Is it possible to have too much bokeh?


Status
Not open for further replies.
The two images above in 2 posts do not show the quality/character of bokeh at all but rather just images with very shallow depth of field. Very common confusion – Shallow DOF vs Bokeh, one is the 'method' of producing the latter.
 

Last edited:
The two images above in 2 posts do not show the quality/character of bokeh at all but rather just images with very shallow depth of field. Very common confusion – Shallow DOF vs Bokeh, one is the 'method' of producing the latter.

Doesn't shallow depth of field produce background blur or bokeh?
 

Doesn't shallow depth of field produce background blur or bokeh?
Shallow DOF does result in background blur but bokeh has little to do with the amount of blur. But rather, everything to do with the quality of the blur like those shiny little circles of light/highlights created in a blurred area outside the DOF. The shots posted show very shallow DOF, so shallow that the quality of bokeh can't really be 'seen'...
 

Shallow DOF does result in background blur but bokeh has little to do with the amount of blur. But rather, everything to do with the quality of the blur like those shiny little circles of light/highlights created in a blurred area outside the DOF. The shots posted show very shallow DOF, so shallow that the quality of bokeh can't really be 'seen'...

That was shot with a 135 on a cropped sensor. If I were to use a 50 to do a similar shot, the background would have been different. Different lens, especially of different focal length produce different type of "bokeh". In fact, I was testing this very old lens for its background blur quality. The object was 2 metres infront, the background was a car park with cars not more than 6 metres away. It was shot at f4 in broad daylight. IMO, this S$ 300 lens produces excellent bokeh than some of the more expensive modern lenses.
 

Often confused, but not the same. Bokeh is the quality of the background blur, NOT quantity.

http://www.digicamhelp.com/taking-photos/advanced-techniques/bokeh/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

Still very subjective. There is actually no such thing as a good bad thing. How blur is blur or sharp is your blur, the so to speak gurus of blur will try and teach you. They say 'bokeh' derives from blur but is not blur but how good is your blur.
 

Still very subjective. There is actually no such thing as a good bad thing. How blur is blur or sharp is your blur, the so to speak gurus of blur will try and teach you. They say 'bokeh' derives from blur but is not blur but how good is your blur.

Yes, the bokeh or quality of the blurred areas is subjective. Not everyone will agree that Lens A has better bokeh than Lens B.
What I was pointing out was merely the definition of the word, which is not subjective but subject to much confusion -- that was in response to your question "Doesn't shallow depth of field produce background blur or bokeh?"
Shallow depth of field does not produce bokeh, but it can display or reveal the bokeh of the lens. I know some will call this nitpicking, but it is important to make the distinction so that everyone in the discussion is on the same page.

P.S. the proper definition of 'bokeh' would mean the the title of this thread doesn't make sense ;)
 

Last edited:
Yes, the bokeh or quality of the blurred areas is subjective. Not everyone will agree that Lens A has better bokeh than Lens B.
What I was pointing out was merely the definition of the word, which is not subjective but subject to much confusion -- that was in response to your question "Doesn't shallow depth of field produce background blur or bokeh?"
Shallow depth of field does not produce bokeh, but it can display or reveal the bokeh of the lens. I know some will call this nitpicking, but it is important to make the distinction so that everyone in the discussion is on the same page.
+1. Precisely my point.
 

Yes, the bokeh or quality of the blurred areas is subjective. Not everyone will agree that Lens A has better bokeh than Lens B.
What I was pointing out was merely the definition of the word, which is not subjective but subject to much confusion -- that was in response to your question "Doesn't shallow depth of field produce background blur or bokeh?"
Shallow depth of field does not produce bokeh, but it can display or reveal the bokeh of the lens. I know some will call this nitpicking, but it is important to make the distinction so that everyone in the discussion is on the same page.

P.S. the proper definition of 'bokeh' would mean the the title of this thread doesn't make sense ;)

Bokeh is the result of shallow depth of field, or lens fault that causes artifats and out of focus area, without it, there will be no bokeh. I posted a photo and got criticised without first being asked what lens I used and under what circumstances I made that shot. I worry more about taking good photos than such things like "bokeh" because I know when I have out of focus areas, the "quality and nature" of this out of focus area will depend on the lens I use. Creating "bokeh" I like through more practices on a wide range of lenses and under different circumstances is better than understanding the defination of a "silly" word.
 

Bokeh is the result of shallow depth of field, or lens fault that causes artifats and out of focus area, without it, there will be no bokeh. I posted a photo and got criticised without first being asked what lens I used and under what circumstances I made that shot. I worry more about taking good photos than such things like "bokeh" because I know when I have out of focus areas, the "quality and nature" of this out of focus area will depend on the lens I use. Creating "bokeh" I like through more practices on a wide range of lenses and under different circumstances is better than understanding the defination of a "silly" word.

