I'm glad it's not just me

sphexx said:
Since most people use bokeh = (out of focus blur) I suppose we have accept the meaning may have changed but that was not what it was coined to mean (and originally introduced, in the 'West', by Mike Johnston). Bokeh was the character of the blur, that is the blur could be good or bad, or have various characteristics such as rings or doughnuts etc etc.
Click to expand...


You're making my point for me. Who cares about the character of the blur? The reason you are blurring anything more often than not is to stop people paying attention to it because it's noise, or a distraction. Why people pay money for lenses that seem to give some indefinable character to parts of the image we want to discourage people from looking at is beyond me.


I can kind of see why anyone who wants to shoot anything cinematic would like to use an anamorphic lens for this reason.... but after quite a bit of head scratching... I can think of no other reason to be obsessed by it.
 
Last edited:
I prefer to look at it as "separation" of subject and background :) If people want to use Bokeh or whatever that's up to them ;)

I don't think the Sony A7 series has DOF preview but using 99% vintage manual lenses it doesn't really matter ;)
 
This tread has made me feel so good about my photography. Now I can say my shots are not out of focus but contain forward bokeh.

I do not understand creamy bokeh etc and comments regarding the number of blades to make it better/ different? It is just an out of focus background which is what the photographer wanted to make the main object stand out. Not much different to using a single coloured or mottled backdrop behind an object or person to have no distractions? Now tear me to pieces all you bokeh people.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I don't think so. It implies that the parts of the image you deliberately want to de-emphasise to stop people paying attention to them are somehow as important as the actual subject you do want people to look at. All this lens snobbery achieves is a bunch of people who place more importance upon such things, and ignore the fact that the actual image ends up serving no other purpose than being a vehicle to show off their lenses. What exactly is the point of that? I've never once seen mention of bokeh when people write about Salgado, or Arbus, or Friedlander or any other great photographer I care to mention... so why is it so important to amateurs? The fact is.. it's not important. Having the correct aperture for what you intend is.... but all this t**ttery about quality of bokeh is just a distraction that amateurs place importance upon because they've nothing critical to say about the photograph itself. It's camera club mentality: Points for sharpness, points for composition, points for this, points for that... it's nonsense. The reason no one mentions bokeh when discussing Salgado or anyone else of repute for that matter, is quite simply because it does not matter.
Click to expand...
Assuming you are serious, don't you think part of the point is that if the out of focus blur is striking then it can be distracting attention from the subject - obvious example is the doughnuts from mirror lenses, already cited here.
 
Wee man said:
I do not understand creamy bokeh etc and comments regarding the number of blades to make it better/ different?
Click to expand...


It's what people do when they have no other reason to take photos other than an interest in cameras usually... when quality of image supersedes meaning and purpose. If you're desperately trying to find such ways to justify your images, or spending such time and money on it, then you've lost your way... you're just a technician... a camera operator. When I'm shooting, the last thing on my mind is the quality of my out of focus parts... all I'm interested in is how out of focus they are and if the DOF is appropriate. If anyone stops and thinks... "Hmmm... I need to swap lenses and put the Helios 44 and screw mount adaptor on here to get swirly bokeh" they're just looking at the wrong things, and if your audience appreciates this, and not what you actually focus your lens on, then again, you're probably on a pretty specialist Flickr group or in a camera club.


No one else cares.

I've occasionally messed with lenses to achieve certain effects. I have a Helios 44mm right here. I stripped it down to remove the coatings as I wanted to shoot in a way to match some other old imagery I was mixing with a project, but the reasons for being so critical about such things are few and far between. I used it once, and then put it in the desk drawer and never used it since... because it's a s**t lens. I can't recall the last time I ever considered the quality of "bokeh". Half the time it is irrelevant. If I'm shooting on the Mamyia, then I use the Mamiya lenses... they are what they are... I have no choice.
 
sphexx said:
Assuming you are serious, don't you think part of the point is that if the out of focus blur is striking then it can be distracting attention from the subject - obvious example is the doughnuts from mirror lenses, already cited here.
Click to expand...


