Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-22-2022, 05:06 PM   #76
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
QuoteOriginally posted by Serkevan Quote
Just let the hair fly out and you'll see the issues pretty quickly . My main point of contention with software blur is that either it's convincingly alright (at smartphone sizes) when it works, or it's horrid when it doesn't.
Bingo... and that's due to what is still fairly rudimentary depth-mapping. It's clever and cute, but still quite limited... though the results are usually good enough for social media...

03-22-2022, 05:44 PM - 3 Likes   #77
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Since when did photography (or any other visual art form) have to reproduce real life? Photography's ability to show things differently from how we perceive them is one of the reasons it's so much fun.
This is a very salient question. We see it asked in many more regards than the subject at hand.
How do we get the colours absolutely accurate?
Aren't portrait photographers cheating when they clone out zits?
Aren't landscape photographers cheating when they clone out discarded trash?

Frankly, I don't understand why someone would want to be nothing more than a photocopying machine producing a 100% exact representation of the world around them.
It's remarkably easy to do, requires absolutely no imagination and virtually no artistic vision.
It's akin to those paint by number kits that were so prevalent at one time.
03-22-2022, 05:48 PM - 1 Like   #78
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,777
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Again, I'll be pedantic if I may... "Bokeh" refers not to out-of-focus rendering per se (though the term is often misused in this way), but rather the quality or "style" of it. Two identical scenes from different lenses of the same focal length and at the same aperture can have elements that are equally out-of-focus yet rendered quite differently.. and some folks (I'm one) care very much about those rendering differences...
That right there is why I still carry my 40 & 70 mm Ltds when out with my 16-85 mm mounted.

As here with the 70...

[img]

Absolute cream green bokeh . The 16-85 at 70 is much more “clinical” feeling but I don’t have it here to show.
03-22-2022, 05:48 PM   #79
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by jdd Quote
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.
You can thank Mike Johnson for the word bokeh.

03-23-2022, 06:01 AM   #80
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 10,847
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Out of focus areas may be real, but in real life, you brain adjusts your eyes really quickly to achieve the effect of infinite depth of field, and it uses a form of stitching to create an no-bokeh image. Seeing out of focus areas as blurry would place humans at an evolutionary disadvantage. The frustrating thing about blurry out of focus areas, is in real life, your eyes adjust and see the whole scene. In a photograph, your eyes can adjust all they want, the info just isn''t there. That's why out of focus areas are un-natural.

I've aways considered it a conceit of photographers that they would select what's important for the audience, as if we'd be too dumb to do that ourselves. "What's that down there in the corner?" "It's out of focus, we'll never know." That's not real life. Real life is 3D. A 2D image is a very rough approximation.
That's not true at all. Eyes are still subject to the same laws of physics as cameras and lenses. The eye automatically focuses on what you look at. There are out-of-focus areas but as soon as you pay attention to them, and the eye moves there, they becomes in-focus areas. But they are there.

Technology can produce thinner depth of field than the eye so beyond a certain level it looks unusual, perhaps you could say un-natural, but not necessarily bad.


My Samsung S8 can produce a similar effect though I'm pretty sure it does it by taking a focused image then taking a completely de-focused image by going to minimum focus distance (or perhaps maximum in some cases). It then determines what the subject is and keeps that sharp while replacing the rest with the de-focused image. Newer systems I think use more AI and less mechanics.

Last edited by Jonathan Mac; 03-24-2022 at 02:29 AM.
03-23-2022, 06:57 AM - 1 Like   #81
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ffking's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Old South Wales
Posts: 6,029
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
The eye automatically focuses on what you look at. There are out-of-focus areas but as soon as you pay attention to them, and the eye moves there, they becomes in-focus areas. But they are there.
.

Exactly - I'm looking at my laptop screen about two feet away. i can see that the wall behind (10 feet away) is out of focus - until I look at it

And vice versa

Last edited by ffking; 03-23-2022 at 07:32 AM.
03-23-2022, 06:59 AM   #82
Veteran Member
Cambo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,016
I’ll bet those images are processed and corrected…

QuoteOriginally posted by ZombieArmy Quote
Someone shoulda told them that about the james webb telescope. Coulda just sent an iphone instead.
Can’t see them using optical only in this day and age.

Cheers,
Cameron

03-23-2022, 07:29 AM - 1 Like   #83
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
That's true at all. Eyes are still subject to the same laws of physics as cameras and lenses. The eye automatically focuses on what you look at. There are out-of-focus areas but as soon as you pay attention to them, and the eye moves there, they becomes in-focus areas. But they are there.
Obviously, individuals vary, we aren't subject to the same manufacturing tolerances as camera lenses, but the human eye is from what I have been able to glean, a 17mm f/2.2 lens with a minimum aperture of f8.3. As the retina is also about 17mm, the human eye is, more or less, a "standard lens".
As you have noted, the problem with seeing the out of focus stuff when you look at something is that the optical system works against us by refocusing on whatever we are paying attention to, and actively resisting allowing us to pay attention to that which we are not looking at. As well, we tend to scan stuff to build up an image, so we think we are seeing a wider field of view than we actually are.
In addition, a 17mm f2.2 lens that is standard for the format is going to have fairly deep depth of field wide open, and probably close to infinite depth of field in bright sunlight at it's minimum aperture of f8.8.
It makes it difficult to compare the human eye to a camera lens.

