Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-17-2022, 12:56 AM - 3 Likes   #46
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Hautes Pyrenees, France.
Posts: 121
Original Poster
I read an interesting quote on Adorama this morning as follows:

"Photographers can run out of creative juices due to their obsession with the quality of their gear and photos.".

.... I'll just leave that with you for now

06-17-2022, 01:18 AM   #47
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,575
QuoteOriginally posted by Thwyllo Quote
I read an interesting quote on Adorama this morning as follows:

"Photographers can run out of creative juices due to their obsession with the quality of their gear and photos.".

.... I'll just leave that with you for now
Now, that I agree with completely

A little earlier this year, I posted the following:

QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam:
I have a theory (and that's all it is) that many folks are simply starved of free time or exhausted from their daily grind, and it's easier / more exciting / less demanding - even, in some ways, fleetingly more satisfying - to buy new gear if they can afford it than it is to do the hard yards in learning and/or optimising skills and getting the most from existing gear with practise and creative thinking. I've been there, years ago... Like many of us, I know how it feels to have maybe a couple of hours free every other weekend to do some actual photography, with my only other involvement being surfing the web and reading reviews whilst stuck in the office late at night
That Adorama quote is all well and good, though I think most of us are already aware that buying gear and the art of photography aren't the same thing... but again, if someone gets enjoyment from buying and playing with gear (whether it's a sub-$50 lens for their $1,000+ body, or a plastic Lomography camera), good for them. It doesn't negatively impact on you, me and others, and in the grand scheme of things it's a pretty innocent way to get one's kicks Same with the whole bokeh thing - whatever floats your boat... it's all good, there's room for us all, whatever aspects of the hobby we enjoy individually and however we choose to enjoy them

Last edited by BigMackCam; 06-17-2022 at 01:30 AM.
06-17-2022, 01:24 AM - 5 Likes   #48
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,857
QuoteOriginally posted by pepperberry farm Quote
I also seem to remember a recent story about a certain class of "influencers" that had been convinced to scrape rocks across the front element of their lenses to improve their bokeh experience....

I think they were more interested in an overall soft focus, low contrast look, and for me they went a bit too extreme with the effect.

As for scratching up a cheap lens, I can highly recommend it. A few years back I sandpapered the front element of an 18-55mm to simulate a few decades of cleaning marks and was very happy with the result. My theory was that some of the character of vintage lenses comes from the wear and tear that the glass has received over the decades, which is why two copies of the same classic lens will never give you exactly the same results.

Back on the thread topic, I'm now wondering which modifications to a lens might really have an effect on this bokeh thing that some people seem to care about so much (although I don't myself). Reversing elements should do something, and completely removing the aperture blades might be worth a try. In the past I've experimented with homemade single element lenses too, and you can get surprisngly sharp centres surrounded by some serious blurriness with that method.

I think I'll pop down to the charity shops in town to see if they've got a £5 sacrificial victim lens to do some dastardly bokeh experiments on.
06-17-2022, 01:40 AM - 3 Likes   #49
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,857
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
... but again, if someone gets enjoyment from buying gear, good for them. It doesn't negatively impact on you, me and others, and in the grand scheme of things it's a pretty innocent way to get one's kicks

It could be argued that obsessive buying of new gear actually does have a negative effect on everyone in some ways though. After all, there's an environmental price to be paid for the raw materials and worldwide shipping of every camera. I'm actually quite happy to see the camera market shrinking with fewer and fewer new releases, and I'd certainly be happy if more photographers stuck with the same camera for five to ten years rather than wanting a new model every season. People in rich countries really need to think a bit more about the global impact of all their consumer goodies.

Sorry for the rant. It's not aimed at you personally. I know you're a thoughtful and ethically aware sort of guy. And yes, I know that talking in my previous post about deliberately wrecking gear makes me look like a hypocrite. In my defence, it's always used gear and at least it doesn't end up as landfill.

