Bokeh: Good vs. Bad?

[JumboShrimp]

I have heard bokeh described as "creamy", "busy", "smooth", "harsh", and all sorts of other subjective names. But what, exactly, is good bokeh contrasted with bad bokeh? I would appreciate some real-world examples of both kinds, and just for fun, what lens gives you the best bokeh in most conditions?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

In fact, the quality of Bokeh is subjective. However a beautiful Bokeh should be smooth and without obvious geometric artifacts. See some examples of Bokeh with strange shapes. See also the link to a test with the Sigma 50mm Art, where you see bokeh comparisons Canon 50mm L, Canon 50mm F1.8, and the old Sigma 50mm DG.

http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/

 

[ReggieABrown]

I'm a new member to the site. But I've been coming here reading and learning A LOT of information from pros and amateurs alike; from all walks of life. But this is a picture I titled "CREAMY" Autumn Bokeh. This is an example of what I call Creamy.

Camera used: Canon 60d
Lens used: 70-200mm f/4L IS at 200mm f/4.

 

[DominoDude]

To me, good bokeh is a smooth smear of colours and structures in the OOF objects without much introduction of wonky artefacts from the lens. Clearly onion-shaped bokeh is not high on my list, neither is the effects seen from the EF 50/1.8 with its 5 aperture blades. Bokeh from mirror reflex lenses are also prone to looking bad in my eyes.

A rating of various lenses bokehliciousness can be found here -> http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/02/11/what-is-bokeh/

First photo's taken with my old Sigma 50/1.4 EX DG HSM @ f/1.4. I'm not too fond of the bokeh in that shot.
Second - same lens but @ f/1.6. Here I like how the background turned out.
Third - the Yellow Cowslips are taken with the EF 400/5.6 @ f/5.6 - I loved the bokeh that lens gave me. (Not so good bokeh anymore after I dropped it in June...)

 

[sanj]

I have heard bokeh described as "creamy", "busy", "smooth", "harsh", and all sorts of other subjective names. But what, exactly, is good bokeh contrasted with bad bokeh? I would appreciate some real-world examples of both kinds, and just for fun, what lens gives you the best bokeh in most conditions?

Generally, IMHO, bokeh quality is over rated.

 

[Dylan777]

If you have a chance, try to rent 85L II, 200L f2 IS and 400L f2.8 IS II

 

[mkabi]

I have heard bokeh described as "creamy", "busy", "smooth", "harsh", and all sorts of other subjective names. But what, exactly, is good bokeh contrasted with bad bokeh? I would appreciate some real-world examples of both kinds, and just for fun, what lens gives you the best bokeh in most conditions?

Im a video guy, and in terms of Video Bokeh, there is a point of no return for me (meaning bad bokeh).
Bokeh needs to be seamless to me, it can't be like a subject is sitting in front a blurred green screen.

 

[alexanderferdinand]

The only Bokeh I dislike is from my 70-200/2,8 with the TC 1.4.
The 135L is remarkable, the 35L, the Fujinon XF 23 1,4.
My shy 2 cents.

 

[NancyP]

ajfotofilmagen, that last photo with the square bokeh balls - what lens? or was it done with an add-on square cutout? #1 of course is the mirror lens, #2 any old-time or even new-ish entry-level 50mm (mine is a hexagon), #3 is a modern era lens with pronounced onion-ring bokeh - some of the Sigmas had this, though the current Art lenses have lost the onion rings and have good enough bokeh.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

ajfotofilmagen, that last photo with the square bokeh balls - what lens? or was it done with an add-on square cutout? #1 of course is the mirror lens, #2 any old-time or even new-ish entry-level 50mm (mine is a hexagon), #3 is a modern era lens with pronounced onion-ring bokeh - some of the Sigmas had this, though the current Art lenses have lost the onion rings and have good enough bokeh.

I searched these Bokeh images randomly on the internet. ;D

When you say that the current Sigma has Bokeh good enough, I disagree. ??? The Sigma 50mm Art has wonderful Bokeh (sorry the purists) better than the venerable Canon F1.2L.

The square Bokeh, I do not know which lens is, but I saw something like this in the movie "The Doors" by Oliver Stone, in the scene where Jim Morrison threatens to throw the window of the building. I imagine they used some 16mm cinema camera with vintage luminous lens.

 

[Ryan708]

the canon 50 f/1.2 has a unique bokeh, which I love. on full frame the bokeh at the edges appears to swirl, really drawing your attention to the center. However I only own the 50 f/1.8 which has good bokeh wide open, but not alot of saturation until f/2.8 and at f/2.8 the bokeh gets ugly if there are any highlights.

1st pic: ef-50 1.8 @1.8 = creamy
2nd: tamron 70-300 @ 70 f/4(wide open) with highlights in background = awful and busy/distracting
3rd: same tamron lens @124mm f/4.5(wide open) without background highlights = not bad

 

[Pookie]

135L sample...

 

[Jeff H]

Here is a sample of creamy Bokeh. It is just the way I like it. 135L F2

 

[TommyLee]

I had similar creamy results from my 70-200 f4 I.S. .....like reggieabrown..
always liked that lens.....
but
my 85L II really never gave up top place ...iMO

it is sort of critical
WHERE the background is...distance...
and WHAT it is.... branches twigs etc... difficult...
but I found it hard to get into trouble with the 85L II...

some favs.....
creamy as can be...
NOTE: some of these have a little posterization.... from processing... I had to dig up from a folder....
none of that exists on the properly processed jpg from RAW.. wherever the heck I put them....
....cant find anything now....posting this from bed.... today...

note the musician in the background..behind singer.....really smooth ...and yet properly defined...

