July 29, 2014, 05:50:59 PM

Author Topic: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?  (Read 12538 times)

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2012, 05:49:03 PM »
^this.   Looking back at the history of photos since WWII, yes - you see a LOT of huge DOF photography.  But those were also times where everyone on the planet didn't have a P-n-S camera in their pocket.  People hire a photographer to capture an image in a way that they can't.  (with the exception being photojournalism, where the qualities of a picture are less important than the content)   These days, almost anyone can capture a shot with huge DOF.  And until they figure out a way to get an f/1.4 lens with amazing IQ on an iPhone, I think that shallow DOF, buttery bokeh look is going to be what continues to give our services a perceived sense of value.

I and I know a many others are playing with focus-stacking.  Used effectively, its another way to get those impossible to capture shots with a P&S or camera phone.  And totally opposite of the dreamy bokehs.  My other sinful obsession is edge-to-edge sharp wides.

Focus stack when wide open means that you get the creamy bg blur with only the subject focal plane in focus

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2012, 05:49:03 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13597
    • View Profile
Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #31 on: May 31, 2012, 07:35:08 PM »
Don't you mean vinyl?

Vinyl?  I thought that's what they use to make cheap car seats.  What am I missing?  :P
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Arkarch

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
    • Karl Buiter Photography
Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2012, 08:29:51 PM »
^this.   Looking back at the history of photos since WWII, yes - you see a LOT of huge DOF photography.  But those were also times where everyone on the planet didn't have a P-n-S camera in their pocket.  People hire a photographer to capture an image in a way that they can't.  (with the exception being photojournalism, where the qualities of a picture are less important than the content)   These days, almost anyone can capture a shot with huge DOF.  And until they figure out a way to get an f/1.4 lens with amazing IQ on an iPhone, I think that shallow DOF, buttery bokeh look is going to be what continues to give our services a perceived sense of value.

I and I know a many others are playing with focus-stacking.  Used effectively, its another way to get those impossible to capture shots with a P&S or camera phone.  And totally opposite of the dreamy bokehs.  My other sinful obsession is edge-to-edge sharp wides.

Focus stack when wide open means that you get the creamy bg blur with only the subject focal plane in focus

You can do it that way if you choose not to provide a background shot in-focus.

I mean numerous shots at different focus planes assembled together with software so that you are sharp near field to far.
Landscape ( http://www.buiterphotography.com )
Motorsports ( http://www.buitermotorsports.com )
5DIII, 7D, EF 300/2.8 II IS USM, ZE 21/2.8, ZE 50/2 ZE 100/2, TS-E 24/3.5, EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II, EF 24-105 IS f/4, TC 1.4 III, TC 2.0 III

EvilTed

  • Guest
Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #33 on: June 01, 2012, 12:13:36 AM »
"Vinyl?  I thought that's what they use to make cheap car seats.  What am I missing? "

Cash?

If you were serious about it like I am, it makes photographic gear seem cheap :)
My cartridge retails for $4500 and the top end models are $15K

http://www.needledoctor.com/Welcome?search=koetsu

ET

dirtcastle

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
    • Eric Nord Flickr Page
Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #34 on: June 01, 2012, 01:37:40 AM »
Vaccum Tube Amplifier vs Discret Transistor amplifier vs Ingrated Circuit Amplifier
Tube

Vinyl vs CD
Vinyl

Film camera vs digital camera
Digital

Leica vs Ziess
Leica

Canon vs Nikon
Duh.

Cone speakers vs electrostatic speakers vs Magnap[lane speakers
Cones

These are endless agruement for the last half century, or even longer
See, that was easy!

Wild

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
  • Born to be...
    • View Profile
Re: Bokeh...is the look feeling dated?
« Reply #35 on: June 01, 2012, 03:46:52 AM »
Interesting that recent cameras are getting defraction earlier than older models.

Diffraction is a lens property, and it is the same for a given lens, no matter what body you attach. 
 
A High MP body has better resolution and can see diffraction better, but it is not any more or less.