---------- Post added Mar 23rd, 2022 at 08:33 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Bingo... and that's due to what is still fairly rudimentary depth-mapping. It's clever and cute, but still quite limited... though the results are usually good enough for social media...
Do keep in mind that this is a technology that is in ongoing development, and will continue to get more and more convincing as time goes on. Writing it off now would be akin to writing off the space program in the late 1950s because rockets kept exploding on the launch pad.
03-23-2022, 07:35 AM - 3 Likes   #84
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,168
QuoteOriginally posted by jdd Quote
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.
Bokeh and shallow depth of field are often conflated. Bokeh is the quality of out of focus rendering. It is a way of labeling that aspect of rendering. Which lenses have “good” bokeh is very subjective. But all lenses have bokeh - the subjective enjoyment of each is a matter of taste.
03-23-2022, 07:59 AM - 2 Likes   #85
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
grey goat's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Spring Green, WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 925
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Obviously, individuals vary, we aren't subject to the same manufacturing tolerances as camera lenses, but the human eye is from what I have been able to glean, a 17mm f/2.2 lens with a minimum aperture of f8.3. As the retina is also about 17mm, the human eye is, more or less, a "standard lens".
As you have noted, the problem with seeing the out of focus stuff when you look at something is that the optical system works against us by refocusing on whatever we are paying attention to, and actively resisting allowing us to pay attention to that which we are not looking at. As well, we tend to scan stuff to build up an image, so we think we are seeing a wider field of view than we actually are.

In addition, a 17mm f2.2 lens that is standard for the format is going to have fairly deep depth of field wide open, and probably close to infinite depth of field in bright sunlight at it's minimum aperture of f8.8.

It makes it difficult to compare the human eye to a camera lens.
It may seem silly to point this out, but the human eye also has other things going for it. We can hear what's going on, too, and that information helps make sense of something we see only peripherally. Our sense of smell can help, too, as well as our sense of touch. I suppose even our sense of taste can help make sense of things in certain circumstances.

Toss in human experience, memory, and beliefs, and what the eye perceives is modified, sometimes very convincingly, sometimes to aid in accuracy, sometimes to veer into misperception. The camera itself may not lie, but given how humans process of what we see . . . well, the line between fact and fiction, truth and falsehood becomes blurred.

But the eye is an amazing thing. So was the K 17mm f/4 that I just sold. I probably should have held onto it. . . .
03-23-2022, 09:37 AM - 3 Likes   #86
Pentaxian
swanlefitte's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Minneapolis
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,068
We also have the optical nerve blind spot. We fill it in with our mind's software. Not to mention we turn the image upside down. All computational post processing.
03-23-2022, 11:24 AM   #87
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 321
@Serkivan Yes, hair is, for now, still a problem. However,I do not believe that false artifacts will either doom a portrait photograph or be so minimal that a portrait becomes acceptable. This might be the way extreme pixel-peepers view a photograph, but most people will look at the overall gestalt of the portrait - the combination of things like gestures, clothing, shadows, expressions, colors, skin quality, backgrounds, etc., and form an opinion. A few badly blurred hairs or other small details are both negligable and very fixable/removable in post (spot healing, cloning, etc.). Also, AI will only get better and better until it improves and eventually solves the problems with these out-of-place, unnatural parts of a blurred/bokeh, portrait photograph. Further, most printed portraits are 5x7, 8x10 (largest), or often 4x6 inces. I would feel completely confortable doing a print in these sizes right now - after minor artifact removal - from my phone images. Personally, I am looking forward to having very adjustable AI blur and bokeh in the future, but will also enjoy my Nikon 85mm f1.4, Leitz M, 90mm f2 , 100mm f2 primes when I am out on an intentional, portrait-specific shoot...

Last edited by mtgmansf; 03-23-2022 at 11:38 AM. Reason: addition...
03-23-2022, 12:17 PM - 1 Like   #88
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Do keep in mind that this is a technology that is in ongoing development, and will continue to get more and more convincing as time goes on. Writing it off now would be akin to writing off the space program in the late 1950s because rockets kept exploding on the launch pad.
Absolutely, Bill - I agree wholeheartedly, and if I've presented my opinion negatively towards computational out-of-focus rendering, that wasn't the intention. I think it's clever, and a potentially useful creative tool, even if it's relatively crude at this stage of development. I may already have mentioned that I've used (and will use) it myself when appropriate. It's just that I don't yet see it as a viable alternative to my favourite lenses - just as I don't see the film emulation profiles I occasionally use with my digital photos as a replacement for shooting with those actual films. That's just me, though... Others may not see the need for the real thing now or in the future, and my preference for optical rather than computational rendering characteristics may come to be seen as quaint and outdated. I'm OK with that... I'll just quietly get on with enjoying my glass

EDIT:

Even if developers eventually manage to fully and convincingly replicate different properties in optical rendering such that the myriad subtle (and not so subtle) effects are available and selectable to the user, I'd still prefer to choose a lens from my cupboard or kit bag, stick it on my DSLR (or - don't tell anyone here - my mirrorless ILC ) and shoot with that. There's something I enjoy and find very satisfying about using different equipment, and the unique characteristics therein.

