[BigMackCam]

While I certainly won't be selling my real cameras in favor of just using my iPhone anytime soon, some of the fake bokeh effects can be fun. Here's a shot I took with my K1000. It was in very bright conditions, the camera was loaded with ISO 400 film, and I needed depth of field to get the fast moving subject in focus. So no large apertures for me that day. I used the Focos app on my iPad to add some fake bokeh to the scanned image after the fact. Maybe not something I'd exhibit in a museum, but it's a fun image and I like the way it turned out.

That's a great way to look at smartphone "bokeh" effects - they're fun... and, as with this super photo, they can work really well - especially at web reproduction sizes (hence why they're probably so popular with younger folks). Depending on the scene, subject, background, foreground and transitional elements, though, they don't always work this well. Plus, of course, there's often no understanding from the photographer as to what they're actually simulating by using this facility - it's just another effect, like a film-emulation or "beauty" skin-smoothing filter. If all they're interested in is creating cool-looking images without understanding fundamental, technical aspects of photography, that's perfectly valid and there's nothing wrong with it... but it bypasses some really useful - and easily acquired - knowledge and skill for those who might be keen to learn. Who knows - maybe some will become interested in the "how" and "why" as a result of using such effects... I hope so.

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 03-20-2022 at 03:08 PM.

[swanlefitte]

but it bypasses some really useful - and easily acquired - knowledge and skill for those who might be keen to learn. Who knows - maybe some will become interested in the "how" and "why" as a result of using such effects...

I saw a discussion today on why so my photos have blue and orange. "It's a fad." " Its the orange, cyan complementary colors." No one seemed to know about color temperature or ever taken a photo during blue hour with lights in the photo.

Wait until they realize Golden hour is a thing. Of course once every light is a color balanced LED that knowledge will probably disappear like the rotary phone. CTO and CTB gels for flashes is "just a fad" already.

[Digitalis]

Since when did photography (or any other visual art form) have to reproduce real life?

Case in point:



But considering Van Gogh's Indulgence in Absinthe and all the Cadmium in his bloodstream* who can say that isn't what he really saw?



*Cadmium yellow was a common pigment used in his time, and he was of the generation of french artists that would lick their brushes to create a finer point. The effects of heavy metals like Cadmium are presently well known and cadmium is probably one of the worst: It has acute toxic effects, chronic toxic effects, and if there are any effects in between those it probably has them, too.

[swanlefitte]

Van Gogh used to much blue and orange it is a fad.

[pentaxus]

Technically, depth of field is an illusion. There is only one point of exact focus.

[Digitalis]

Van Gogh used to much blue and orange it is a fad.

Cyanopsia (blue vision) can be caused by acute heavy metal poisoning. Absinthe at the time was popular and it wasn't at all uncommon to find shoddy imitations: alcohol labelled as absinthe was often really high proof grain alcohol that was often tinted green with copper, lithium or vanadium salts (whatever was the right colour at hand) and adulterated with botanicals of questionable origins - sometimes finished with a splash of Wormwood oil (derived from Artemisia absinthium) which contained, among other things, Thujone which has been an oft debated psychoactive compound. Xanthopsia (yellow vision) can be caused in a number of ways but in that era it was most likely through exposure to improperly purified digoxin*, which is a possible causative agent in yellowing of vision (age is also a factor) - both of which biochemical factors are suggested to be the reasons behind Vincent Van Gogh's vivid taste in artistic palette, though certain psychiatric conditions can also have a strong influence in colour preferences.



*Considering his father died of a heart attack - it wouldn't be surprising to find if Vincent Van Gogh had been taking the heart rate control medication based on Digitalis (which makes its first appearance in published medical literature in 1795). Though I doubt it was Digoxin itself (which can be tricky to extract if you don't have the right solvent and glassware to do it) but rather contaminants of its extraction from natural sources that are suggested to be causative agents. Not all corner shop apothecaries at the time were actually good chemists. Digioxin was successfully synthesized in pure form hundreds of years later, but by then far more effective and less dangerous alternatives have been found.

[gazonk]

I just love it when the fake DoF of my iPhone fails completely.

Login ? Instagram

[jdd]

This was an interesting discussion, if only because of all the "bokeh" references. I learned how to use a camera in the 80's with a Pentax K1000. We were taught shutter speed, aperture, exposure, depth of field, etc, but I never heard the word "bokeh" used. Fast forward to the 2000's and I start getting back into using a camera. Seems like very other word I see in a review or article is about "bokeh". I had to look it up. It's like lenses, light, and aperture all got reworked/re-envisioned somehow in the 90's and I missed the boat.

[D4rknezz]

I don't think the camera industry is dead.

It is very much alive, and is now a ubiquitous technology entrenched within every device held by anyone 12 years and up. The technology has grown and expanded and simplified what used to be a complicated process into something that requires 1 button press - it has also made affordable what used to be equipment only professionals can afford.



