[GUB]

The whole bokeh worship is a royal pain IMHO.

Why should it be a "pain" to you? You don't have to visit the Bokeh thread. In fact you could open a "over f5.6 club". Heck make it popular enough and Pentax may bring out an 85mm f5.6 - should sell like hotcakes!. Think about it - the lens need not be wider than about 20mm and with a bit of retrofocusing say just 50mm long - will fit in your pocket and you will never have to worry about paining yourself again.

[normhead]

I seem to remember having had a keen interest the soft focus photographic works of Bob Guccione once upon a time. Ended up with quite a collection of his shots in magazine format, in fact.

It was also practical, slightly soft focus could save you a pile of retouching. Hard to comprehend for those who don't know we used to retouch photos with pencils and spotting paints. That was the big downfall of 35mm for portraits. The images were so small it was impossible to do any retouching. You needed at least 4x5.

[BarryE]

No contradiction intended. The figure of speech "ya think" is common over here (GMT -8) and indicates something that should be immediately obvious. I was agreeing with you.


Steve

Lost in translation, Steve. We speak the same language, but ...

No offence taken.

[GUB]

I seem to remember having had a keen interest the soft focus photographic works of Bob Guccione once upon a time. Ended up with quite a collection of his shots in magazine format, in fact.

Yeah - naaaaa - I seem to have the need to have something somewhere properly in focus

[PJ1]

I'm convinced that it's something more than just pointing a camera at someone's face

I agree with you. A photograph of a face - or a person or group of persons - has to convey something about the personality or essence of a living/once living thing. There are always going to be shades of grey but, in my book, endless arguments about the character of the bokeh will never define portraiture. I wonder who could tell the difference between an aperture with nine rounded blades as opposed to one with eight rounded blades - or 15 straight blades - anyway. Nor does it mean the background (or foreground) has to be sharp - it can be completely blurred if it suits the intention of the photographer. A portrait taken to showcase a woman wearing her jewellery might benefit from a creamy bokeh )and non-distracting background). A portrait of a potter at work on a wheel or a Tibetan monk at prayer might want more background detail.

[c.a.m]

Portraiture:

Photographs – Yousuf Karsh

- Craig

[stevebrot]

Why should it be a "pain" to you? You don't have to visit the Bokeh thread..

This is the "bokeh thread"?

Just my humble opinion, as in "pain in the a***". I frequently shoot with background blur in mind (LINK) and am well aware of which of my lenses have this as a strength*, but grow weary of seeing very good lenses regularly panned in YouTube reviews and forum posts because of supposedly deficient bokeh, often with no explanation. If explanation is given, the deficiency often indicates ignorance, a frequent example being reference to terrible "cats eye" (caused by physical vignette and unavoidable for most fast lenses) or "onion ring" (common with molded aspheric elements and sort of expected at moderate price points). (Am I alone in not being picky about specular highlights?)

It may not be well-appreciated, but concern about the technical aspects of background blur is a fairly recent consideration, say within the last 15 years. Before then, the term bokeh was not part of the photo lexicon and reviewer/user comments about background blur, if noted at all, were generally limited to terms such as smooth, pleasing, or unappealing.

I guess, I might summarize by stating there is so much more to evaluating a lens for potential purchase or use than bokeh.


Steve

* I also have a few that truly suck at all apertures and subject/background distances but excel for other purposes.

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 06-04-2020 at 03:30 PM.

[stevebrot]

I remember back in the 60's & 70's when "soft" portrait shots were the rage. You could buy 85mm "soft" lenses, soft filters or just use Vaseline on your filter. Even the Pentax K85/1.8 was designed to be soft wide open for that 70's "porn" look.

Times have changed and now it's razor sharp portrait shots, with a blurry background. Ten years from now when this fad has faded, we'll be back to soft images and someone will do a remake of "Emmanuelle" ......

Phil.

I still have a couple of center-sharp soft effect filters. As for bringing back "Emmanuelle"...that might be a good thing, though perhaps not.


Steve

[GUB]

This is the "bokeh thread"?

Na I was meaning the "Bokeh Club" thread over in the lens section.

It may not be well-appreciated, but concern about the technical aspects of background blur is a fairly recent consideration, say within the last 15 years. Before then, the term bokeh was not part of the photo lexicon and reviewer/user comments about background blur, if noted at all, were generally limited to terms such as smooth, pleasing, or unappealing.

