice versa. So some specialised bokeh control
    lenses allow you to shift the poorer bokeh in front or behind, and
    also permit less compromise of in focus microcontrast and
    detail. Sony's (Minolta's) STF lens is the bokeh king, using an
    apodising iris filter to give very smoothly graded bokeh with no
    visible edges without any compromise to in focus sharp detail. The
    cost is about two stops of light transmission.

    Do you have to wear spectacles? If so, take them off and examine the
    bokeh of your eyes by looking at a small bright light source. The
    bokeh of mine is disgusting! :)

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 9, 2012
    #13
  14. On 7/8/2012 8:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-07-08 16:54:03 -0700, James Silverton
    > <> said:
    >
    > <<< Le Snip >>>
    >
    >> What on earth is "bokeh"? A definition please since I can't find it
    >> anywhere else but this ng.C

    >
    > Then you haven't been looking very hard, next time try Google.
    > If you had been following this thread you would have found Tony Cooper's
    > contribution.
    >
    > < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh >
    >
    >

    Marvelous! I can't see any real use for it *to me* and I would have
    wished Tony had coined his word from Latin or Greek which might have
    allowed me to deduce its meaning. "Bokeh" is not in the OED nor even
    recognized by the Thunderbird spell checker.

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
     
    James Silverton, Jul 9, 2012
    #14
  15. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson escribió:

    > If you would like, I can post links to two edited variations on
    > your image. They both have the same processing, and the second
    > is also cropped to a 5:4 aspect ratio, which I like better. The
    > foreground has been sharpened. The background has been
    > selectively (meaning by different amounts in different places)
    > blurred, darkened, and the contrast reduced. It was all done
    > with GIMP.
    >
    > It makes for a much more dramatic image. But I won't post it
    > without your permission.


    Post away. I posted the link to ask for advice - it's no work of art of
    which I'm proud :)

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Jul 9, 2012
    #15
  16. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson escribió:


    > Look down in the lower left corner, where there are three
    > different objects, probably tree trunks, that are more or less
    > vertical and more or less white. Notice that each of them
    > appears as an out of focus double object, with a "ghost" offset
    > horizontally. That is probably caused by a combination of an
    > over correction for spherical aberrations and an astigmatism.
    > It contributes to what will generally be a relatively harsh
    > bokeh in areas with many bright vertical lines. An example
    > would be a background of grass in bright sunlight.
    >
    > Other than that, the harsh bokeh of your image is not a product
    > of the lens so much as it is the high contrast between the
    > background and the subject. I don't see changing the color as
    > at all significant. Anything bright with even minimal detail is
    > not going to help.


    One point: I just remembered that I forgot to attach the hood for that shot.
    It was a very bright day, with the sun directly overhead (as is often the
    case here).

    Might this have had an adverse effect?

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Jul 9, 2012
    #16
  17. Pablo

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 09/07/2012 13:21, James Silverton wrote:
    > On 7/8/2012 8:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2012-07-08 16:54:03 -0700, James Silverton
    >> <> said:
    >>
    >> <<< Le Snip >>>
    >>
    >>> What on earth is "bokeh"? A definition please since I can't find it
    >>> anywhere else but this ng.C

    >>
    >> Then you haven't been looking very hard, next time try Google.
    >> If you had been following this thread you would have found Tony Cooper's
    >> contribution.
    >>
    >> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh >
    >>
    >>

    > Marvelous! I can't see any real use for it *to me* and I would have
    > wished Tony had coined his word from Latin or Greek which might have
    > allowed me to deduce its meaning. "Bokeh" is not in the OED nor even
    > recognized by the Thunderbird spell checker.


    The word originally came from the Japanese where it is "boke" two
    syllables with a final e that is not silent. The "h" was added to get
    Westerners pronunciation to approximate that of the original word.

    It is use to qualitatively describe the characteristic PSF of the lens
    in parts of the image that are out of focus.

    A good lens degrades gracefully with at worst a uniform circular (or
    strictly aperture stop shaped) blur - some specialist lenses are
    designed to control this.

    A bad lens has a sharp outer ring and a mirror lens a characteristic
    donut centre. These tend to detracts from nice smooth background blurs.

    You can most easily see the effect of bokeh on out of focus highlights.

    A few samples (look at the highlight on the glass behind the bottle).

    http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

    I don't entirely agree with his subjective distracting / pleasing
    assessment. The Sonnar isn't all that appealing to me despite being
    almost uniform (and the B+L Tessar and Biometar are downright ugly).


