I'm glad it's not just me

But I do like my 35mm 1.8G, nice and fast with good back ground separation. That is all I am using at the moment :)
 
Could you post some examples/links to images which could have improved by greater dof?
The link in your op is only some internet bloke having a rant then going on to suggest a lens to get just the effect which annoys him and you so much.
 
Ed Sutton said:
"...I'm annoyed by the practice of minimizing depth of field regardless of what the image calls for..." - http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...pher/2016/05/open-mike-new-king-of-bokeh.html


Stop those lenses down folks. You know it makes sense! :D

:exit:
Click to expand...

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.

blakester said:
Could you post some examples/links to images which could have improved by greater dof?
The link in your op is only some internet bloke having a rant then going on to suggest a lens to get just the effect which annoys him and you so much.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

My interpretation was made on the strength of the link in the op.
I have no knowledge of his history. He still didn't explain his dislike of the effect, just stated that it's not important.
 
Canon's 85mm f1.2 at f1.2 - if I see another iris sharp and nothing else I'll scream !!!

Real people do have noses you know

Also - anyone saying a 'Landscape' shot need to be at f11 or higher for front to back sharpness I'll scream !!!

Landscapes do not have to be like this, use that bloody 85mm at f1.2 and be creative :)

Dave
 
blakester said:
My interpretation was made on the strength of the link in the op.
I have no knowledge of his history. He still didn't explain his dislike of the effect, just stated that it's not important.
Click to expand...

I do personally like shallow dof shots now and again but I think there's a time, place and subject matter for them and mostly I tend to shoot somewhere between f4 and f8 with FF or in the case of MFT wide open to f4 and occasionally reaching the dizzy heights of f8.

When shooting people with something between 35 and 85mm I'd typically want the head in focus and if the shot is relatively tight (upper body maybe) that could well mean relatively small apertures as when shooting wide open or anything like you'd be lucky to get much in the dof at all let alone a whole head.

I suppose one thing that could help a person to decide what's important to them could be to view shots and decide what they like. Looking back at shots by the great and the good most of the ones I like aren't razor thin dof ones.
 
blakester said:
My interpretation was made on the strength of the link in the op.
I have no knowledge of his history. He still didn't explain his dislike of the effect, just stated that it's not important.
Click to expand...
I guess you have to know the history of Mike Johnston and the word 'bokeh' to understand his post but it is also his Sunday 'off topic' post where as he says "Open Mike is the Editorial page of TOP, where the Ed. goes a little bit nuts every Sunday."

(Edited to remove erroneous quote mark)
 
Last edited:
sphexx said:
I guess you have to know the history of Mike Johnston and the word 'bokeh' to understand his post but it is also his Sunday 'off topic' post where as he says "Open Mike" is the Editorial page of TOP, where the Ed. goes a little bit nuts every Sunday."
Click to expand...

Fair enough Richard, but my interpretation/expectation of the link in the op was that it was going to be some definitive answer or reasoning as to why 'it's not important'. As it stands, it's still some internet bloke having a rant to someone who doesn't know his history.

It's all immaterial in the end anyway, as Hugh @boyfalldown alluded to above, it's a personal choice, it's subjective. Different strokes for different folks as they say!
 
Maybe he (and you) don't like their interpretation of the scene?
 
It's amazing how long it took for painters to stop bothering with background detail and to paint them blurred.
 
chris malcolm said:
It's amazing how long it took for painters to stop bothering with background detail and to paint them blurred.
Click to expand...
The camera has influenced painting for at least 1500 years.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
It's been going on years I remember people banging on about 'perfect doughnuts' on 500mm Mirror Lenses long before the word Bokeh was even invented !
 
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...
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.
 
sphexx said:
Bokeh was the character of the blur, that is the blur
Click to expand...


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.
 
blakester said:
I'm still not sure what your point is in the OP Dave?
Click to expand...

My point is this:
Pookeyhead said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I see it one benefit of fast lenses (now we are no longer as limited by film speeds for hand holding) is the ability to control the depth of field. But today a lot of people only ever seem to use lenses at their maximum aperture. Doesn't seem to matter that it takes the subject out of any context. In portraits, as DG said, it takes away all facial details except the eyes.

Maybe it's a fad. I hope so.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Maybe it's a fad. I hope so.
Click to expand...


Camera geek spends a fortune on f1.4 lens... Camera geek must shoot everything on f1.4 to let the Flickrverse know he now has a f1.4 lens.


Simple.

