Beginner Bokeh

Roy1212

Roy1212

Suspended / Banned
Messages
539
Name
Roy Newport
Edit My Images
No
im trying to create it in my photos,I've achieved it sometimes with lots of round discs behind the subject but it was luck,my 50 mm 1.8 gets me the best results,I know get close to your subject and have the background well back but what the best distance from subject to background?whats the best natural background?i haven't a clue.
 
I appreciate I've knocked out the background but is this classedimage.jpg Bokeh?
 
I think that the choice of background is imortant and if you want lots of round discs you're going to have to choose a background which is round disc friendly :D such as lights or highlights from lights or the sun striking objects etc.
 
woof woof said:
I think that the choice of background is imortant and if you want lots of round discs you're going to have to choose a background which is round disc friendly :D such as lights or highlights from lights or the sun striking objects etc.
Click to expand...

Many thanks.I did wonder.
 
With a DSLR if you can't see what the final shot is going to look like you could hit DoF preview, that might give you some clue, or use liveview. Thanfully digital shots are free so you could fire off lots of practice shots of different subjects and backgrounds and see if you can teach yourself to recognise friendly scenes and settings. I'm mirrorless these days and it's a lot easier to see what the final image will look like.

Generally though, my advice is to look for highlights in the background and shoot with a wide-ish aperture.
 
Last edited:
As you said, close to the subject with the background detailing you want the bokeh effect further away from the subject than you. Make sure the aperture is a low value f1.8 or f2. Try to experiment with Christmas lights in the back ground, they are the easiest way to get bokeh I think :)
 
spartagates said:
As you said, close to the subject with the background detailing you want the bokeh effect further away from the subject than you. Make sure the aperture is a low value f1.8 or f2. Try to experiment with Christmas lights in the back ground, they are the easiest way to get bokeh I think :)
Click to expand...

Actually I think that this is a common misconception as you don't always need to shoot at f1.8/2 to get nice bokeh or indeed to get round discs in the background but of course this depends upon the gear, the settings and the composition and it's subjective and you might not like the bokeh you get at f.smaller :D

One problem with large apertures is you might get thin depth of field and next to nothing sharp when maybe a smaller aperture and greater depth of field could add to the shot? It's worth thinking about if the subject and composition can get you the circles and the look you want.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Actually I think that this is a common misconception as you don't always need to shoot at f1.8/2 to get nice bokeh or indeed to get round discs in the background but of course this depends upon the gear, the settings and the composition and it's subjective and you might not like the bokeh you get at f.smaller :D

One problem with large apertures is you might get thin depth of field and next to nothing sharp when maybe a smaller aperture and greater depth of field could add to the shot? It's worth thinking about if the subject and composition can get you the circles and the look you want.
Click to expand...

I agree; but I find this the easiest way to get large, striking bokeh and a good starting point to get the effect. As with all photography, I would expect them to now play further with the settings to find their preferred settings ;) For example, a fun effect is to place shaped holes on card in front of the lens, this changes the bokeh shape to anything you like eg https://flic.kr/p/92YPqe
 
Last edited:
Definitely don't need wide aperture, I shot this at f6.3

DSC_2381-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr


It's the light in the out of focus areas that give you the 'discs' in the bokeh imo.
 
snerkler said:
Definitely don't need wide aperture, I shot this at f6.3

DSC_2381-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr


It's the light in the out of focus areas that give you the 'discs' in the bokeh imo.
Click to expand...


This is a photo in which to talk about the bokeh. You can see the OOF areas and therefore judge it, in this case it looks a bit "oniony" (which is where the highlight blurs have a ring in them) but the OOF areas are pretty round and so overall not so bad.

Don't confuse a blurred background with bokeh. Different things.
 
Nawty said:
No. Absolutely not bokeh.

There is nothing to see - the background is completely fuzzed out. Bokeh is the QUALITY of the out of focus areas - a smooth green background does nothing in relation to this.
Click to expand...
I disagree, bokeh is the quality of the out of focus area as you say, but to say the bird pic has no bokeh is incorrect IMO. There is plenty of out of focus area, therefore plenty of bokeh. You could say that the bokeh is poor or uninteresting, but it's there.
 
Nawty said:
This is a photo in which to talk about the bokeh. You can see the OOF areas and therefore judge it, in this case it looks a bit "oniony" (which is where the highlight blurs have a ring in them) but the OOF areas are pretty round and so overall not so bad.

Don't confuse a blurred background with bokeh. Different things.
Click to expand...
I think all Tamrons are 'guilty' of onion effect in the rings tbh. I don't mind it though.
 
No, the bird shot has shallow DoF, not high quality bokeh. Bokeh, specifically, is about the QUALITY of the OOF areas, not how blurred a background you have.

These things ARE mutually exclusive.
 
Nawty said:
No, the bird shot has shallow DoF, not high quality bokeh. Bokeh, specifically, is about the QUALITY of the OOF areas, not how blurred a background you have.

These things ARE mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Exactly it's just not high quality bokeh.
 
I've achieved this once but can't recreate it regularly.image.jpg
 
The more aperture blades your lens has (and ideally an odd number) will typically assist in making the the OOF disks rounder- in the centre at least!
 
