Bokeh

[Rachel Foster]

I'm working on getting bokeh right. I'm posting four images because I'm asking for a different sort of evaluation. I'm wondering which, if any, of these work? Or which work better than the others? If anyone is kind enough to render an opinion, I intend to spend some time studying those that are better and comparing them to those that are not as good and trying to"get" a deeper understanding of why.

 

[Michael Fontana]

Rachel

dont forget, that bokeh is a function of the lens construction, the Sonnar-type constructions show the nicest bokeh I'v ever seen, °creamy, buttery°.

Therefore it depends as well if you' ve been using the same lens for these shots.

A simple and easy way of preserving a nice bokeh is - in your case - to sharpen the flower only, and keep the background unsharpen; or you even might experimente with bluring it. That might help in Nr.2.

 

[Rachel Foster]

I used 100 mm macro (Canon) for all 4. Is there a better macro for Canon?

Number two was especially frustrating. It's "almost" but not quite and I've been unsure what to do with it.

The best I've been able to come up with is a more severe crop.

 

[Michael Fontana]

I used 100 mm macro (Canon) for all 4. Is there a better macro for Canon?

Number two was especially frustrating. It's "almost" but not quite and I've been unsure what to do with it.

Well Rachel, the 100 mm macro, it's strenghts isn't bokeh - I v'e one too.
But it has a pretty good curvature of field, which means its a good lens for reproductions, capturing flat rectangular objects like drawings.

Other constructions are better suited for capturing 3 D-objects. The Zeiss 60 and 100 mm - both going to 1:1 ones have a very good reputation, but I dont have one.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Does Zeiss have one for a Canon mount? The Nikon Zeiss 100 is about $1400.00. It should do a nice job for that price.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Rachel,

You have given Asher and me some serious concerns today with books about PS and now this. There is infinitely more you can do without investing in any new lenses. You did read the great advices given by Ken and Asher in the "refining photography" thread. So you should realize that it applies to all of us. Do not, I repeat do not, consider buying new lenses just because bokeh is gradually better. Hone your skills first. I hope you'll understand where I am coming from. I mean it well

Cheers,

 

[Rachel Foster]

OH, Cem, I couldn't buy lenses now even if i wanted to, which I do not. I'm merely curious and storing info for future reference, possibly several years down the road. Also, if I understand the differences between lenses I'll know better how to use the equipment I have.


There, worries were all for naught, my dear Cem. Now I think I'll revisit the wine thread. It's almost 5 pm EDT.

 

[Edward Bussa]

Hi Rachel,

I like the color/shape echo present in the bokeh of #1, and the horizontal bands of color in #3. The bokeh on the others don't do anything for me.

Using bokeh in an artistic fashion depends on how well you know your lens and then utilizing its strengths on the subject at hand. One lens will do a creamy front-bokeh (out of focus area in front of the subject), others will do both front and back fine but only if you don't get too close to your subject. Although I haven't had success doing this, you could theoretically find smashingly good subjects for the type of rendering that could be considered "poor"...

Technically speaking, I've found out-of-focus blades of grass to be very difficult for your average lense to render smoothly.

 

[Michael Fontana]

The Zeiss Contax 60 mm should be in the 500 $... plus you need a adapter YCZ to EOS...

I'm not saying that you can't make nice macro shots with the canon 100, but I wanted to point to the fact, that bokeh depends on the lens, and not from your skills only.

Still you can apply what I wrotr in post 2.

 

[Michael Fontana]

Technically speaking, I've found out-of-focus blades of grass to be very difficult for your average lense to render smoothly.

yep, vertical patterns are quite difficult, less the horizontal ones.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Edward, thank you....the horizontal band in number three is perhaps my favorite element in all those posted. The last shot I liked because of the sharpness of part of the flower, but not necessarily because of the composition. I suppose number four appealed because it might be technically best.

 

[fahim mohammed]

I like number 3 the most. nice gentle pastel colors with focus on the droplet and blade of grass.