Of course.... which is why no one uses them any more. Let's be honest though.... If I did blind tests on you, you'd not be able to identify a single lens accurately by it's "bokeh" in the real world, so it's all b******s.
 
woof woof said:
Yes. I read that piece too. Another pet hate of mine is shots with the highlights blown to high heaven. Both these things seem to be overdone these days, for me anyway.



Not just some internet bloke but a bloke with a history who knows his craft and in the Panasonic article he's not talking about minimal dof but the quality of the oof rendering.
Click to expand...

Can 4/4 or MFT do shallow DoF anyway (compared to 35mm or even 1.5 x crop!)?

Ed Sutton said:
We're not allowed to post other people's pictures to be nasty about them. :p So here's one of mine...



:LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of shallow DoF but I do rather like that totally OOF one!
 
Pookeyhead said:
Of course.... which is why no one uses them any more. Let's be honest though.... If I did blind tests on you, you'd not be able to identify a single lens accurately by it's "bokeh" in the real world, so it's all b******s.
Click to expand...
But I haven't claimed I could. In fact I've never been interested in making shallow depth of field photos (not saying I don't appreciate them) and I find it hilarious that there is so much concentration on getting blurry photos! Obsessing about sharpness can also be a bit bonkers :-( .
 
Nod said:
Can 4/4 or MFT do shallow DoF anyway (compared to 35mm or even 1.5 x crop!)?!
Click to expand...


Depends on the usual suspects: Distance, focal length and aperture...

26770479095_436e736487_b.jpg
 
Many people don't appreciate how important focal length is. For example with a 500mm lens at f8 there is shallow enough DoF that in a slanted head shot you can be at risk of having one eye in focus and the other out. Wide aperture is far from being the blurred background sine qua non that the full frame camera salesmen would like you to believe.
 
boyfalldown said:
Of course the arty photographer knows his modern DSLR won't stop down below about f/2 (varies a little by brand) when using the preview button. Right?
Click to expand...
Because the arty photographer understands so little of the technicalities of photography that they can't even think of an experiment with their own camera to prove the falsity ofsuch an absurd claim?
 
chris malcolm said:
Because the arty photographer understands so little of the technicalities of photography that they can't even think of an experiment with their own camera to prove the falsity ofsuch an absurd claim?
Click to expand...
Nope, I'd say they recognise that the technicalities aren't important to the image, it's only the image that matters.
Trouble is, photography is somewhere people can get caught up with technicalities, the need for bigger and better equipment, the cost etc.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm sick of people banging on about Bokeh. You blur a background to stop people noticing it... then the camera club/lens geeks come along as do nothing BUT look at the bits you've blurred out... ****ing idiots.

Sometimes you stop down, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you want the background detail because it's important, sometimes you don't. Simple as that.

Then there are other factors... such as format. Most photographers today have limited, or no experience with this, as to them, that means crop or full frame... but anyone who's shot anything on 10x8 will understand.
Click to expand...

Do you? I don't. Much more often than not it's an artistic choice.


Pookeyhead said:
That's my point. Who cares? Why are people looking at the quality of your out of focus background and not your subject in the first place?

If you're more concerned with crap like this than you are the subject of, and reason for the photograph, then you're not a photographer... you're just someone who likes playing with cameras.
Click to expand...

You sound like a potty mouthed robot.

It's an artistic choice, R2D2.

When you pick up a camera you can record what's in front of you accurately and forensically or you turn it into an abstract or anything in between. Why not try and see the potential and appreciation at least for others instead of just spouting the usual arrogant dismissive predictable potty mouthed argument.
 
chris malcolm said:
Because the arty photographer understands so little of the technicalities of photography that they can't even think of an experiment with their own camera to prove the falsity ofsuch an absurd claim?
Click to expand...

Maybe you'd devise one
 
woof woof said:
Do you? I don't. Much more often than not it's an artistic choice.
Click to expand...

Yes... to have it blurred or not... for whatever reason... is an artistic choice. It's either relevant/useful/attractive and you keep it in, or it's not, and you drop it out. You don't blur everything because you think the bokeh is nice, or you end up shooting everything at 1.4.. like the OP and everyone else is sick of seeing.




woof woof said:
You sound like a potty mouthed robot.... blah blah blah....
Click to expand...

