[D4rknezz]

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.

Right. So what you mean is, we are simply waiting for the day when they make real cameras small enough to fit into a phone.

This has happened before :





Besides, if you can't create something to match your standards, then simply change the standards.
I am newer to photography than some others - and so when i joined photography, i got myself the fast 50. You know, the defacto king of standard. Then i also got myself a 75, a 100, a 125...bokeh king for portraits.

What bothered me is that I never liked the look of any of them. The pictures they produced looked bad to me. Professional photography images looked weird. Not the pictures themselves, by the way, just how they make people look in it.
Then i realized that the reason why: because I have grown up in an age where I 'like' images produced by an iPhone. By instagram, by wide lenses. When i aim my pro camera at myself, i don't look great. I had to go and take out all the strobes and lights and edit to make myself look great.
But use an iPhone, boy, hold it above me, angle it down like any kids do when they take a selfie : BOY do i look slim! No extra work necessary.

And this is how the new generation changes. True, they won't be able to do some things we can - but then they also wouldn't care.

[Archimedes the Dog]

This feature is not new really and cameras haven’t died. I demonstrated to my girlfriend what an 85mm lens did for portraiture on my KP vs my very up-to-date iPhone and her very-up-to-date Android. She was very clearly more impressed with the camera photos in general. I get the same reaction when posting camera photos on social media compared to phone photos. airs very possible to take breathtaking photos with a phone camera, the ability is in the artist, but the tools affect what you can do.

[Owltown]

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.

Thwyllo, we are exiting a golden age as regards ANYthing and EVERYthing once deemed proper. Welcome to Dystopia, brother.

[Autotech1]

Without my glasses on EVERYTHING IS BOKEH!

I second that comment! It's been like that for me for 54 years.

I even have bokeh wearing multifocal contacts.

[grey goat]

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.

I remember using shallow depth of field back in the early-mid '70s to isolate subjects, not only in portraits but with other subjects, too. I remember thinking in terms of shallow depth of field, and knowing that depth of field could be shallow or deep, and that different circumstances called for different apertures.

But I don't remember hearing the term "bokeh" back then. I'm not sure when that became part of my vocabulary. But I sure used it back then, and still do. Even in concert photography: my favorite venue to shoot at is the "Scatty" Barn (think synonym), a small venue with no stage and the audience is close to the performers and the official "scatty" photographers can get even closer if they want. I use fast lenses not only to freeze action, but also to use very selective focusing. I've used my 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 135/2.5 a lot; the K 135/2.5 is a consistently great performer.

On the other hand, there are times my 21/3.2 or 14/2.8 get the nod, but they're for the wide field of view and deep depth of field that accompanies it.

I wish I could remember when I first heard or encounter the term "bokeh," though. . . .

Only thing I hate about the fake bokeh are the youtubers who claim "you can't tell the difference" when I can see the difference in under a second.

Like this absolutely appalling video:

I hadn't ever watched one of these before, though I had noticed algorithmically produced "bokeh" in mobile phone images. But . . . wow, that video truly is appalling. It wasn't hard for me to pick out which image came from the iPhone and which came from the "$7500 DSLR." (Thanks for pointing out one of those videos, ZombieArmy!)

But the thing is, it's such a fake dichotomy: "inexpensive" iPhone and "extremely expensive" DSLR. First, mobile phones can be very expensive. But DSLRs can be, and often are, less expensive than a mobile phone. And any one of those DSLRs is capable of images with bokeh.

I've got an iPod Touch, but though I use it for zoom meetings or FaceTime, what I use it for 95% of the time is music. (Lossless formats, of course.) My iPad . . . lots of things, but not photography. I know they can make very good images, but if I want to take a photo of a cat, I pick up my K-3ii with my K 35/2 or such. I don't have an iPhone, so yes, I'm a luddite.

Anyway . . . mobile phones are capable of a lot of things, and for many people the bokeh they produce is fine. But . . . I prefer the bokeh from lenses mounted on my SLRs, D or film. Because there IS a difference, and, yes, I can see the difference and know why it exists.

[Naturefreak]

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.

So very, very sad. While so very, very true! Around me there are so many people only using there phone for taking pictures without understanding at all what real photographing is all about. I never use my phone for taking pictures, i use my K1 with good glaaa for that purpose, but I am 55 years of age. What about the younger generations...

[swanlefitte]

I have a new phone and I have only used the camera to scan a QR code to set my phone up. That is a cool thing and my dslr can't even fake it. My old phone was handy at taking a photo of the bus schedule, that would be a headache on my dslr as I clear my sd card every time I go out with it. Funny thing is half the time I go out I forget my phone. When I have it, it is deep in my pocket so as not to lose it. I have to dig it out, unlock it, and find the camera app. My dslr is just much easier and it works with gloves on.

