Poll: Let's talk about bokeh

Syb · 10-27-2007, 08:18 AM

Here are three images of the same flower. They were taken with the same lens, same setting, only from a slightly different angle, resulting in completely different images. The difference factor here is the bokeh.

The question is: is one shot BETTER than another? Or is bokeh a matter of personal taste?

My way of investigating is to ask you all to tell me which one you like best. Because if we all turn out to prefer the same image; there is a collective taste, that may be called quality.

Please do not comment the lack of tacksharpness in the flower. I know it could have been better, but I shot these quickly so we could discuss the background. Thanks!

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

View Picture EXIF

MikeH · 10-27-2007, 11:14 AM

I think you are confusing background with bokeh. To compare bokeh properly, the background would have to be the same, with the variable factor being the lens, focal length, or aperture. You have changed the background, so that is the factor that you are asking for discussion.

For the record, the green background works best with the flower.

**NaClH2O** · 10-27-2007, 11:30 AM

I have to agree with Mike. The bokeh is very similar (except for color) in all three shots.

NaCl(and I like the dark background the best)H2O

borno · 10-27-2007, 11:41 AM

It takes more than one flower for a bokeh

Just kidding - I like the second one with a hint of an oof house to add some interest without distracting from the flower. just my 2 cents

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-27-2007, 12:02 PM

I would have to agree with all the other comments, you are not comparing bokeh but background.

With respect to the photo's, my own personal; preference is the first shot. I prefer for light objects, that the background fades to black (or at least darker, highlighting the foreground.

If the flower was a deep red, I might prefer the last photo, again to have the flower etand out.

m8o · 10-27-2007, 12:06 PM

If #2 is the only one you posted, I would have thought it to be a very nice pic & nice bokeh. However next to #1 and #3, I definitely prefer them. Only reason being the darker band in the middle and verticle line up @ the top (tree trunk?) of #2 doesn't fit the scene as well as the uniform backgrounds of the other two.

Ivan Glisin · 10-27-2007, 01:14 PM

As others have already noticed, I think that you have misunderstood the meaning of bokeh. Bokeh or "out of focus rendering" refers to optical quality of a specific lens, not simply blurred background regardless of a lens used.

Strictly speaking, correct comparison could be done only for different lenses of the same focal length, set at the same aperture and with identical background (tripod required). Here is the article you may find interesting:

Bokeh

Syb · 10-27-2007, 01:52 PM

Thanks for your replies! They are very helpful and educational. I think indeed I tried to discuss the background. However, that is situated in the blur that is often referred to as the bokeh, or am I still misunderstanding?

So thanks for helping cure my misunderstanding. The interesting thing remains that a shot from almost the same place can make such a big difference. One step more to the left=no more tree in the background blur. Through your knees: sky background. Stand 0,5 m higher= only grass background.

Or am I talking composition now? I guess not: the composition of the pics seem similar to me.

Ivan Glisin · 10-27-2007, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Syb

However, that is situated in the blur that is often referred to as the bokeh, or am I still misunderstanding?

The blur itself is not bokeh. The type of that blur is bokeh.

Quote:

Or am I talking composition now? I guess not: the composition of the pics seem similar to me.

Yes you do. Since you play with relative placement of foreground and background objects you are effectively talking about the composition, although your background object is extremely blurred and it is easier to think about it simply as a "background". Thus, your initial question should have been: "which out of focus (blurred) background do you prefer" (or something like that).

Besides, quality of bokeh can not be determined from your photos.

Peter Zack · 10-27-2007, 07:27 PM

Here's something that might help. The reviewer discusses the various lenses and bokeh charateristics of each. The test shots show the differences between lenses and at different f stops. As Ivan said above, you can't determine the quality of the bokeh from your shots. If the background were more complex with some varied colours, then you could look at it and say: 'it's smooth' or 'harsh' etc. If you look at the link you'll see what I mean.