I had reasonable results from the sigma 35 art....versus a slightly better canon 35L

my 14L is not good at all....IMO
but I dont use it like that.... anyway...


all a bit subjective I know...
sure is fun to play with

TOM

 

[Khnnielsen]

The most important thing about bokeh for me is, that it have to serve a purpose. Here is some of the pitfalls I see with bokeh.

1: Boring subject - creamy bokeh- still a boring photo.
2: Not paying attention to the blurred parts of the photo(colour, composition etc).
3: Bokeh for the sake of bokeh. If you are taking a picture of your girlfriend in front of the Eiffel Tower, it would be pretty stupid if the Eiffel Tower is completely blurred.

 

[TommyLee]

The most important thing about bokeh for me is, that it have to serve a purpose. Here is some of the pitfalls I see with bokeh.

1: Boring subject - creamy bokeh- still a boring photo.
2: Not paying attention to the blurred parts of the photo(colour, composition etc).
3: Bokeh for the sake of bokeh. If you are taking a picture of your girlfriend in front of the Eiffel Tower, it would be pretty stupid if the Eiffel Tower is completely blurred.

if pic of girlfriend ....includes.....the Tower .... rendered in a recognize-able icon, creamy impressionistic blur... that sounds like a compositional choice to me...

I often have a prime and secondary subject...
prime = child eye
secondary = father laughing..wanted him more blurred....
this is not best example...because father is too close to being focused...not quite my goal....
but headed there...

////

I cant find my shot of daughter focused ...with mother and father ...recognizeable by relatives..blured in bokeh... 3 objects ...daughter-focused and parents-blured....made a nice composition...
was sigma 35 @f1.4... smooth parents...dead-sharp daughter....
this is the fun to try this stuff... IMO

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Bokeh, like other compositional parts of the art of photography is open to interpretation as to what is good or bad.

To me, "good" bokeh is bokeh that is of a consistant shape throughout the image. On lower quality lenses, the shape of Bokeh can change as one moves to the corner/edges. The shape of the bokeh is influenced by the number and types of blades. But in my opinion, regardless of the shape of the bokeh, "good" bokeh should be of a consistent shape throughout the image

"Good" bokeh should have a consistent tone throughout each individual occurance of bokeh*. "Bad" bokeh may have darker or lighter rings around each individual occurance of bokeh. There can be banding or changing of the tones inside each bokeh area.

One, can't ignore the shape of the Bokeh either. But I don't consider that a matter of "good" or "bad" bokeh, just different types of Bokeh and the individual artist may have preferences. Some may consider circular bokeh more pleasing than a more angular, but, in my opinion, both can be either good or bad bokeh.

I personally have not worred too much about Bokeh. I know there are some photographers where bokeh is an important part of their composition. I am just not one to focus on the bokeh (pun intended)

*assuming that the area of the Bokeh is of one color/tone, of course.

 

[stevelee]

Bokeh, like other compositional parts of the art of photography is open to interpretation as to what is good or bad.

To me, "good" bokeh is bokeh that is of a consistant shape throughout the image. On lower quality lenses, the shape of Bokeh can change as one moves to the corner/edges. The shape of the bokeh is influenced by the number and types of blades. But in my opinion, regardless of the shape of the bokeh, "good" bokeh should be of a consistent shape throughout the image

"Good" bokeh should have a consistent tone throughout each individual occurance of bokeh*. "Bad" bokeh may have darker or lighter rings around each individual occurance of bokeh. There can be banding or changing of the tones inside each bokeh area.

One, can't ignore the shape of the Bokeh either. But I don't consider that a matter of "good" or "bad" bokeh, just different types of Bokeh and the individual artist may have preferences. Some may consider circular bokeh more pleasing than a more angular, but, in my opinion, both can be either good or bad bokeh.

I personally have not worred too much about Bokeh. I know there are some photographers where bokeh is an important part of their composition. I am just not one to focus on the bokeh (pun intended)

*assuming that the area of the Bokeh is of one color/tone, of course.

In short, for me, good "bucket" (as I use the "Keeping Up Appearances" spelling) doesn't call attention to itself. The point of a blurred background is not to compete with the subject and other items in more or less good focus and not to distract from them. If your first reaction to a picture is "what good 'bucket'," then the lens/picture/photographer has failed that mission. Obviously the "what bad 'bucket'!" reaction is even worse. Items you mentioned will contribute to that, such as different funny shapes in different parts of the picture. OTOH, the doughnut shapes from mirror lenses looked cool and definitely were the subject of the pictures, intentionally or not.

 

[Ozarker]

I have heard bokeh described as "creamy", "busy", "smooth", "harsh", and all sorts of other subjective names. But what, exactly, is good bokeh contrasted with bad bokeh? I would appreciate some real-world examples of both kinds, and just for fun, what lens gives you the best bokeh in most conditions?

Generally, IMHO, bokeh quality is over rated.

Yep. All a matter of personal taste isn't it? Sometimes those different shapes (oval, cat eye, hexagon, pentagon, onion, bubble, etc.) make the photo fun.

Edit: Oops! Just realized this thread is years old.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Pookie, in your sample bokeh is really what stood out for me.

Interesting topic. I must say that my 400 DO II with bright glistening background like water can look pretty ugly, still producing the onions, but overall it performs well.

Jack