Actually diffraction has a lot to do with the body (copied and pasted from the-digital-picture.com):

* DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) is the result of a mathematical formula that approximates the aperture where diffraction begins to visibly affect image sharpness at the pixel level. Diffraction at the DLA is only barely visible when viewed at full-size (100%, 1 pixel = 1 pixel) on a display or output to a very large print. As sensor pixel density increases, the narrowest aperture we can use to get perfectly pixel sharp images gets wider.

DLA does not mean that narrower apertures should not be used - it is simply the point where image sharpness begins to be compromised for increased DOF and longer exposures. And, higher resolution sensors generally continue to deliver more detail well beyond the DLA than lower resolution sensors - until the "Diffraction Cutoff Frequency" is reached (a much narrower aperture). The progression from sharp the soft is not an abrupt one - and the change from immediately prior models to new models is usually not dramatic.


He lists the DLAs of many Canon DSLRs in each of his reviews for comparisons.





Albi86

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #36 on: June 01, 2012, 04:53:06 AM »
It's amusing how photography, although it can be considered as the evolution of painting, actually lags behind it a lot in term of artistic development. All of these issues were already handled in a couple of thousands years of painting history. It looks a lot like when Realism took over Romanticism.

In the end, I guess, it depends a lot on whether your picture are meant to be descriptive, suggestive or celebrative. When it comes to me, I do not particularly like to cast a huge reflector on every imperfection of my and other people's skin.

I agree though that nowadays many people love to shoot over-sharp portraits, as they are more dramatic than the usual shallow-DoF flattering ones. However, sometimes I also suspect that drama is a sort of alibi to mask the lack of appropriate gear and competence to work with thin DoF.

Interesting that recent cameras are getting defraction earlier than older models.

Diffraction is a lens property, and it is the same for a given lens, no matter what body you attach. 
 
A High MP body has better resolution and can see diffraction better, but it is not any more or less.

Actually diffraction has a lot to do with the body (copied and pasted from the-digital-picture.com):

* DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) is the result of a mathematical formula that approximates the aperture where diffraction begins to visibly affect image sharpness at the pixel level. Diffraction at the DLA is only barely visible when viewed at full-size (100%, 1 pixel = 1 pixel) on a display or output to a very large print. As sensor pixel density increases, the narrowest aperture we can use to get perfectly pixel sharp images gets wider.

DLA does not mean that narrower apertures should not be used - it is simply the point where image sharpness begins to be compromised for increased DOF and longer exposures. And, higher resolution sensors generally continue to deliver more detail well beyond the DLA than lower resolution sensors - until the "Diffraction Cutoff Frequency" is reached (a much narrower aperture). The progression from sharp the soft is not an abrupt one - and the change from immediately prior models to new models is usually not dramatic.


He lists the DLAs of many Canon DSLRs in each of his reviews for comparisons.



I guess you misunderstood a bit.
It says that the higher the pixel density, the sooner you reach the point in which diffraction takes its toll. It's the same as when a not-so-sharp lens looks acceptable on a 10MP camera, awful on a 18MP one.
This doesn't make diffraction a body property as much as it doesn't make it sharpness.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #36 on: June 01, 2012, 04:53:06 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13597
    • View Profile
Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #37 on: June 01, 2012, 06:58:19 AM »
Diffraction is a lens property, and it is the same for a given lens, no matter what body you attach. 
 
A High MP body has better resolution and can see diffraction better, but it is not any more or less.

Actually diffraction has a lot to do with the body (copied and pasted from the-digital-picture.com):

I guess you misunderstood a bit.
It says that the higher the pixel density, the sooner you reach the point in which diffraction takes its toll. It's the same as when a not-so-sharp lens looks acceptable on a 10MP camera, awful on a 18MP one.
This doesn't make diffraction a body property as much as it doesn't make it sharpness.

Potayto-potaahto.  Yes, technically, diffraction is a lens property.  But...it's awfully hard to use a lens for taking pictures all by itself, without a camera attached.  So, like sharpness, diffraction is effectively a property of an imaging system - lens plus camera. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

EvilTed

  • Guest
Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #38 on: June 03, 2012, 11:08:44 AM »
Dirtcastle,

Cones vs. Electrostatics? - really?