Bokeh is a very subjective quality and one person's bokeh is another's nightmare!

I do not have experience of the canon 100mm macro, but have heard very good things about it.
I do have the zeiss 100/2 makro in nikon mount and it is a superb optic, but i hardly use it. too heavy!

btw, were these on a tripod?.

Could you by any chance be confusing Bokeh with dof? what happens if you would de-center your subjects?

Regards.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Fahim, you are right. It can be very subjective. My understanding is that DOF is what creates bokeh; bokeh is an artistic quality, dof is how it is achieved (IF it is).

I looked at the centering quite carefully and wondered if anyone would mention it. I'm experimenting with "breaking the rules," and also the crops were determined by the other elements in the visual field. I'm not terribly thrilled with the center-crop but wondering if that's because of what I'm used to seeing or if it just is a bit "jarring" when it's centered.

Thanks, Fahim.

 

[janet Smith]

I'm not terribly thrilled with the center-crop but wondering if that's because of what I'm used to seeing or if it just is a bit "jarring" when it's centered

Hi Rachel

I agree with Fahim and prefer No. 3, but I think it would benefit from being a bit off-center, can you crop it differently so there's more to the RHS?

I have the 5DII and 100mm macro too, and use it almost all the time (except when I'm in Scotland) I'm very happy with the results I achieve with it.

BTW I read your thread about books, and must say that I think your work has come on enormously, I don't think you need more books, you have progressed so much, don't lose sight of that - just keep on shooting what delights and excites you....

 

[Maris Rusis]

You saw these pictures before you posted them so you know if they look like what you had in mind. If they do then they are perfect. All good art is a map of the artist's mind.

If you did not have anything in mind or the pictures don't look what you wanted then they are probably not worth looking at; irrespective of what they look like.

It is a weakness of "are my pictures any good" forums that the worth of a picture and its superficial appearance are muddled.

Unless pictures are deliberately contrived to pander to the proclivities of critics looks alone don't count. Assuming that you know what you want and how to get it then you have succeeded as a mature artist. If the audience doesn't "get it" then that's THEIR problem. The audience is, after all, on trial; not the artist.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

You saw these pictures before you posted them so you know if they look like what you had in mind. If they do then they are perfect. All good art is a map of the artist's mind.

If you did not have anything in mind or the pictures don't look what you wanted then they are probably not worth looking at; irrespective of what they look like.

It is a weakness of "are my pictures any good" forums that the worth of a picture and its superficial appearance are muddled.

Unless pictures are deliberately contrived to pander to the proclivities of critics looks alone don't count. Assuming that you know what you want and how to get it then you have succeeded as a mature artist. If the audience doesn't "get it" then that's THEIR problem. The audience is, after all, on trial; not the artist.

Thanks for this valuable perspective/wisdom Maris. I will certainly remember it.

Cheers,

 

[Rachel Foster]

Thank you, Janet. That's very nice to hear and encouraging.

Maris, you hit the nail on the head. No photo I've ever taken meets what my mind's eye sees. I am not sure if it's unrealistic on the part of what I "see" or that I'm just not yet good enough to begin to get it.

I'll ponder that. Thank you.

 

[Dawid Loubser]

yep, vertical patterns are quite difficult, less the horizontal ones.

Forgive my ignorance, but how on earth can a circular lens render horisontal subjects in out-of-focus areas different than what it does vertical?

 

[Michael Fontana]

Does Zeiss have one for a Canon mount? The Nikon Zeiss 100 is about $1400.00. It should do a nice job for that price.

Rachel, I did upload two 1 Ds-2 RAWs from the Zeiss Sonnar 100 3.5, I recently aquired.

You will not find that lens very often, I payed 300 $

See that nice rendering of the bokeh and the nice tones and color?
A few highlights are clipped, as it's a backlight.

 

[Rachel Foster]

The tones and colors are wonderful!