06-17-2022, 03:13 AM - 1 Like   #50
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,575
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
t could be argued that obsessive buying of new gear actually does have a negative effect on everyone in some ways though. After all, there's an environmental price to be paid for the raw materials and worldwide shipping of every camera.
Agreed... though I still think it's a kinder, safer activity than many (I won't mention them here, as it's not my intention to criticise folks); but yes, there is an environmental impact, no doubt. As you know, I'm a big fan of older, used gear, and I'd encourage anyone to explore what's available in the secondary market and use that where possible. I remain convinced that many of us don't need the latest and greatest equipment, and the gear itch is often scratched just as effectively with a nice pre-owned camera or lens... for me personally, usually more so

QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
Sorry for the rant. It's not aimed at you personally. I know you're a thoughtful and ethically aware sort of guy.
No apology needed, David. I always enjoy thoughtful discussion and feedback. It's how I've learned much of what little I know
06-17-2022, 04:12 AM - 3 Likes   #51
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,787
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
People in rich countries really need to think a bit more about the global impact of all their consumer goodies.
Would the people in Vietnam who make Pentax cameras be better or worse off if we bought many fewer Pentax cameras?
06-17-2022, 05:27 AM - 2 Likes   #52
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,857
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
Would the people in Vietnam who make Pentax cameras be better or worse off if we bought many fewer Pentax cameras?

Are the people in Vietnam who work on the assembly line paid enough to buy one of the cameras themselves?

06-17-2022, 08:45 AM   #53
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by Thwyllo Quote
I read an interesting quote on Adorama this morning as follows:

"Photographers can run out of creative juices due to their obsession with the quality of their gear and photos.".

.... I'll just leave that with you for now
Sounds like an excuse for cheap junk lenses and not paying attention to what's in front of their camera.

---------- Post added Jun 17th, 2022 at 09:47 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
Are the people in Vietnam who work on the assembly line paid enough to buy one of the cameras themselves?
Can you answer the question directly rather than dodging it entirely.
06-17-2022, 08:57 AM - 10 Likes   #54
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Madaboutpix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Rhine-Westphalia
Posts: 1,429
Let people freely indulge in exploring and having fun with selective focus and the aesthetic qualities of their out-of-focus blur. Seasoned photographers know that ultimately both are just tools in the box, two of hopefully a larger palette to choose from, and skilfully employed based on the intended outcome. Pretty powerful tools, mind you, and ones that are hard to emulate even with the most advanced AI-powered smartphones or editing softwares.

However, where it starts to grate, to my mind, is when the celebration of bokeh is becoming, well, more of an excercise in the photographer's vanity - along the lines of, "Yeah, you lowly creature, look at me shooting my 2,500-euro-3-kilo bokeh monster. Take a hard look, coz you could never even dream of anything like this. My images are inherently superior to yours because I can shoot exclusively at F1.4, whereas you will only ever be producing boring medium-aperture images." Okay, I have taken the liberty to shamelessly exaggerate, to the point of caricature, but I think we all know the kind of sentiment, and may have heard it voiced occasionally, or at least implied.

Should anybody feel guilty for treating themselves to such beautiful glass, for using it for what its worth (or, heck, just fondling it from time to time), or for specially seeking out quirky-bokeh vintage glass? Absolutely not. They're all fun and have their legitimate place in photography. I covet that kind of glass too.

To make this all a little less academic, here's some reasonably pleasing bokeh, I'd say, produced at F4 by the cheapest lens in the current Pentax line-up, the plasticky DA50 (a lens that is sometimes said to be a bit clinical or somewhat uninteresting in its rendering):



The DA35 Limited Macro, rarely thought of as a bokeh monster (and sometimes said to have busy bokeh); another shot at F4:



And finally, the DA55-300 PLM, a slow-aperture zoom lens, here at F6.3:


Last edited by Sandy Hancock; 06-17-2022 at 02:49 PM. Reason: Nuance, illustration.
06-17-2022, 10:56 AM - 2 Likes   #55
Pentaxian
Lord Lucan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: South Wales
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,900
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
As for scratching up a cheap lens, I can highly recommend it. A few years back I sandpapered the front element of an 18-55mm to simulate a few decades of cleaning marks and was very happy with the result.
Ouch, it goes against my grain to damage things I have even been known to mend broken things that are going out with the rubbish recycling. But there is no need to sandpaper a lens : in olden days portrait photographers, when the subject was an older woman, would use a filter (eg UV or Skylight) and smear it with Vaseline to soften the crows feet. It was their skill to judge how thick to lay it on, and I believe they tended to leave the centre more clear. Another trick was to stretch a nylon stocking over the lens. These methods are non-destructive.