What is dying, and is in desperate need of a new direction, is professional photography. And by professional photography, i don't mean people who are good at taking images - because there are a lot of kids with iPhones doing better work than professional photographers.
What i mean by professional photography is people who actually do photography for a living. The barrier to entry (Cost/skill/investment) has lowered to the point that anyone who can press a button can take an image, and that means, people with better imagination than me who in the past still needed to make a skill or cost investment, can today make a better photographer than I am without having to learn anything. Case in point, your son who did not understand DOF when you tried to explain it to him.

Photography is here to stay, and the camera industry as well. It will just look different.

PS : I also blame YouTube photographers who a few years ago helped slow kill DSLR by promoting cheaper, lesser technology for convenience and company support. Mirrorless is the new professional photography tool! Well, here we are. Now phone cameras are the new professional photography tools.

That said, for us hobby photographers - none of this matters. I just want the new K1iii pentax - and who cares if the neighbours kid can take pictures better than me.

[Kentax40]

So one of my adult kids asked me today "what's depth of field dad?" Turns out said kid has availed himself (at a cost well into four figures) of a new telephone. One of them iPhone 13 thingies. So I give him a brief technical explanation of what DOF is about and the parameters that influence it, which I can see is going straight over his head, and not because of how I'm explaining it. He then asks what bokeh is and so I explain that too.

"No need for all that Dad, I've got a DOF switch". A what now? "Yes, you just set the amount of bokeh you want and the TELEPHONE does it for you. Great innit?!"

So I patiently explain that either its just another fake effect button, or the TELEPHONE is compensating by changing aperture, ISO or some other setting and the TELEPHONE's automation (are you detecting that I hate camera phones, especially Apple products?) is adjusting to suit.

However, after reading a tech review (on DPReview as it happens) seems I was right with my immediate assumption. The effect is indeed totally fake and a result of yet another, actually fairly clever, algorithm. Seems Apple designed the processing to replicate performance of a (unspecified) Zeiss lens and the review compared the effect with a Nikon 58mm wide open at f1.4, and did so fairly favourably overall. The effect I believe is intended for use with the TELEPHONE's portrait lens, which works at f15, and there were some defects, such as blurring of elements in the same focal plane as the subject (specifically hair and a scarf on the photo they analysed), but as the article said, this is Effort Numero Uno. So it means a clueless Instagrammer can invoke fake bokeh with a lens working at f15 to preserve shutter speed etc..

Point here is....its another indication of where photography is going and another nail in the coffin for the camera industry I believe. I mean imagine if Apple partnered to produce a mirrorless camera with this kind of effect capability allied with some half decent glass? They'd wipe the floor with the competition frankly. And of course the other disappointment was how clueless some folk are about the basics of photography. Doesn't stop them producing some great images, and as I've said before, it would be interesting to know what percentage of images are viewed only on a smartphone or tablet, thus missing the glory of the original image - like watching an IMAX movie on a Zen Vision M.....

I think we are exiting a golden age as regards proper cameras - enjoy it while you can people.

Maybe it’s not as bleak as it looks. Currently use Pentax DSLR, Pentax Mirrorless, Ricoh GRII, GoPro and iPhone. Really good images and really bad images have come from every one of them.
Isn’t the image what we are ultimately after? Don’t most of us use tools in editing software? How often do you see a great photo and immediately ask what kind of camera? Maybe we should just have some fun.

[Edmunds]

When I'm out and about with my kid, I mostly don't carry a camera, because its too much hassle to handle a camera and a kid. So I do use the fake bokeh a fair bit, and it actually works surprisingly well. And I actually ended up dumping my whole crop camera kit because of my iPhone.

My wife has a pro iphone, which has 3 cameras and with the telephoto lens its even better than on my iphone mini.

Here's a few shots

[ZombieArmy]

I don't think the camera industry is dead.

It is very much alive, and is now a ubiquitous technology entrenched within every device held by anyone 12 years and up. The technology has grown and expanded and simplified what used to be a complicated process into something that requires 1 button press - it has also made affordable what used to be equipment only professionals can afford.



What is dying, and is in desperate need of a new direction, is professional photography. And by professional photography, i don't mean people who are good at taking images - because there are a lot of kids with iPhones doing better work than professional photographers.
What i mean by professional photography is people who actually do photography for a living. The barrier to entry (Cost/skill/investment) has lowered to the point that anyone who can press a button can take an image, and that means, people with better imagination than me who in the past still needed to make a skill or cost investment, can today make a better photographer than I am without having to learn anything. Case in point, your son who did not understand DOF when you tried to explain it to him.

Photography is here to stay, and the camera industry as well. It will just look different.

PS : I also blame YouTube photographers who a few years ago helped slow kill DSLR by promoting cheaper, lesser technology for convenience and company support. Mirrorless is the new professional photography tool! Well, here we are. Now phone cameras are the new professional photography tools.

That said, for us hobby photographers - none of this matters. I just want the new K1iii pentax - and who cares if the neighbours kid can take pictures better than me.