I've even seen people adding ND filters so they can shoot at 1.4 in bright sunlight because they must show the "bokeh"

Idiots.

Sometimes you choose an aperture that blurs enough, but keeps the surrounds identifiable for context.... Having everyone floating in a blur of abstracted shapes and colours looks crap unless there's a very good reason for it.



[edit]

No one seems to make good use of the depth of field preview these days.
 
Last edited:
chris malcolm said:
In which of painting and photography did the selective serious blurring of backgrounds become fashionable, and when?
Click to expand...
Well that wasn't quite what I was saying and I don't know the answer to that question. However in painting the out of focus background is called sfumato (smoky) and to give a familiar example what about the Mona Lisa?
It's pretty obvious that chemical photography has had an effect on painting. Post Muybridge nobody would paint running horses in the old way. It's been argued that photographs made painters change their viewpoints and so on though maybe that was from the much earlier use of mirrors and lenses.
 
Time for one of these, perhaps...

Arty Photographer: I use depth of field preview to ensure I get the best from my bokeh rich lenses
Club Photographer: I shoot everything at f11 because the camera magazines say that's the best aperture
Everyman Photographer: What's bokeh?
​
Of course, none of those who post here fall into any of the above categories. :exit:
 
Sejanus Aelianus said:
Time for one of these, perhaps...

Arty Photographer: I use depth of field preview to ensure I get the best from my bokeh rich lenses
Club Photographer: I shoot everything at f11 because the camera magazines say that's the best aperture
Everyman Photographer: What's bokeh?
​
Of course, none of those who post here fall into any of the above categories. :exit:
Click to expand...

You've missed the 'Thinking photographer' of this list !
 
Sejanus Aelianus said:
Arty Photographer: I use depth of field preview to ensure I get the best from my bokeh rich lenses​
Click to expand...



No.... camera geeks do this. I use it to ensure that the image looks like I want it to look. Anyone who even USES the word bokeh is a t**t in my opinion.


​
 
Pookeyhead said:
... Anyone who even USES the word bokeh is a t**t in my opinion.​
Click to expand...
I think that's going too far given that it is a useful technical term when used correctly to characterise a lens.
 
Sejanus Aelianus said:
Arty Photographer: I use depth of field preview to ensure I get the best from my bokeh rich lenses
Click to expand...

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?
 
sphexx said:
I think that's going too far given that it is a useful technical term when used correctly to characterise a lens.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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...

How do you work that out? On mine, it stops down to the aperture set... the diaphragm actually closes down to the set aperture.
 
Pookeyhead said:
How do you work that out? On mine, it stops down to the aperture set... the diaphragm actually closes down to the set aperture.
Click to expand...


Try it....set apertures below f/2 and the gradually increase them. Press the DOF button and see what point the viewfinder actually starts to change. (On my D750 its around f/2.2). Only take you a minute. I should of been a little clearer though. What I meant was apertures wider open then about f/2
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Try it....set apertures below f/2 and the gradually increase them. Press the DOF button and see what point the viewfinder actually starts to change. (On my D750 its around f/2.2). Only take you a minute. I should of been a little clearer though. What I meant was apertures wider open then about f/2
Click to expand...

Ok.... just done it. I can see the diaphragm closing down to the aperture set regardless of what aperture is set. Don't bother looking through the viewfinder, as for example... you'll not visually see a difference between 1.8 and 2, but look into the end of the lens and you'll see it is indeed stopping down. Just tried it with a 1.8 lens, and I can see the diaphragm closing down from 1.8 to 2. Try it.. you'll see :)
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Ok.... just done it. I can see the diaphragm closing down to the aperture set regardless of what aperture is set. Don't bother looking through the viewfinder, as for example... you'll not visually see a difference between 1.8 and 2, but look into the end of the lens and you'll see it is indeed stopping down. Just tried it with a 1.8 lens, and I can see the diaphragm closing down from 1.8 to 2. Try it.. you'll see :)
Click to expand...


See what you mean ;)...it was the difference through the viewfinder I meant
 
Pookeyhead said:
No.... camera geeks do this. I use it to ensure that the image looks like I want it to look. Anyone who even USES the word bokeh is a t**t in my opinion.
Click to expand...

David why don’t you be more explicit with your words so that folk know how you really feel. :)

Rhodese
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
See what you mean ;)...it was the difference through the viewfinder I meant
Click to expand...

That's simply because there's hardly any difference between 1.8 and 2. Try it between 1.2 and 2 (if you have such a lens) and you'll see a marked difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top