True and I think it is great that the terminology has come into use even if its meaning is often misunderstood. I feel that it is better applied to an image than a lens. My K 400 to 600 zoom has given me some of my best bokeh images over the last year or so. It has also given me some of my worst bokehs.

[normhead]

Portraiture:

Photographs – Yousuf Karsh

- Craig

Ah, the master. Everyone who hasn't seen the work of Karsh just thinks they know how to do portraits.

[Alex645]

As this thread is "What portraiture actually is...." I thought I'd share with you a one week intensive photo workshop I taught in January to about 20 high school students.

One day we were going to shoot portraits and the next landscapes. At the start of the day I asked all students to share at least one portrait they had shot before taking our class so we could critique it and learn on what worked well and what to improve. Half the students submitted landscapes, still life, street photography, whatever. By the third non-portrait, I just stopped and asked the student, "why do you think this is a portrait"? And he said, "because, the framing is taller than it is wide. I shot it vertical."

Half the students thought landscape meant horizontal framing and portrait meant vertical framing. Of course in a different context it does, but I had made assumptions that everyone would know what the portrait and landscape workshops were about.

[monochrome]

I agree We shouldn’t limit a lens to some narrow purpose or image style just because tradition says that’s how we should use that focal length.

[clackers]

A question: Is a photograph of a human face always a portrait?

How about a photograph of a model taken as an advert for toothpaste, or for make-up, or for a hat? I'd argue that it's not a portrait, because it has got no interest whatever in the subject as an individual human being.

How about two photographs of the same model, taken with two different lenses both used wide open, and posted on the internet side-by-side as a bokeh comparison? I'd argue that's not a portrait either.

What makes a portrait a portrait? I'm convinced that it's something more than just pointing a camera at someone's face, and it's definitely a heck of a lot more than just showing how much "subject isolation" you can get with your favourite lens. I'm afraid to say that, for me, it's one of those squishy subjective things. If I look at a photo and feel that it gives me some sort of a connection with who that person might actually be, then it's a portrait. Otherwise, it's just a photo that happens to be of a face.

Very good points you raise, Dave.

I think the pictures of The Beatles on their second album cover are great. No one would argue they're only half as good because split lighting is used.

In fact, I'd say this is a lousy passport photo but pretty good portrait of Hitchcock, capturing his form and his personality all within the context of his life in show business.

[clackers]

I seem to remember having had a keen interest in the soft focus photographic works of Bob Guccione once upon a time. Ended up with quite a collection of his shots in magazine format, in fact.

Shame on you, Dave, at least with Hefner's you could claim it was for the literary essays by Mailer, etc.

The Penthouse equivalent was its 'Letters' section, where mysteriously all the improbable submissions about next door's teen visitor coming over to see if someone would apply her sun lotion seemed to be written in the same prose style, as if made up by a single hack journalist. Hmmm ..... maybe I've just realized something twenty five years later!

[Dartmoor Dave]

In fact, I'd say this is a lousy passport photo but pretty good portrait of Hitchcock, capturing his form and his personality all within the context of his life in show business.

Thanks for posting the Hitchcock shot. It adds another fascinating twist to the whole question of what a portrait is or isn't, and I agree with you that it's definitely a portrait.

It reminds me of Albert Watson's famous portrait of Hitchcock with the goose: Alfred Hitchcock with Goose Contact Sheet | Preiss Fine Arts Vienna. And of course Albert Watson is a great portrait photographer who has worked almost entirely with his celebrity subjects' faces in blank studio backgrounds with no surrounding context.

But as you said, and I agree with you, in celebrity photos it's what we already know about the celebrity by other means that provides the context. We feel that we already know those people from their movies or their music, so just the face is enough. In portraits of people who we don't already know by their fame or infamy, I think a bit of context inside the frame can go a long way.

One thing's for sure: the wide range of deeply thoughtful responses from everyone in this thread is making me less and less certain of what I think, and I'm glad of it.

Shame on you, Dave, at least with Hefner's you could claim it was for the literary essays by Mailer, etc.

Yep, it was almost socially acceptable to be caught with Hefner's 'zine in open display on your bookshelves. Almost.