Put me on ignore then.
 
chris malcolm said:
Because the arty photographer understands so little of the technicalities of photography that they can't even think of an experiment with their own camera to prove the falsity ofsuch an absurd claim?
Click to expand...

Apparently I'm an "arty" photographer. Do I know so little of the technicalities?

I think you're talking out of your pants mate.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Apparently I'm an "arty" photographer. Do I know so little of the technicalities?

I think you're talking out of your pants mate.
Click to expand...
David, we all appreciate that you're an artist, and that your area of interest is art.

However, that doesn't negate all other aspects and approaches to photography. I too find gear nerds ridiculous, and I can't see the point in many genres they just don't press my buttons, and many people dislike my chosen field. But that doesn't make them or me or you invalid, feel free to push the artistic agenda, it's interesting and keeps a broad range of views on the forum.

But use your intelligence to appreciate that other people have different interests.
 
Phil V said:
David, we all appreciate that you're an artist, and that your area of interest is art.

However, that doesn't negate all other aspects and approaches to photography. I too find gear nerds ridiculous, and I can't see the point in many genres they just don't press my buttons, and many people dislike my chosen field. But that doesn't make them or me or you invalid, feel free to push the artistic agenda, it's interesting and keeps a broad range of views on the forum.

But use your intelligence to appreciate that other people have different interests.
Click to expand...




My point was, that Chris was saying "arty" photographers understand little of the technicalities. I was refuting that statement.
 
Pookeyhead said:
My point was, that Chris was saying "arty" photographers understand little of the technicalities. I was refuting that statement.
Click to expand...
I understand that point, but your general language regarding other photographers throughout this thread is disingenuous at best.
 
Pookeyhead said:
My point was, that Chris was saying "arty" photographers understand little of the technicalities. I was refuting that statement.
Click to expand...

I think that now there are photographers in all genres who understand all the technicalities and those who just use auto modes and have no idea what the camera is doing. Probably not just now. I suspect it has been this way since Kodak's "You press the button - we'll do the rest" advertising campaign.


Steve.
 
There are lots of photographers who understand the technicalities in the finest detail and still take crap photos. What you need to know is how to make the pictures you want to make. Whether that means shooting in auto or setting everything manually matters not.
 
Steve Smith said:
I think that now there are photographers in all genres who understand all the technicalities and those who just use auto modes and have no idea what the camera is doing. Probably not just now. I suspect it has been this way since Kodak's "You press the button - we'll do the rest" advertising campaign.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I think that's probably true and that's ok. My sister 'loves photography' and takes a great photograph but all she wants is a camera that takes quality pictures by pressing the button. Anything beyond that and she's not interested.
 
Ed Sutton said:
There are lots of photographers who understand the technicalities in the finest detail and still take crap photos. What you need to know is how to make the pictures you want to make. Whether that means shooting in auto or setting everything manually matters not.
Click to expand...

Which brings us back to your OP.
If someone wishes to use their lens wide open, it matters not.....
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
My point was, that Chris was saying "arty" photographers understand little of the technicalities. I was refuting that statement.
Click to expand...
You seem not to have noticed the question mark at the end of that sentence. I wasn't saying that, I was asking that question. If you go back and look at the context I hoped it would have been clear that I was asking this question as a possible underlying assumption which would explain the point of view of the person I was responding to. I intended it to be recognised as an absurdity, recognition of which would call into question the point of view I was replying to. It's called a rhetorical question.

I must remember that this is a photography forum. I can't expect the readers to be as skilled in language as they are in photography :-)
 
chris malcolm said:
I intended it to be recognised as an absurdity, recognition of which would call into question the point of view I was replying to
Click to expand...



Before you carry on with your little absurdity it may be worth while you investigating how modern AF systems work, the effect that has on the max aperture as seen though the viewfinder and how they are calibrated (it does vary by model and manufacturer) but AFAIK without changing the default focus screen then non are calibrated to above f/2

Then you can make comments about people's linguistic skills if it makes you feel like a bigger man
 
Last edited:
Coming to this a little late...but isn't it horses for courses? For me sub f2 is very handy for low light events where flash is not possible, Astro and blurring out horrible backgrounds :)
 
newbie1 said:
Coming to this a little late...but isn't it horses for courses? For me sub f2 is very handy for low light events where flash is not possible, Astro and blurring out horrible backgrounds :)
Click to expand...