Some folks here will know I'm a radio ham (albeit a mostly inactive one these days). My first (and favourite) radios were valve-based, or hybrid solid-state / valve, with real analogue controls, analogue signal and power meters, analogue frequency dials, analogue tuning and filtering etc. This was at a time where fully solid-state radios with LED and some LCD displays were already becoming much more common (i bought the older valve or hybrid gear because it was relatively inexpensive ). I loved the whole process of powering up my radios, waiting for the valves to glow and temperature to stabilise, calibrating the fairly-crude frequency read-out against beacons, finely adjusting the receiver by hand to follow a station as the frequency drifted over time due to temperature fluctations inside and outside the radio, making manual adjustments to load, plate and drive controls before transmitting... It felt like I was in complete control of the fundamental aspects of the radio, that there was some work to be done and skill required in using it, and I was fully responsible for the outcome and any success (or lack thereof) in making contacts with other hams. Modern radios don't need to be piloted in this way, and a lot of the magic and satisfaction for me in contacting a distant station has gone because of that. I'm not criticising modern gear, because there are many advantages to it - and some folks love all the automation, all the bells and whistles. I'm not against progress, and I can appreciate it - I just don't have to like it. Perhaps there are some parallels or clues here as to my personal feelings towards optical vs computational rendering... or perhaps not. Who knows...


EDIT #2:

I realise I may seem somewhat hypocritical... I declare my love of vintage, analogue, manually-controlled things, yet openly enjoy and take advantage of the benefits - including AF, some elements of automation, etc. - offered by digital cameras, and the flexibility of post-processing software for photo optimisation and editing. It's more convenient, more time-efficient, the results are more predictable and flexible, and there's a whole bunch of other advantages too. I do find shooting and developing film more "magical"... but I won't deny I enjoy digital. Go figure...

The bottom line is, however you make images, it's all valid. What one person likes to use, another won't... but it's the end result that matters to everyone else

Last edited by BigMackCam; 03-24-2022 at 09:36 AM.
03-23-2022, 05:21 PM   #89
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: London, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5
I have no doubt that, very soon, phones and cameras will be able to produce Perfect bokeh effects. All you need is 2 lenses that are enough far apart to measure the distance of a Very large number of points in your frame (like an old rangefinder) et voilà: you can then introduce blur as a function of the distance of the subject (any part of it) from the sensor. So I suspect than in 10 years large aperture lenses will be totally obsolete, except for their ability to capture more light (assuming you can still mount them on your devices. But so what? Most of my lenses already are obsolete. In fact, I enjoy using cameras that are ridiculously obsolete, even though I have a Sony Alpha 7r II that blows them all out of the water, especially when paired with native autofocus prime lenses. Vintage is vintage, nothing to do with technical perfection. The challenge makes it all more interesting.
03-23-2022, 06:22 PM   #90
Pentaxian
swanlefitte's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Minneapolis
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,068
QuoteOriginally posted by marcogalbiati Quote
Vintage is vintage, nothing to do with technical perfection. The challenge makes it all more interesting.
You probably ride a bike with a fishing rod instead of driving an SUV with a massive net to get fish!

"Many men go fishing all of their
lives without knowing that it
is not fish they are after."
Henry David Thoreau
There is an old saying, “nobody buys a drill because they want a drill, they buy one because they want a hole.” It is not always what you want, but what you ultimately need that drives our desires.

Henry David Thoreau said it this way, "Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after." For the commercial fisherman, it is a living he is after. It is money to have a home and to feed his family. For the sport fisherman it is often the getting away or the solitude of a mountain stream. Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after..

Do fishermen have these kinds of conversations?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
amount, aperture, apple, attention, bokeh, camera, cameras, clueless, course, days, defocus, depth, effect, eye, field, focus, hdr, images, lens, lenses, musicians, phones, photography, post, print, quality, subject, telephone, word
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Another Fake Flower To Go With Fake Media, etc.,etc., Tonytee Post Your Photos! 4 10-09-2017 09:31 PM
Nature It's a Fake. Fake news, Fake Media, Fake Flower. Tonytee Post Your Photos! 1 09-12-2017 04:01 PM
Misc 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR Bokeh Bokeh Bokeh! iocchelli Post Your Photos! 3 03-20-2011 02:22 AM
Have we become too civilized? seacapt General Talk 64 03-24-2010 10:01 AM
We have a White PENTAX K-M! Now we have the Computer Game Adrian Owerko Pentax News and Rumors 8 03-19-2009 05:23 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:06 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top