Picture qualities are the last thing I would use to compare a phone and dslr.

[ZombieArmy]

Right. So what you mean is, we are simply waiting for the day when they make real cameras small enough to fit into a phone.

The problem isn't the tech. The problem is that you can't change physics and do more with less optics.


The dinky lens on a phone will never be as good as a well corrected lens for your dslr.

[regor]

The problem with computationally derived bokeh is that it often ignores or misinterprets optical reflection, transmission and refraction. Also it often gets the transitions of blur horrendously wrong.



(take a look at the windows)

Only because it was not done right. I will in some occasions add "fake bokeh", although bokeh is bokeh regardless how it's achieved, so there isn't such thing as "fake bokeh", so lets call it "Computational Bokeh" as opposed to "Optical Bokeh". When I do that, I always apply a gradual transparency, hence increasing the effect as the subject background lies further away from the subject in focus. There are a number of algorithms to create the blur effect, some more "natural" than others (although optical engineers are working hard trying to achieve a smooth, almost digital like, bokeh; so which is better, digital blur that mimics optical blur, or optical blur that closely resembles the perfection of digital blur ?). The main issue with "Computational Bokeh" is not the bokeh itself (although one might need a pretty complex algorithm to simulate highlight "onion rings" and other variations of highlight blurs based on a lens physical design, but feasible nonetheless), but the subject isolation, which can result in a loss of fine details close to the subject such as stray hairs etc.

[vonBaloney]

The problem isn't the tech. The problem is that you can't change physics and do more with less optics.


The dinky lens on a phone will never be as good as a well corrected lens for your dslr.

NEVER?


This New Flat Lens Captures Perfect Colors Without Chromatic Aberration | PetaPixel

[GUB]

I wish I could remember when I first heard or encounter the term "bokeh," though. . . .

Given that bokeh means "the quality of the out of focus areas" we didn't have a word in English to encompass that quality.
That is the great thing about the English language - it steals words when it sees fit.
Back in the film days I didn't think about the quality of the blur at all - all effort went into achieving sharpness of the subject.
The ability to learn immediately from your last image has made incorporation of these different concepts much easier to develop a learning curve for.

[Cambo]

A lot of older people didn’t like the telephone when it first came out, either.

Our phones are now so powerful, they are capable of doing this very, very well. I’ve done this many many times of course in Photoshop, and of course you could’ve done it in the old days in the dark room, in addition to doing it with a camera and lens. So what’s fake about it? If Ansel Adams did it, is it real? Also, you could do the exact opposite in Photoshop and back in the dark room days; you could sharpen up backgrounds. It’s just a different method of doing the same thing. Just because we were stuck with a mechanical method of doing it doesn’t mean that’s the only way it should ever be done. I have an iPhone 12 Pro, and I’ve been into photography since the film days, had many, many cameras and lenses and I can honestly say this is one of the best cameras I have ever owned. And it’s the first one NOT by Pentax ��. It is simply astonishing. And if you need a big print, get yourself GigaPixel by Topaz, and boom. Or are we only allowed to do big prints from 4x5’s?

Just my humble opinion. Bokeh is an amazing effect that’s been around since the early days of photography, and we’ve become so used to it now that we want it frequently, and we can replicate it many different ways. Including instantly from our smart phones.

Btw, did you know you can change it later on if you changed your mind? Try doing that with your 4x5…

Cheers,
Cameron

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.

---------- Post added 03-22-22 at 12:58 PM ----------

The problem isn't the tech. The problem is that you can't change physics and do more with less optics.


The dinky lens on a phone will never be as good as a well corrected lens for your dslr.

Have you ever used a lens correction algorithm in your photo editor of choice? We’ve been have been built into our cameras now. Great glass is becoming less and less important. Especially as our computing power is going through the roof. We can replicate great glass with a ketchup bottle and some powerful computing.

This from a person who has spent a small fortune on lenses over the years. I LOVE them! But, time marches on. If you can’t afford that 85 F1.2, get out your 18-55 zoom and do some processing.

Cheers,
Cameron

[KJWilson]

I was a programmer for a software company producing image cataloguing and editting software from 2000 to 2003. Even though I was in the industry, so to speak, I could not be pulled away from my Kodachrome 25 and friends until the quality of DSLR imaging improved substantially. Going forward, I have now retired the K1000 and other film bodies for a K-1ii. My spouse, on the other hand, has a new iPhone 13. I have serious doubts it would provide the boket my Tamron 500mm f8 CAT gives but, admittedly, have yet to challenge her to a shoot out.