 

[Michael Fontana]

Right Rachel, the Zeiss are known for that.

if you look at the bokeh, you' ll not see a harsh "overdone" but a smooth, nice one.
I think, the smooth OOF makes the sharp aerea looking sharper than they are and create that *natural* look.

 

[Rachel Foster]

It does. Thanks! The glass makes a big difference.

 

[Michael Fontana]

Forgive my ignorance, but how on earth can a circular lens render horisontal subjects in out-of-focus areas different than what it does vertical?

David, sorry, I found your question just today

I don't know and haven't searched the response, but I saw it on images again and again and found it written down, but I can't found the source anymore.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Hi Rachel, bokeh is also effected by the subject distance and the background, besides the aperture, lens
optics and things I do not know about. Try different subject to camera and subject to bg distances at varying apertures.

Bgs play a big part in bokeh renditions. I went out at sunset today and quickly shot a few frames
to check something Re: bokeh. This is the result of a zeiss sonnar 50mm f/1.5 in leica mount operating
as a snapshot taker at sunset..I like the transitions from focus to oof areas. what about you? I had to try different subject distances for something I found pleasing to my eyes.

The search goes on!.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Hi Rachel, bokeh is also effected by the subject distance and the background, besides the aperture, lens
optics and things I do not know about. Try different subject to camera and subject to bg distances at varying apertures.

Bgs play a big part in bokeh renditions. I went out at sunset today and quickly shot a few frames
to check something Re: bokeh. This is the result of a zeiss sonnar 50mm f/1.5 in leica mount operating
as a snapshot taker at sunset..I like the transitions from focus to oof areas. what about you? I had to try different subject distances for something I found pleasing to my eyes.

The search goes on!.

Hi Fahim, I didn't know you had a C-Sonnar. What a lovely lens. How do find the focus shift on the M8?

Mike

 

[fahim mohammed]

Good evening Mike.

Indeed, the zm 50/1.5 sonnar is a beautiful lens. Mine is optimised for f/2.8 but I have, by use,
sussed it out so that at f/1.5 I give it a twirl and there it performs its magic. I prefer it to my lux 50 asph
and the lux 50 ver 4, where I am not in the mood for surgical precision. past 2.8 it is on par with the best
leica has to offer. ca,flare,resolution, and sharpness you can slice an Angus steak with. And the classic
40s/50s glow...it has it all.

On a related issue, how many 50mm is enough for one? I am ashamed to answer it myself as it shall
reveal to you my love for the 50mm fl, and why I never travel without at least two of them! Fool that I am!

Take care and God Bless.

 

[Michael Fontana]

Yes Fahim

nice, smooth transition - apart from that circle light on the dark car behind.

What do you mean by "And the classic40s/50s glow..."
The years?

If yes, the Sonnar is quite a simple and old lens type, but it has a personality.

 

[Ron Morse]

My Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35/2.4 is probable my favorite lens. Nice bokeh, beautiful colors and it focuses down to about 2 1/2 to 3 inches.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Yes, that does look like a nice lens, Fahim!

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Good evening Mike.

Indeed, the zm 50/1.5 sonnar is a beautiful lens. Mine is optimised for f/2.8 but I have, by use,
sussed it out so that at f/1.5 I give it a twirl and there it performs its magic. I prefer it to my lux 50 asph
and the lux 50 ver 4, where I am not in the mood for surgical precision. past 2.8 it is on par with the best
leica has to offer. ca,flare,resolution, and sharpness you can slice an Angus steak with. And the classic
40s/50s glow...it has it all.

On a related issue, how many 50mm is enough for one? I am ashamed to answer it myself as it shall
reveal to you my love for the 50mm fl, and why I never travel without at least two of them! Fool that I am!

Take care and God Bless.

Hi Fahim

I have 3 50's, but all in different mounts. I will admit to having contemplated a ZM 50 Planar to go with the C-Sonnar, but haven't felt the need to justify it it yet

Mike