Hi guys, kindly comment on the bokeh, cos i don't know what to look out for. thanks thanks!
btw, this hip lady was shot teaching line dancing at botanic gardens. heh.
bokeh boleh?
- Thread starter versionsix
- Start date
- Status
Hi guys, kindly comment on the bokeh, cos i don't know what to look out for. thanks thanks!
btw, this hip lady was shot teaching line dancing at botanic gardens. heh.
well, if you only want comment about the bokeh, i think the bokeh looks ok to me..
but otherwise, the pic is not really telling me anything about the lady teaching line dancing etc.. focus looks a bit off too, but her expression looks like she's really enjoying whatever she's doing.
but otherwise, the pic is not really telling me anything about the lady teaching line dancing etc.. focus looks a bit off too, but her expression looks like she's really enjoying whatever she's doing.
V
vince123123
Guest
would you care to kindly elaborate? or kindly refer me to a pic that has good bokeh? thanks thanks.
The bokeh that you posted for comments is quite distracting. Below is one that is matching around your F stop and similar background. It is reasonably ok to good but not fantastic.
Posted here for your comparison.
For good bokeh, the lens, the actual background, lighting and F stop all play a part. To see them, just go into the gallery and look into various insect macro shots. They are creamy smooth, not distracting and brings out the subject. For portrait bokeh, search for the Canon 135 F2 or even better, the F1.2 85mm to check if these works for you.
Posted here for your comparison.
For good bokeh, the lens, the actual background, lighting and F stop all play a part. To see them, just go into the gallery and look into various insect macro shots. They are creamy smooth, not distracting and brings out the subject. For portrait bokeh, search for the Canon 135 F2 or even better, the F1.2 85mm to check if these works for you.
hhmmm.... so is there a difference between bokeh and blurred backgrounds? cos i read somewhere that bokeh is the rendering of out of focus points of light into circles and not polygons and blurred backgrounds are just blurred backgrounds. From what i gather, if i understand you correctly, you are referring to macro shots that have blurred backgrounds that are creamy smooth right?
For example, IMHO this pic has a relatively creamy smooth background so would that be considered a form of bokeh as well or no? just trying to clarify my doubts here. thanks thanks!
For example, IMHO this pic has a relatively creamy smooth background so would that be considered a form of bokeh as well or no? just trying to clarify my doubts here. thanks thanks!
versionsix said:hhmmm.... so is there a difference between bokeh and blurred backgrounds? cos i read somewhere that bokeh is the rendering of out of focus points of light into circles and not polygons and blurred backgrounds are just blurred backgrounds. From what i gather, if i understand you correctly, you are referring to macro shots that have blurred backgrounds that are creamy smooth right?
For example, IMHO this pic has a relatively creamy smooth background so would that be considered a form of bokeh as well or no? just trying to clarify my doubts here. thanks thanks!
Well there is a lot of words here. Lets work around it carefully.
a. Bokeh is not blurred background.
b. Bokeh is the rendering of the out of focus points of lights. This can be 'good', or 'bad'
c. Creamy smooth background is not Creamy smooth bokeh !
I will use the 3 pictures posted here for illustration;
Firstly, for bokeh in photography, we are talking more in the spirit of art. When we look at various well painted art pieces, you will find that the artist do not draw everything in focus. It will be too boring or distracting. Photographic art can achieve what the artist can do with his brush. This is because of spherical abberations in the imperfect lens!
First Photo of lady at the garden: Generally speaking , it is definitely a bad bokeh. The blur appears as very globby and quite defined polygons of lights. These polygons are small. The cause is due to the dof selected being a bit too much. The lens plays a part too. The effect is not pleasing and overall, even the branches looks as solid as ever. Such items in the image 'distracts' the viewer.
Second Photo of the orang utan fingers: The background bokeh is a lot smoother and better. Looking at the branches and leaves, the rendering of the blur points outside the sharper points are 'ok to good' smooth. (In this picture, the foreground bokeh is poor. This is found at the right hand lower corner. This has been largely cropped off. You can hardly see it as the portion is very small. Lenses with good background bokeh usually has bad foreground bokeh, and vice versa.)
Third photo of young girl: The bokeh here is also commonly known as a neutral bokeh. Everything in the portion of the green is evenly blurred. The light brown part is also equally bad. There is no 'bias of light' towards a centre point. It is also commonly considered no good where bokeh is concerned. A good artist will not paint in this manner too. This form of bokeh is directly opposite the first photo. Very loosely speaking, a good bokeh is in between this two form. The secret point is where the lens designer makes tons of money.:bsmilie:
I hope I have made the blur a bit clearer. Pun intended.
hi all, thanks for the very constructive and informative comments about the bokeh. i guess the only way to get good bokeh is to go brokeh.
cheers
cheers
Hi, tOGGY
Could you kindly elaborate what do you mean by "neutral Bokeh"?
Do you mean the DOF, which f-stop and focal length will create good bokeh then.? :dunno:
Third photo of young girl: The bokeh here is also commonly known as a neutral bokeh. Everything in the portion of the green is evenly blurred. The light brown part is also equally bad. There is no 'bias of light' towards a centre point. It is also commonly considered no good where bokeh is concerned. A good artist will not paint in this manner too. This form of bokeh is directly opposite the first photo. Very loosely speaking, a good bokeh is in between this two form. The secret point is where the lens designer makes tons of money.:bsmilie:
Could you kindly elaborate what do you mean by "neutral Bokeh"?
Do you mean the DOF, which f-stop and focal length will create good bokeh then.? :dunno:
Third photo of young girl: The bokeh here is also commonly known as a neutral bokeh. Everything in the portion of the green is evenly blurred. The light brown part is also equally bad. There is no 'bias of light' towards a centre point. It is also commonly considered no good where bokeh is concerned. A good artist will not paint in this manner too. This form of bokeh is directly opposite the first photo. Very loosely speaking, a good bokeh is in between this two form. The secret point is where the lens designer makes tons of money.:bsmilie:
Steplim said:
Hi Steplim, You can read the articles in luminous landscape etc on the subject of bokeh and types.
As for your second question, you can try the following lens around wide open aperture. I find it easy and very nice indeed.
Canon 135mm at F2 to F4 for head shots
Canon 24 or 35mm at F1.4 for wider shots
Canon 85mm at F 1.2 to F2 for head to half or full body shots
The bokehs for the following lens produced are rather nice to breath taking.
The canon 200 F1.8 lens is fabulous. Seen it but I have not used this before.
The canon 300, 400 or longer lens is fabulous too. You can see quite a bit in the newspaper sports page.
I do not shoot macro, but the Canon and Sigma 180mm lens insects shots often stuns me.
I find that the background counts. Just to illustrate, if you shoot onto a plain white or black paper, you will not get any bokeh. So select well.
Neutral or harsh, art is art. Such bokeh can make a great picture (and lousy ones as well) as beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Here is one of my shot on the 135mm at F2. But there is no bokeh on the blank wall, just to illustrate the trickiness of the issue. It is just very neutral looking. The bokeh on the flowers on the lower right is smooth but not very good either because of the lack of good light.
But you can sense that this lens can produce great bokeh given a a right background.
But you can sense that this lens can produce great bokeh given a a right background.
- Status