[BigMackCam]

although bokeh is bokeh regardless how it's achieved

I'm going to be a little pedantic here, but - with respect - bokeh isn't just bokeh regardless of how it's achieved

Elements of photos can be in-focus or out-of-focus, and the out-of-focus areas will be blurred to some extent or another - this much is a given. However, "bokeh" - the quality of out-of-focus rendering - differs between lenses based on their optical and mechanical properties. The optical formula and precise implementation of it, the shape of the diaphragm at various apertures, the unimpeded or impeded flow of light through the body of the lens due to mechanical aspects - all of these and more significantly impact the quality of both in- and out-of-focus rendering, such that two identically-composed images, taken at the same exposure settings (shutter speed and aperture), from two different lenses of the same focal length (say, an old 50mm lens with 4-elements and flat-edged diaphragm blades, and a more modern 50mm with 6 elements and a larger number of rounded blades), can look broadly similar, somewhat different, or very different indeed, especially when it comes to out-of-focus areas and transitions. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is one of the things I love most about lenses.

With smartphone (or other digitally-created) out-of-focus rendering, none of the individual character of lenses is simulated - at least, not yet. So, even if the out-of-focus areas - and the transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus - are convincing (and currently, even that's something of a lottery), it'll be just one "look", compared to the cornucopia of rendering characteristics produced by an interchangeable lens camera and a few different lenses...

[grey goat]

Originally posted by Digitalis*
The problem with computationally derived bokeh is that it often ignores or misinterprets optical reflection, transmission and refraction. Also it often gets the transitions of blur horrendously wrong.

Only because it was not done right. I will in some occasions add "fake bokeh", although bokeh is bokeh regardless how it's achieved, so there isn't such thing as "fake bokeh", so lets call it "Computational Bokeh" as opposed to "Optical Bokeh". When I do that, I always apply a gradual transparency, hence increasing the effect as the subject background lies further away from the subject in focus. There are a number of algorithms to create the blur effect, some more "natural" than others (although optical engineers are working hard trying to achieve a smooth, almost digital like, bokeh; so which is better, digital blur that mimics optical blur, or optical blur that closely resembles the perfection of digital blur ?). The main issue with "Computational Bokeh" is not the bokeh itself (although one might need a pretty complex algorithm to simulate highlight "onion rings" and other variations of highlight blurs based on a lens physical design, but feasible nonetheless), but the subject isolation, which can result in a loss of fine details close to the subject such as stray hairs etc.

That makes sense as a way to differentiate the two kinds of bokeh--"computational" versus "optical."

On the other hand, a discussion of bokeh isn't just how out-of-focus areas are rendered, but almost always about how out-of-focus areas are rendered by a particular lens. My K 85/1.8 renders those areas differently than my DA 70/2.4 Limited. One viewer may prefer the rendering by one lens over another. But, if we're using the term as it came to be used in 1996 or 1997 (I only know that because I was checking on the definition of bokeh and happened to read about the genesis of the use of the term), it's related to optics used in photography--or, I suppose, binoculars and such, as birders and others who discern such things will tell you.

In other words, in a strict sense, bokeh is always "optical"--though "computational" algorithms, when applied with artistic sensibility that takes the nature of optics into acount, can effect a very, very close facsimile. I think if it were done really well, we might have a hard time discerning the difference.

That said, I haven't yet seen "bokeh" produced by a mobile phone that fools me. But I suspect that some of regor's work with "computational" bokeh would make me think it was "optical," and it's probably true of other photographers and artists as well.

Still . . . I think as the term's been used for the last 25 years, it has to do with how particular lenses render that out-of-focus area. And my guess is that people such as regor who put a lot of thoughtful work into such things probably have in mind a particular lens's rendering of bokeh. But even if a mobile phone's algorithm for bokeh is based on a particular Zeiss lens, as someone pointed out, that algorithm still isn't good enough to truly achieve what that Zeiss lens can do.

That's just my take on it, though.

I will say, too, that it seems to me that bokeh IS natural, that our eyes are lenses. BUT . . . because of how the brain processes that visual content, I can't isolate the out-of-focus areas and think, "Oh, that bokeh really is lovely / swirly / whatever." As soon as I look at it, it's in focus, so it isn't bokeh any more. Though, as others have pointed out, with 65 year old eyes, I can, in fact, see bokeh. But I think it's only in photographs or other such images that we can truly appreciate how bokeh is rendered in contrast with in-focus areas.