Last edited:
Good bokeh is a pleasing lack of definition, bad bokeh is the opposite; The picture of the bird is an example of good bokeh, the pictures of the monkeys? and the dog are examples of bad bokeh.
 
Royroy1111 said:
I've achieved this once but can't recreate it regularly
Click to expand...

Look for a background with light sources, light coming through something like, branches, leaves etc or light striking something. That'll give you a better chance of getting nice round or shaped (depending upon the shape of the aperture) highlights in the background.
 
mortimerhill said:
Good bokeh is a pleasing lack of definition, bad bokeh is the opposite; The picture of the bird is an example of good bokeh, the pictures of the monkeys? and the dog are examples of bad bokeh.
Click to expand...
As above can you explain why? I like bokeh that shows well defined circles of light and imo isn't a sign of bad bokeh just a sign that there was a lot of individual light sources such as light coming through leaves. Some people even strive to achieve this, and I believe this is what the OP is wanting to do.

So from what you're saying, only bokeh that has no definition like this is good bokeh?

DSC_7491 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
rich_ said:
Eye of the beholder type stuff.
Click to expand...
This exactly.
Bokeh is the 'quality' of the out of focus area, whether OoF highlights are good or bad is a matter of taste. However, whether a lens offers creamy smooth transitions is a matter of fact. Some lenses do a very good job of it, some don't. And if you like the OoF highlights, then a lens that produces clean round highlights will be a preference.

In summary - a lens with angular OoF highlights is unlikely to please many people at all.
 
Nawty said:
Don't confuse a blurred background with bokeh. Different things.
Click to expand...
So true.
Too many photographers think that out of focus = bokeh.
 
Wikipedia description of bokeh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh There is no true definition of bokeh though - the word has no direct translation and 'fuzzy' is about as close as we can get. However, it's meaning in photography is becoming defined by use over time, on forums like this, and Phil V's post above reflects that pretty well.

While depth-of-field is a vital component, it's far from the only one. Focal length has at least as big an impact, as the narrower field of view with longer lenses enlarges the background and while that technically doesn't change depth-of-field, it usually looks like it does. Enlarging the background turns distracting clutter into simpler, bolder and more pleasing shapes. The other thing is shooting distance, and the distance between the main (sharp) subject and the background. Basically, having the subject as large as possible, filling the frame, while also moving the subject further from the background creates most blur.

70mm f/4


200mm f/4
 
Lens construction plays a vital part imo, such as number of aperture blades, number of elements, quality of the glass etc etc.
 
So here'sa question. How do you pronounce bokeh? I've never actually heard anyone say it, only read the word in articles!
 
4114effects said:
So here'sa question. How do you pronounce bokeh? I've never actually heard anyone say it, only read the word in articles!
Click to expand...

have a look at one of the DigitalRev Utube vids ........ it is a Japanese word .... they are in HK so maybe they should know
 
4114effects said:
So here'sa question. How do you pronounce bokeh? I've never actually heard anyone say it, only read the word in articles!
Click to expand...
Bow (as in bow tie)-ke (as in kettle) apparently. I always pronounced it bo as in bottle before.
 
snerkler said:
Bow (as in bow tie)-ke (as in kettle) apparently. I always pronounced it bo as in bottle before.
Click to expand...

That's how I imagined it to be said. Cheers!

I once had an argument with an Internet geek about how the word "meme" should be pronounced. He told me off for saying it wrong, I was arguing that it's a unique Internet-only word that was written before it was ever spoken, therefore nobody actually knows how it's supposed to be pronounced. Anyway, I digress. Sorry for the thread hijack!
 
I've entered the Dog photo into a photographic Clubs competition and shall post what the qualified Judge says about it.
 
4114effects said:
I was arguing that it's a unique Internet-only word that was written before it was ever spoken, therefore nobody actually knows how it's supposed to be pronounced.
Click to expand...
Not true. "Meme" was first used by Richard Dawkins, in print, in 1976 (well before the internet became popular). It's a shortening of the greek word mimeme, and its pronunciation derives from that.
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
Not true. "Meme" was first used by Richard Dawkins, in print, in 1976 (well before the internet became popular). It's a shortening of the greek word mimeme, and its pronunciation derives from that.
Click to expand...

Well look who knows how to use Wikipedia ... ;-)

Never knew that though. Fascinating. I stand corrected.
 
4114effects said:
Well look who knows how to use Wikipedia ... ;-)

Never knew that though. Fascinating. I stand corrected.
Click to expand...
I knew it was Dawkins already as my brother is a keen reader of his books. I had to wiki the date though :)
 
snerkler said:
Definitely don't need wide aperture, I shot this at f6.3
Click to expand...

RIGHT! Bokeh is not aperture dependent but distance subject/background dependent!
Furthermore, if one creates bokeh using a large aperture the price to pay, as with the bird,
is a consequent loss of sharpness due diffraction. These monkeys are a perfect example
of this. …a very cool shot by the way snerkler!



It's the light in the out of focus areas that give you the 'discs' in the bokeh imo.
Click to expand...
WRONG! The shape is strictly determined by the number of blades of the diaphragm which,
to be of desirable quality, should count 9 or more blades.
 
Quite a proliferation of gibberish in this thread. But that's nothing unusual. Here's to pocket pundits everywhere!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top