Then there are the variable softness portrait lenses that used to be offered by the main brands, including Pentax : SMC Pentax 85mm F2.2 Soft Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database . Expensive of course, but it reminds me of something Dolly Parton once said about her stage make-up : It costs a lot of money to look this cheap!
06-17-2022, 11:13 AM - 1 Like   #56
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,172
QuoteOriginally posted by Madaboutpix Quote
here's some reasonably pleasing bokeh, I'd say, produced at F4 by the cheapest lens in the current Pentax line-up, the plasticky DA50 (a lens that is sometimes said to be a bit clinical or somewhat uninteresting in its rendering):
Your first image captured some pleasing mini-bokeh-balls. Or are they bokeh micro-balls?

Nice images, not 'clinical' at all in my opinion.

- Craig
06-17-2022, 11:34 AM - 3 Likes   #57
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Madaboutpix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Rhine-Westphalia
Posts: 1,429
QuoteOriginally posted by Lord Lucan Quote
Ouch, it goes against my grain to damage things I have even been known to mend broken things that are going out with the rubbish recycling. But there is no need to sandpaper a lens : in olden days portrait photographers, when the subject was an older woman, would use a filter (eg UV or Skylight) and smear it with Vaseline to soften the crows feet. It was their skill to judge how thick to lay it on, and I believe they tended to leave the centre more clear. Another trick was to stretch a nylon stocking over the lens. These methods are non-destructive.Then there are the variable softness portrait lenses that used to be offered by the main brands, including Pentax : SMC Pentax 85mm F2.2 Soft Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database . Expensive of course, but it reminds me of something Dolly Parton once said about her stage make-up : It costs a lot of money to look this cheap!

Another pretty affordable option would be (black) mist filters, which have enjoyed something of a renaisance lately for their cinematic effect, not unfamiliar from Netflix (many of us have been long enough in photography to also remember the soft filters of the 1970s and 1980s, or the fogged-front-lens David Hamilton look). The K&F Concept Nano-X Black Mist Filter, coming in four strengths, would be a typical example of these:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1616656-REG/k_f_concept_kf01_1525_49m...981&

It should be noted, though, that deliberate fogginess or softness in photographs is quite a different animal, both optically and effect-wise, than the bokeh discussed earlier in this this thread.

QuoteOriginally posted by c.a.m Quote
Your first image captured some pleasing mini-bokeh-balls. Or are they bokeh micro-balls? Nice images, not 'clinical' at all in my opinion.

Appreciated, Craig. Er, not exactly sure about the depths of bokeh ball nomenclature. The DA50 rendering can be slightly clinical, but there are ways of shooting the lens so that it doesn't show at all. The point of sharing the images was basically to illustrate the old truism, "Know thy tools, um, and you kinda like'll get away with murder." (Okay, just made that one up.)

Last edited by Madaboutpix; 06-17-2022 at 12:07 PM. Reason: Adding response.
06-17-2022, 12:57 PM - 1 Like   #58
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,526
QuoteOriginally posted by Thwyllo Quote
So that's the annoyance factor, exacerbated by an onslaught of social media postings on the subject.
I for one couldn't care less about your balls.
I believe part of the motivation in bokeh balls is because the lens technology has gotten so good in terms of sharpness, vignetting, chromatic aberration, and transmission that manufacturers and reviewers want and need another criteria to distinguish why you should buy or upgrade your straight bladed aperture lens to the newer rounded aperture.

Yes, one shouldn't care about anyone's bokeh balls other than their own.
06-17-2022, 09:27 PM - 1 Like   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,528
Some interesting reading on Bokeh

https://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/index.html
06-18-2022, 12:57 AM   #60
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,112
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote

Yes, one shouldn't care about anyone's bokeh balls other than their own.
Comparing how big or soft your balls are?

This sounds a lot like an intro to another one of clacker's beginner tips.

On a more serious note I do agree this is all about fads and overusing an ingredient.

Pepper is important and can taste nice. If you add a pound of pepper to all your meals it only shows the absence of skill. But the same could be said if you never ever tried pepper.
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!
background, balls, bokeh, bokeh..just a load, factor, focus, future, law, masterpiece, masterpieces, people, photography, photos, sea, subject, time, tool
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Landscape A Load Of Balls Kerrowdown Post Your Photos! 19 07-02-2020 01:15 PM
Nature Busy, Busy Bokeh Balls. DW58 Post Your Photos! 2 01-16-2020 05:12 PM
Nature Water Drop Bokeh Balls 6BQ5 Post Your Photos! 5 12-07-2014 03:49 AM
Misc 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR Bokeh Bokeh Bokeh! iocchelli Post Your Photos! 3 03-20-2011 02:22 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:59 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