I agree.

If you want to take pictures discretely in a dark pub, little beats a f1.2 lens - even then, someone will notice you!

16258275704_345440f5f7_b.jpg
 
Phil V said:
I understand that point, but your general language regarding other photographers throughout this thread is disingenuous at best.
Click to expand...

Sorry.... got zero time for all this crap about bokeh and stuff that's of no importance. I lose my patience with it.
 
Phil V said:
But use your intelligence to appreciate that other people have different interests.
Click to expand...

I can voice my opinions Phil if I want. If people get upset, tough... seriously... just tough. I'm sick of big whining cry babies who get upset because some bloke on a forum says some things they don't like... especially when it wasn't even addressed at any particular individual whatsoever.

If I think it's ludicrous that people spend time and money chasing such trivia as the quality of out of focus bits of the image, and that I think it makes you less of a photographer... I'll say so. If I think someone who uses the word "Bokehlicious" as many do... is a t**t.. I'll say that too. If that upsets you or anyone else, you need to get your damned priorities right.

Rapidly losing my patience with this place and all the b*****ks talked in it. Time I left for a while.. it just makes me angry these days, and to be honest... I'm too busy for anything as trivial as this to be occupying so much of my time.

Have fun... back in the summer maybe when I have more time to talk b*****ks.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I can voice my opinions Phil if I want. If people get upset, tough... seriously... just tough. I'm sick of big whining cry babies who get upset because some bloke on a forum says some things they don't like... especially when it wasn't even addressed at any particular individual whatsoever.

If I think it's ludicrous that people spend time and money chasing such trivia as the quality of out of focus bits of the image, and that I think it makes you less of a photographer... I'll say so. If I think someone who uses the word "Bokehlicious" as many do... is a t**t.. I'll say that too. If that upsets you or anyone else, you need to get your damned priorities right.

Rapidly losing my patience with this place and all the b*****ks talked in it. Time I left for a while.. it just makes me angry these days, and to be honest... I'm too busy for anything as trivial as this to be occupying so much of my time.

Have fun... back in the summer maybe when I have more time to talk b*****ks.
Click to expand...

I enjoy you're posts David but I don't always agree with you. Hang in there mate and ride the storm !
 
Pookeyhead said:
I can voice my opinions Phil if I want. If people get upset, tough... seriously... just tough. I'm sick of big whining cry babies who get upset because some bloke on a forum says some things they don't like... especially when it wasn't even addressed at any particular individual whatsoever.

If I think it's ludicrous that people spend time and money chasing such trivia as the quality of out of focus bits of the image, and that I think it makes you less of a photographer... I'll say so. If I think someone who uses the word "Bokehlicious" as many do... is a t**t.. I'll say that too. If that upsets you or anyone else, you need to get your damned priorities right.

Rapidly losing my patience with this place and all the b*****ks talked in it. Time I left for a while.. it just makes me angry these days, and to be honest... I'm too busy for anything as trivial as this to be occupying so much of my time.

Have fun... back in the summer maybe when I have more time to talk b*****ks.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that people can be morons, I do think those of you who can help them see the light should do that rather than slagging them off.

I'm not upset, far from it, I genuinely appreciate most of your contributions, and I'd be upset if you weren't here to share your wisdom.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Rapidly losing my patience with this place and all the b*****ks talked in it. Time I left for a while.. it just makes me angry these days, and to be honest... I'm too busy for anything as trivial as this to be occupying so much of my time.

Have fun... back in the summer maybe when I have more time to talk b*****ks.
Click to expand...

Don't leave the Projects forum. I've an egg show to go to on Sunday. :(
 
Phil V said:
I don't disagree that people can be morons, I do think those of you who can help them see the light should do that rather than slagging them off.

I'm not upset, far from it, I genuinely appreciate most of your contributions, and I'd be upset if you weren't here to share your wisdom.
Click to expand...

Nice words Phil, we don't always see eye-to-eye ourselves but I think most of us are mature enough to realise that none of this is personal and that TP is richer place for all of our opinions, knowledge and wisdom in whatever guise that may be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top