Vinyl on good electrostatics will floor you ;)

ET



Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8272
    • View Profile
Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2012, 12:25:15 PM »
You are correct about the actual meaning of the word, from its Japanese origins, and what affects it. But, as I have indicated in my previous post, the word has come to represent the very narrow depth-of-field, large aperture shooting technique which is very popular these days. Unfortunately, you cannot stop the changing nature of word meaning in the English language, in which definition is eventually based on common usage.

Only for a few, most photographers know what bokeh means, and a few spread the wrong meaning to those who are newbies.

Wrathwilde

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
    • Anarchy Photography
Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2012, 02:09:42 PM »
and even more shocked when they discover good old vinyl sounds better than anything ;)


Only if you can afford decent equipment, and climate controlled storage for your collection. The nice thing about CD players (was) that a cheap one, purchased at your local superstore, would still sound better than any Record Player you were likely to find at those same stores... and CDs don't tend to warp when your house hit's 105(f) for a week while you're out of town. The current crop of CD players may not sound as nice as today's top of the line turn tables, but...

Back in the late 80's I had a Pioneer Elite PD-91 Reference CD player, I believe it had dual 24bit Burr Brown DACs that, to this day, sounded better than any other piece of audio (delivery) equipment I've ever heard, including the best high end turntables. The sound was so warm and smooth it was incredible to listen to. I had that player over 15 years, I miss it's sound, but not the swapping of CDs. I have currently ripped my entire CD collection at the highest rates possible, and feed it into my Pioneer Elite SC-27, with Wolfson 192kHz/24-bit DACs, which I would describe as  clear and smooth, but not as warm as my PD-91. The PD-91 made every receiver I ever hooked it up to sound like a high dollar tube amp. I was under the impression my SC-27 had Burr Brown DACs when I purchased it, it does... but only for analog to digital. The Wolfson's are excellent, but the Burr Brown DACs in the PD-91 were better still.

Unfortunately a lot of CD's, from the mid 90's on, were mastered using dynamic range compression to make them "louder" , but vinyl wasn't immune either.

Hopefully, now that CD's are dying, downloadable music will start to be delivered, and widely supported, in High Definition... without the dynamic range compression that's been distorting music for decades. I can't wait until 192-kHz/32-bit mastering is standard, and lossless encoding is the norm... Put that through some quality DACs, or a tube amp, and it will sound better than any turntable available at any price.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

tl;dr - A properly mastered CD played on a Pioneer Elite PD-91 will sound better than the same album on vinyl... no matter which turntable you own... all other equipment being equal.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 04:54:44 PM by Wrathwilde »

dirtcastle

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
    • Eric Nord Flickr Page
Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2012, 05:57:00 PM »
Dirtcastle,

Cones vs. Electrostatics? - really?

Vinyl on good electrostatics will floor you ;)

ET

No doubt... electrostatic is amazing. I can't deny that. :-)

For super clean theatrical/classical/movie stuff, I would give the nod to electrostatic for accuracy and low noise/distortion. Most of the music I listen to is extremely bass-heavy, hip hop, funk, reggae, dubstep, etc. Cones are still the standard for bass music, if I'm not mistaken. Plus, the recordings don't necessarily "sound" better on super high end speakers. A lot of the music I listen to has been intentionally degraded and/or is expected to be played on systems that will distort the music and sacrifice large swaths of the sound spectrum. Lots of bass music sounds different at different volumes, because of the distortions. And that's not always a bad thing.

Ideally, I would go with a "mixed" setup... both electro and cone (and maybe even a true mix of cone subwoofer with electrostatic satellites). But I'm pretty easy to please, actually. I've got 20 year old cones that do me just fine. 8)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2012, 05:57:00 PM »

KeithR

  • Guest
Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« Reply #43 on: June 03, 2012, 06:54:27 PM »
You are correct about the actual meaning of the word
No, he's not.

Bokeh is the quality of the OOF area. Whether the OOF area is smooth, or harsh, or somewhere in between, it's all bokeh - good bokeh, poor bokeh, or so-so bokeh.

crasher8

  • Guest
No and in a word…...
« Reply #44 on: June 03, 2012, 07:00:11 PM »
Lensbaby

canon rumors FORUM

No and in a word…...
« Reply #44 on: June 03, 2012, 07:00:11 PM »