[awscreo]

My cousin recently got into photography, and he's a full blown bokeh enthusiast now he's drooling all over fast glass now lol. He started with a phone, moved to mft, and now using a Sony mirrorless

[Nass]

I like that mobiles have made the general world fall in love with taking photos again, and the amount of photograph taking has radically increased, a good thing.

As for photography people who say it's made it too easy or it's the death of photography, if they're as good as they think or make out then they need to up their game.

For myself I think there's room for both - a shot by a pro should always be much much better, that's the least a pro should be able to do if they're really as pro as they think they are.

Humbug

[serothis]

My cousin recently got into photography, and he's a full blown bokeh enthusiast now he's drooling all over fast glass now lol. He started with a phone, moved to mft, and now using a Sony mirrorless

I actually find this amusing. "creamy" bokeh has been the object of obsession of reviewers for a while now. I think in an ironic twist they're just the other side of the same coin they bemoan.

I'm a huge fan of bokeh. The problem with bokeh is that quite frequently people are too heavily dependent on it. For example the Sigma 105 f/1.4 the "bokeh monster" does the bokeh really look that different from an 105 f/2 or 85 f/1.4? A completely blurred out background can be useful, but is typically boring. And if you have to rely on a completely blurred out background for composition, are you really any better at composition than that kid with an iphone?

At that point just shoot in a studio. If you're going to shoot outside then use the background as part of the composition.

Is this the death of bokeh? No. Shallow depth of field is just a tool. It doesn't have to be used in every photo.
/rant

[Cerebum]

The opening minutes of his history of Pentax is somewhat cringeworthy but I have gleaned some decent information from the northrupps. This video however was one to forget. I personally think that because more people are capturing images (notice I didn't say taking photographs) has increased significantly, the percentage of those who care about bokeh has dropped. The actual number who love a swirl or a bubble, or even a doughnut has probably stayed the same.

[reh321]

One of my cameras has an available lens that stops down for f64. I’d love one, just so I could kill bokeh and replace it with diffraction.

(I have nothing against bokeh, I just find the obsession a little off putting.)

I find it very off-putting .... for over fifty years I've been photographing railroad subjects, and for over fifty years I've been using deep DOF to show the complete context. To say that bokeh is important in every photo is to cling to a one-size-fits-all mentality.

[MossyRocks]

One of my cameras has an available lens that stops down for f64. I’d love one, just so I could kill bokeh and replace it with diffraction.

And now I want do do such a thing. I think I can get pretty close to f/64 if I reverse mount my 28mm lens, hang it off 2 full sets of extension tubes and set the lens to f/16. Of course I think I would be at about a 6:1 macro at that point and would probably have to illuminate the object with my 500W halogen work light with a 30 second exposure. Except in that setup I would still have a razor thin DoF but would also have a huge amount of diffraction, now I do want to see what kind of hot mess that looks like.

[swanlefitte]

I like that mobiles have made the general world fall in love with taking photos again, and the amount of photograph taking has radically increased, a good thing.

For myself I think there's room for both - a shot by a pro should always be much much better, that's the least a pro should be able to do if they're really as pro as they think they are.

Humbug

As a former avid sports player I agree. I have been better or worse at different sports and also different genres of photography. The more who play the better the game and the more appreciation for the best.

[Rondec]

I find it very off-putting .... for over fifty years I've been photographing railroad subjects, and for over fifty years I've been using deep DOF to show the complete context. To say that bokeh is important in every photo is to cling to a one-size-fits-all mentality.

It is just about choices though, isn't it? I would hate to have a lens that could only shoot at f14, but I'd also hate one that could only shoot at f1.4 or f2 -- even if the lens was brutally sharp at those apertures. If you are doing a portrait session, you probably want some stopped down shots that include background and some shots where your subject has blurred background behind him/her.

I shoot a lot of landscapes and it is very seldom that I actually use really wide apertures.

[Cerebum]

I tend to alternate. I shoot street, no bokeh, landscapes, no bokeh again, close ups on flowers, backlit leaves, bokeh all over the place. As has been said, it is an artistic tool. It still has its place, its just that it isn't used much by the Instagram selfie set. Real cameras are still popular amongst those of us who appreciate the journey as much as the destination and therefore, bokeh lives on.