While I agree that the barrier to entry in the photography space has never been lower there will always be a need for larger sensors and glass. Computational photography is impressive these days but you just can't beat physics.

A phone will always limit you in some way. And I don't just mean in terms of image quality, I mean creatively too.

[iippo]

So one of my adult kids asked me today "what's depth of field dad?" Turns out said kid has availed himself (at a cost well into four figures) of a new telephone. One of them iPhone 13 thingies. So I give him a brief technical explanation of what DOF is about and the parameters that influence it, which I can see is going straight over his head, and not because of how I'm explaining it. He then asks what bokeh is and so I explain that too.

"No need for all that Dad, I've got a DOF switch". A what now? "Yes, you just set the amount of bokeh you want and the TELEPHONE does it for you. Great innit?!"

So I patiently explain that either its just another fake effect button, or the TELEPHONE is compensating by changing aperture, ISO or some other setting and the TELEPHONE's automation (are you detecting that I hate camera phones, especially Apple products?) is adjusting to suit.

However, after reading a tech review (on DPReview as it happens) seems I was right with my immediate assumption. The effect is indeed totally fake and a result of yet another, actually fairly clever, algorithm. Seems Apple designed the processing to replicate performance of a (unspecified) Zeiss lens and the review compared the effect with a Nikon 58mm wide open at f1.4, and did so fairly favourably overall. The effect I believe is intended for use with the TELEPHONE's portrait lens, which works at f15, and there were some defects, such as blurring of elements in the same focal plane as the subject (specifically hair and a scarf on the photo they analysed), but as the article said, this is Effort Numero Uno. So it means a clueless Instagrammer can invoke fake bokeh with a lens working at f15 to preserve shutter speed etc..

Point here is....its another indication of where photography is going and another nail in the coffin for the camera industry I believe. I mean imagine if Apple partnered to produce a mirrorless camera with this kind of effect capability allied with some half decent glass? They'd wipe the floor with the competition frankly. And of course the other disappointment was how clueless some folk are about the basics of photography. Doesn't stop them producing some great images, and as I've said before, it would be interesting to know what percentage of images are viewed only on a smartphone or tablet, thus missing the glory of the original image - like watching an IMAX movie on a Zen Vision M.....

I think we are exiting a golden age as regards proper cameras - enjoy it while you can people.

There is this one interview about cellphone cameras that has stuck to my mind for over decade. Apparently for 12 years now that i found one article about it - this isnt the full interview, but the key point is there:

"Nokia exec: phones to make system cameras obsolete"
Nokia exec: phones to make system cameras obsolete | Reuters

Personally to me it was pretty obvious even back then, that the everyday normie photography was going to be done 99% cellphones. I wasnt photographer back then and still arent, i do own pentax k-70 now though. But most people are totally fine with the cellphone quality and infact it is the "standard quality" younger folk grow into. They dont know anything about actual cameras - thinking maybe they are some vintage thing their grandpa had 100 years ago, totally pointless now -_-

Now while i take plenty photos in my work, its for infra inspection etc sort of thing. I could easily imagine, that in the future normal photography - even on cellphones will become thing of past and people just going to shoot vides for x amount of seconds and then give some AI some simple criteria to find and possibly even create the desired pictures from the video material. I totally detest the selfie lenses etc - but apparently people use them plenty...and as that tech evolves even more, id imagine the "augmented AI reality" is something that will be the norm - not exception. Unfortunately people are lazy and even vain ...and as long as filters and AI offer shortcut, people are certainly going to take it.

Id imagine that digital / film cameras as we know them now will stick around in some form or other in the future too though. Niche vintage tech - just like vinyls, tapes and CD's are still around and even making comeback in music these days. But having significat market share? ...really doubt so unfortunately.

[Cucho]

Every phone has fake-bokeh now, with different names. "Portrait photo", "DOF adjusment", etc... If you look closely, the effect is not perfect, as the algorithm has to decide which zones of the frame must keep in focus, and which don't. So sometimes it fails. For example on a half-body portrait, sometimes below the ears or between the arms and the body, fake-bokeh is not applied. So the result is terrible. Although, this would probably be fixed in some time xD. But the softness of the focus changing smoothly from the focused point towards or inwards, will take some time.

Somehow, right now, in every artistic expresion there is a fake way to do it. In music there is autotune, very discussed among real talented singers, but widely accepted now among younger people. In photography, photoshoped photos are accepted since long time ago, probably very discussed on the beginnings (I'm not talking about little colour adjustments, but people using a photo as a starting point and changing it entirely). So... I don't know, maybe art is changing all the time, and it is hard to accept it xD.

[Roland Karlsson]

Its like cats and dogs, some people like cats and some like dogs. And some like both. Some do like shallow DOF and some like infinite DOF. And some like both. So far though, I have a hard time liking fake DOF. Same goes for phone stitched panoramas and other tricks phones can do. The result is interesting, but seldom good. Like toy effects. Amusing but useless.