    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Jul 9, 2012
    #17
  18. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 03:35:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
    Davidson) wrote:

    >Pablo <> wrote:
    >>tony cooper escribió:
    >>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:54:03 -0400, James Silverton
    >>> <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>What on earth is "bokeh"? A definition please since I can't find it
    >>>>anywhere else but this ng.C

    >
    >Bokeh is the *quality* or *character* of out of focus areas.
    >
    >>> It's a pretentious word used to describe the appearance of a
    >>> background that is out-of-focus. If you want to be *really*
    >>> pretentious, rave about the "creamy bokeh" your lens produces.

    >>
    >>Pretentious it may be, but it works for most people.

    >
    >It is not in any way pretentious. For example, "creamy bokeh"
    >is a very correct usage, and might be accurate (but not for your
    >image). Saying that an image "has great bokeh" is almost
    >meaningless, saying that it has "a lot of bokeh" is totally
    >meaningless. If it has any area that is not in focus, bokeh is
    >the quality of that area. It might be harsh, it might be
    >smooth, it might be pleasing, or it might be annoying. It
    >cannot be more or less though... :)
    >
    >>The closest the OED gets is:

    >
    >QED's closest has nothing to do with a word that essentially is
    >what we call a "term of art",


    I know it gets your bowels in an uproar when one of your spelling
    errors is flamed, but this one deserves to be commented on if only for
    irony involved.

    Now, protest vehemently with your usual inclusion of insults so I
    can reply: QED - quod erat demonstrandum.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 9, 2012
    #18
  19. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 03:35:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
    Davidson) wrote:

    >>> Some people use it incorrectly to describe a background that is
    >>> out-of-focus (as intended) due to a shallow depth-of-fied.

    >
    >That is *exactly* what it is *properly* used for.
    >

    No it isn't. It is properly used to describe certain aspects of a
    background that is out-of-focus (as intended), but not a background
    that is out-of-focus (as intended) where those aspects are not
    present.

    The "background" is simply that: the area of the photograph behind
    the subject. A photograph of a subject with a brick wall behind them
    may have been taken with the settings that present the wall as
    blurred, indistinct, and with the edges of the bricks undefined. Good
    treatment, but not good bokeh.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 9, 2012
    #19
  20. On 7/9/2012 9:12 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-07-09 05:21:51 -0700, James Silverton
    > <> said:
    >
    >> On 7/8/2012 8:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2012-07-08 16:54:03 -0700, James Silverton
    >>> <> said:
    >>>
    >>> <<< Le Snip >>>
    >>>
    >>>> What on earth is "bokeh"? A definition please since I can't find it
    >>>> anywhere else but this ng.C
    >>>
    >>> Then you haven't been looking very hard, next time try Google.
    >>> If you had been following this thread you would have found Tony Cooper's
    >>> contribution.
    >>>
    >>> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh >
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Marvelous! I can't see any real use for it *to me* and I would have
    >> wished Tony had coined his word from Latin or Greek which might have
    >> allowed me to deduce its meaning. "Bokeh" is not in the OED nor even
    >> recognized by the Thunderbird spell checker.

    >
    > If at anytime you might want to describe the characteristics of a
    > particular lens with regard to the OOF areas due to shallow DOF, you
    > might well see a real use for the word "bokeh".
    >
    > "Bokeh" is certainly not a word Tony "coined".
    >
    > As for using Latin or Greek origins to formulate a word so that you
    > could deduce its meaning, you might consider that contemporary English
    > has many words with origins further afield than Latin or Greek, ranging
    > from Afrikaans, Arabic, through Hindi, and Japanese to Zulu.
    >
    > "Bokeh" has been part of the photography lexicon since at least 1998.
    > Information you might have gleaned if you read and comprehended the
    > Wikipedia article.
    >
    > Regarding OED, you might want to update the edition you are using.
    > < http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bokeh >
    >
    > ...and you seriously have complete faith in a Windows, or
    > Mozilla/Thunderbird spell checker?
    >

    No, I sometimes disagree with any spell checkers but they *are* an
    indication of usage. My OED is the up-to-date online version available
    via my public library. To me "bokeh" sounds like something dreamed up by
    the pretentious Hyacinth Bucket of British TV.

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
     
    James Silverton, Jul 9, 2012
    #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:
    1,825
    badgerfish
    Sep 23, 2003
  2. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    3,080
    Michael Alan Chary
    Feb 23, 2005
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    543
  4. paul

    Bad Bokeh!

    paul, Mar 15, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,349
    Confused
    Mar 21, 2005
  5. John

    Bad media, bad files or bad Nero?

    John, Dec 31, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,286
    Keith
    Jan 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page