[BigMackCam]

It is just about choices though, isn't it? I would hate to have a lens that could only shoot at f14, but I'd also hate one that could only shoot at f1.4 or f2 -- even if the lens was brutally sharp at those apertures. If you are doing a portrait session, you probably want some stopped down shots that include background and some shots where your subject has blurred background behind him/her.

I shoot a lot of landscapes and it is very seldom that I actually use really wide apertures.

I agree...

... except to say that I wouldn't (don't, in fact) hate to have a lens stuck at one aperture

I might be in the minority here, but I quite like being limited to a single aperture from time-to-time. Approaching what you shoot from that creative limitation can be as rewarding as sticking to a single focal length, or one type of subject. I wouldn't want to do it all of the time, or even much of it, but occasionally it's a lot of fun and quite liberating.

About a year ago I picked up an old Soviet Helios-92 / F-92 projector lens which is f/2 only. Of course, it's extremely limited in application, but puts a smile on my face whenever I use it

Similarly, I have an Orion-15 28mm f/6 lens that renders beautifully. I might wish it could open up wider, but working within its limitations is fun...

[torashi]

And now I want do do such a thing. I think I can get pretty close to f/64 if I reverse mount my 28mm lens, hang it off 2 full sets of extension tubes and set the lens to f/16. Of course I think I would be at about a 6:1 macro at that point and would probably have to illuminate the object with my 500W halogen work light with a 30 second exposure. Except in that setup I would still have a razor thin DoF but would also have a huge amount of diffraction, now I do want to see what kind of hot mess that looks like.

That's not how aperture works. You're effectively just magnifying the projected image, including its diffraction at f/16 and because of the need to compensate for light falloff, adjusting exposure accordingly. That then gives you an EFFECTIVE exposure only EQUIVALENT to a smaller aperture, but you're not even gaining the DOF nor the added diffraction.

[MossyRocks]

That's not how aperture works. You're effectively just magnifying the projected image, including its diffraction at f/16 and because of the need to compensate for light falloff, adjusting exposure accordingly. That then gives you an EFFECTIVE exposure only EQUIVALENT to a smaller aperture, but you're not even gaining the DOF nor the added diffraction.

I'm still learning about macro so how I don't fully understand how diffraction behaves there. I did understand the fall off in light and did say that the DoF would be razor thin.

[torashi]

I get where you're coming from. I do prefer shooting in aperture priority mode. That must be from using manual glass. Tv I only use when motion blur is a problem. OTOH Av is a great tool, because you're in control of what stays in focus and what gets blurred out. I think it's just a tool, and as others have mentioned I do also switch between smaller and larger apertures. Sometimes it's what you want, others it's unavoidable, like when shooting macro or shooting close to infinity.

I agree...

... except to say that I wouldn't (don't, in fact) hate to have a lens stuck at one aperture

I might be in the minority here, but I quite like being limited to a single aperture from time-to-time. Approaching what you shoot from that creative limitation can be as rewarding as sticking to a single focal length, or one type of subject. I wouldn't want to do it all of the time, or even much of it, but occasionally it's a lot of fun and quite liberating.

About a year ago I picked up an old Soviet Helios-92 / F-92 projector lens which is f/2 only. Of course, it's extremely limited in application, but puts a smile on my face whenever I use it

Similarly, I have an Orion-15 28mm f/6 lens that renders beautifully. I might wish it could open up wider, but working within its limitations is fun...

[torashi]

I'm still learning about macro so how I don't fully understand how diffraction behaves there. I did understand the fall off in light and did say that the DoF would be razor thin.

Yes, it's quite a lot to keep in mind at all times, specially when you're using an external light meter. Think manual/film/view camera systems, so no TTL metering.
Diffraction behaves the same everywhere, every time. It's just that without the DoF from small apertures there's not much going to be in focus, so diffraction is the acceptable compromise.

[ZombieArmy]

I am by no means a bokeh whore, my photos tend to be less portrait and more of animals and landscapes.

When I do bokeh I dislike completely blurred background, because in my opinion what is a photo without context (most of the time not all the time).