Bokeh Test

BTW for background, #1

stewart_photo · 10-27-2007, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Syb

Here are three images of (snip)

Well, since you asked for opinions, I'll give you an alternative one. You forgot one option in your poll - who cares! Good bokeh. Poor bokeh. Hogwash! In nearly thirty years of photography, never once has a customer, client, friend, or family member discussed bokeh or the character of blur in an image. In my opinion, this whole bokeh silliness is only of interest to detailed obsessed camera users with way too much time on their hands.

stewart

Syb · 10-28-2007, 12:03 AM

@ Stewart: .. but they must have said something about the background they got, didn't they? It's amazing how different a background in a photo may look from the real place. (=compared to what the natural eye sees)

stewart_photo · 10-28-2007, 01:08 AM

Unless I messed up the background (distracting background, etc), I don't remember anyone ever saying anything about a blurred background. Most tend to focus on the subject instead, which is the purpose of a blurred background. I also tend to crop such images pretty heavily (letting the subject dominate even more), so there usually isn't a lot of background remaining for anyone to say much about. Of course, we're only talking about images with blurred backgrounds here, not scenics, scenes where the background is part of the subject, or whatever.

stewart

Photo Tramp · 10-28-2007, 04:22 AM

I have to agree with Stewart, in as far as taking shots for customers. Even in most competitions, or Art shows I have never heard a judge say I think the photograph has nice Bokeh In fact I think very few (other than the photographers) know what they are looking at. People look at a shot and either it appeals to them or it doesn't.

Nick1946 · 10-28-2007, 04:37 AM

Just me, but I never gave it much thought or worried about it.

View Poll Results: Which bokeh do you prefer?
I think bokeh 1 is the best	24	57.14%
I think bokeh 2 is the best	14	33.33%
I think bokeh 3 is the best	4	9.52%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

10-27-2007, 08:30 PM	#11
stewart_photo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Heidelberg, Germany Posts: 1,864	Originally posted by Syb Here are three images of (snip) Well, since you asked for opinions, I'll give you an alternative one. You forgot one option in your poll - who cares! Good bokeh. Poor bokeh. Hogwash! In nearly thirty years of photography, never once has a customer, client, friend, or family member discussed bokeh or the character of blur in an image. In my opinion, this whole bokeh silliness is only of interest to detailed obsessed camera users with way too much time on their hands. stewart Last edited by stewart_photo; 10-28-2007 at 12:41 AM. Reason: Softened the harsh tone a bit.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Streets Need to talk?	skinja	Post Your Photos!	4	09-02-2010 11:31 PM
Lens talk	NecroticSoldier	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	04-25-2010 06:41 PM
Bokina versus Bokeh Monster, which bokeh you prefer?	Pentaxor	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	04-21-2010 01:50 AM
Talk about IQ	mithrandir	General Talk	3	08-29-2009 08:38 AM
Talk me out of this...	FHPhotographer	Photographic Technique	40	08-06-2009 07:47 AM

10-27-2007, 11:14 AM	#2
MikeH Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Edmonton, Alberta Photos: Albums Posts: 273	I think you are confusing background with bokeh. To compare bokeh properly, the background would have to be the same, with the variable factor being the lens, focal length, or aperture. You have changed the background, so that is the factor that you are asking for discussion. For the record, the green background works best with the flower.

10-27-2007, 11:30 AM	#3
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	I have to agree with Mike. The bokeh is very similar (except for color) in all three shots. NaCl(and I like the dark background the best)H2O

10-27-2007, 11:41 AM	#4
borno Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: md-usa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,580	It takes more than one flower for a bokeh Just kidding - I like the second one with a hint of an oof house to add some interest without distracting from the flower. just my 2 cents

10-27-2007, 12:02 PM	#5
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	I would have to agree with all the other comments, you are not comparing bokeh but background. With respect to the photo's, my own personal; preference is the first shot. I prefer for light objects, that the background fades to black (or at least darker, highlighting the foreground. If the flower was a deep red, I might prefer the last photo, again to have the flower etand out.

