Bokeh...is the look getting dated?

[bp]

So, I think you might be right, the average casual point and shoot person has been trained to expect everything to be in focus, and they are uncomfortable to the point of thinking something is defective with a shallow depth of field.

On the flipside of that, that's why many people used to the deep DoF of a P&S think shots from a dSLR and a wide aperture lens are 'professional'.

^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.

 

[dryanparker]

At least for me, when I'm having a face-to-face conversation with someone, their ears don't fall out of focus. In that sense, the f/1.2 look isn't a naturally-occurring phenomenon. However, it leads to a flattering effect of defining or accentuating the subject of an image — probably because it's not something we can see with our eyes, but rather something the photographer uses to tune our view of the image.

So, it's a creative endeavor. Whether it lasts remains to be seen, but I think the shallow DOF look has as much place in photography as images with great DOF.

 

[Rocky]

"Bokeh" actually means the "smoothness" of the out of focus area. It does not mean a partially sharp picture. Nowadays, in odrer to trim the manufacturing cost, some lenses comes with only 5 aperture blades. The out of focus area will look "rough" and the round bright spot will become a 5 point star. That is bad "Bokeh". A lot of old lenses and some newer expensive lenses uses 12 aperture blades (some of the even using curved blades) to get a round aperture even it is stopped down. These lenses will give a very " smooth" out of focus area and a round bright spot will just have a fuzzy edge. The shape is still round. That is good Bokeh. Good "Bokeh" has been around since the dawn of photography. That is why almost all the old lens are of round aperture, even they are stopped down. "Bokeh" is a Japanese word.

 

[dafrank]

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.

 

[Mike Ca]

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.

Shallow DOF with nice bokeh is one thing a professional photographer can do that you cannot do with an iPhone or a P&S, but if you are in the business of sell portraits posing and lighting are also big factors.

I started out doing a lot of shallow DOF environmental portraits with natural light. Now I learned how to use lighting equipment outdoors, and I do some environmental portraits with greater DOF. The shallow DOF portrait draws the viewers eyes to the subject, because the background is out of focus. If you have a beautiful background that is in focus, the viewers eyes can get drawn to the background. You need to light the subject (over power the sun) and slightly underexpose the background to draw the viewer's eyes to the subject.

If the background is busy or not attractive, go for shallow DOF. If the background is attractive, simple and elegant looking, slightly underexposing the background can be a better technique.

 

[Arkarch]

^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.

 

[thepancakeman]

Many or even most people have a point and shoot camera with a small sensor, and a huge depth of field. I've bought little used DSLR's from many who just felt that it was out of focus due to the shallow depth of field, they preferred the everything in focus look.

So, I think you might be right, the average casual point and shoot person has been trained to expect everything to be in focus, and they are uncomfortable to the point of thinking something is defective with a shallow depth of field.

+1 on this.

There's a similar issue with audio - so many young folks expect good quality audio to sound like MP3s and are uncomfortable when they hear real fidelity that comes from a CD.

Don't you mean vinyl?

 

[Rocky]

Vaccum Tube Amplifier vs Discret Transistor amplifier vs Ingrated Circuit Amplifier

Vinyl vs CD

Film camera vs digital camera

Leica vs Ziess

Canon vs Nikon

Cone speakers vs electrostatic speakers vs Magnap[lane speakers

etc.

These are endless agruement for the last half century, or even longer

 

[Razor2012]

Many or even most people have a point and shoot camera with a small sensor, and a huge depth of field. I've bought little used DSLR's from many who just felt that it was out of focus due to the shallow depth of field, they preferred the everything in focus look.

So, I think you might be right, the average casual point and shoot person has been trained to expect everything to be in focus, and they are uncomfortable to the point of thinking something is defective with a shallow depth of field.

+1 on this.

There's a similar issue with audio - so many young folks expect good quality audio to sound like MP3s and are uncomfortable when they hear real fidelity that comes from a CD.

Don't you mean vinyl?

When CD's first came out I thought they sounded like tin cans, no bottom end. To this day my favourites are the SACD's, to me they sound closest to vinyl.

 

[briansquibb]

^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

 

[Loswr]

Don't you mean vinyl?

Vinyl? I thought that's what they use to make cheap car seats. What am I missing?

 

[Arkarch]

^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.

 

[EvilTed]

"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]

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]

Re: Bokeh...is the look feeling dated?

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]

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.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[EvilTed]

Dirtcastle,

Cones vs. Electrostatics? - really?

Vinyl on good electrostatics will floor you

ET

 

[bycostello]

no, never will

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.