You're right -- understanding the precise definition of the word (silly or not) will not enable you to take better photos. It will however contribute to clarity in the discussion. :)
Perhaps its just a choice of words, but you seem to have taken offence at Rendition's comments -- I don't think his intention was to criticise, but merely to point out that it's difficult to judge bokeh, the quality of the OOF areas, in your and Bluesteel's shots because they were so far OOF and lacking in details and contrast. Either highlights or some details would help, as displayed in the earlier example by Soons (not very nice bokeh, as he says). I don't see the point of bringing up what other lenses you could have used -- it is irrelevant and no one is impugning your photographic skills.
BTW, your statement that bokeh is the result of shallow depth of field is incorrect. Bokeh is the result of lens design and construction, pure and simple. What is necessary to observe bokeh is OOF areas, highlights and high contrast areas working best. Yes, we often use shallow DOF to achieve the effect, but it is not the CAUSE.
Cases in point - http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomasaasen/4155024293/in/pool-extreme_bokeh
and the colourful lights in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
DOF refers to the areas which are in acceptable focus. Nothing in these images is in focus, yet both display bokeh. ;)
 

You're right -- understanding the precise definition of the word (silly or not) will not enable you to take better photos. It will however contribute to clarity in the discussion. :)
Perhaps its just a choice of words, but you seem to have taken offence at Rendition's comments -- I don't think his intention was to criticise, but merely to point out that it's difficult to judge bokeh, the quality of the OOF areas, in your and Bluesteel's shots because they were so far OOF and lacking in details and contrast. Either highlights or some details would help, as displayed in the earlier example by Soons (not very nice bokeh, as he says). I don't see the point of bringing up what other lenses you could have used -- it is irrelevant and no one is impugning your photographic skills.
BTW, your statement that bokeh is the result of shallow depth of field is incorrect. Bokeh is the result of lens design and construction, pure and simple. What is necessary to observe bokeh is OOF areas, highlights and high contrast areas working best. Yes, we often use shallow DOF to achieve the effect, but it is not the CAUSE.
Cases in point - http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomasaasen/4155024293/in/pool-extreme_bokeh
and the colourful lights in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
DOF refers to the areas which are in acceptable focus. Nothing in these images is in focus, yet both display bokeh. ;)

If there is no OOF there is no bokeh, pure and simple. Most technical defination simply confuse more than explains. Use photos to illustrate not twisting words. If my photo does not illustrate any bokeh, post one that does and illustrate. That's how confused people like me learns.
 

If there is no OOF there is no bokeh, pure and simple. Most technical defination simply confuse more than explains. Use photos to illustrate not twisting words. If my photo does not illustrate any bokeh, post one that does and illustrate. That's how confused people like me learns.
It is a common problem for people new in photography to get confuse with bokeh and Background blur.

It took me a while to differentiate also. :bsmilie:
 

It is a common problem for people new in photography to get confuse with bokeh and Background blur.

It took me a while to differentiate also. :bsmilie:


In this state of confusion even for me...so my question to my big brothers here is please post a sample of a bokeh and a sample of OOF.

Otherwise the two mean the same to me as far as my photos goes...


 

From Wiki, these is a picture that showcases the quality of the bokeh produced in the photo.

800px-Josefina_with_Bokeh.jpg


...and here's a link of a wedding photographer talking bout bokeh and DOF – maybe his explanation would be clearer. But... just to be clear, am merely talking about quality of bokeh here and absolutely nothing to do with giving critique on how the photos posted on this thread. Bokeh, just bokeh.
 

Last edited:
In this state of confusion even for me...so my question to my big brothers here is please post a sample of a bokeh and a sample of OOF.

Otherwise the two mean the same to me as far as my photos goes...

Haha, i was about to ask that question too :)
 

Haha, i was about to ask that question too :)
Refer to the picture I posted 1 page earlier. Do you think the blur is pleasing?
 

Refer to the picture I posted 1 page earlier. Do you think the blur is pleasing?

Not really. It's kinda distracting as a matter of fact.
 

so having read so much, can i say that the aperture affects the DoF while the Bokeh really depends on the lens itself? :dunno:
 

haha, i dun see what's the confusion abt :) bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the amount of blur .

a shallow DOF gives large amount of blur but the blur may not be beautiful , ie the bokeh is not beautiful. Bokeh is therefore how beautiful is the blur .

hope i dun make things more blur :bsmilie:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.