10-27-2007, 12:06 PM	#6
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	If #2 is the only one you posted, I would have thought it to be a very nice pic & nice bokeh. However next to #1 and #3, I definitely prefer them. Only reason being the darker band in the middle and verticle line up @ the top (tree trunk?) of #2 doesn't fit the scene as well as the uniform backgrounds of the other two.

10-27-2007, 01:14 PM	#7
Ivan Glisin Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Belgrade Posts: 656	As others have already noticed, I think that you have misunderstood the meaning of bokeh. Bokeh or "out of focus rendering" refers to optical quality of a specific lens, not simply blurred background regardless of a lens used. Strictly speaking, correct comparison could be done only for different lenses of the same focal length, set at the same aperture and with identical background (tripod required). Here is the article you may find interesting: Bokeh

10-27-2007, 01:52 PM	#8
Syb Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Near Utrecht, Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,221 Original Poster	Thanks for your replies! They are very helpful and educational. I think indeed I tried to discuss the background. However, that is situated in the blur that is often referred to as the bokeh, or am I still misunderstanding? So thanks for helping cure my misunderstanding. The interesting thing remains that a shot from almost the same place can make such a big difference. One step more to the left=no more tree in the background blur. Through your knees: sky background. Stand 0,5 m higher= only grass background. Or am I talking composition now? I guess not: the composition of the pics seem similar to me.

10-27-2007, 06:31 PM	#9
Ivan Glisin Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Belgrade Posts: 656	Originally posted by Syb However, that is situated in the blur that is often referred to as the bokeh, or am I still misunderstanding? The blur itself is not bokeh. The type of that blur is bokeh. Quote: Or am I talking composition now? I guess not: the composition of the pics seem similar to me. Yes you do. Since you play with relative placement of foreground and background objects you are effectively talking about the composition, although your background object is extremely blurred and it is easier to think about it simply as a "background". Thus, your initial question should have been: "which out of focus (blurred) background do you prefer" (or something like that). Besides, quality of bokeh can not be determined from your photos.

10-27-2007, 07:27 PM	#10
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Here's something that might help. The reviewer discusses the various lenses and bokeh charateristics of each. The test shots show the differences between lenses and at different f stops. As Ivan said above, you can't determine the quality of the bokeh from your shots. If the background were more complex with some varied colours, then you could look at it and say: 'it's smooth' or 'harsh' etc. If you look at the link you'll see what I mean. Bokeh Test BTW for background, #1

10-28-2007, 12:03 AM	#12
Syb Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Near Utrecht, Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,221 Original Poster	@ Stewart: .. but they must have said something about the background they got, didn't they? It's amazing how different a background in a photo may look from the real place. (=compared to what the natural eye sees)

10-28-2007, 01:08 AM	#13
stewart_photo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Heidelberg, Germany Posts: 1,864	Unless I messed up the background (distracting background, etc), I don't remember anyone ever saying anything about a blurred background. Most tend to focus on the subject instead, which is the purpose of a blurred background. I also tend to crop such images pretty heavily (letting the subject dominate even more), so there usually isn't a lot of background remaining for anyone to say much about. Of course, we're only talking about images with blurred backgrounds here, not scenics, scenes where the background is part of the subject, or whatever. stewart

10-28-2007, 04:22 AM	#14
Photo Tramp Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Lancaster, PA. Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,041	I have to agree with Stewart, in as far as taking shots for customers. Even in most competitions, or Art shows I have never heard a judge say I think the photograph has nice Bokeh In fact I think very few (other than the photographers) know what they are looking at. People look at a shot and either it appeals to them or it doesn't.

10-28-2007, 04:37 AM	#15
Nick1946 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NW Arkansas Photos: Gallery Posts: 130	Just me, but I never gave it much thought or worried about it.