At 05:13 2/4/02, Mike wrote:
Forget about Bokeh. You can read a lot about it on the web (and probably
will), but it is really pretty much a dangerous waste of time. It's true
that some lenses are "better" than others, but what matters is that great
photographs can be made with really garbage lenses. The Bokeh debate seems
to grow out of the conversations of some camera buffs that would rather
debate the quality of their lenses and equipment rather than take
photographs with them.
[snipped out some great advice]
I wouldn't forget about it completely, but don't become obsessed by
it. Its importance depends on the type of photograph being made. Poor
"bokeh" can be a distraction in *some* otherwise well composed and
technically well executed photographs. Some of what determines image bokeh
is lens design, and some of it is situational with specifics about the "out
of focus" background.
Several points about bokeh and its importance:
(a) Bokeh performance is not the only characteristic of a lens to think
about. There are at least a half dozen others and most consider many of
these other aspects of lens optics more important than bokeh.
(b) Concern about bokeh is (in general) only applicable when using depth of
field to isolate specific subject material. It's only applicable to
certain types of photography and photographs.
(c) There are many aspects of composing a photograph more fundamental than
bokeh that should be considered first. It's very easy to make a photograph
in which the bokeh is very pleasing but other, much more important aspects
still make it a mediocre photograph.
(d) Poor bokeh can be mitigated with careful composition, even with lenses
that are the "worst" in this regard. A lens with mediocre to poor bokeh
can make it more difficult, but very rarely impossible. A lens with
excellent bokeh characteristics can still produce photographs with a
distracting bokeh (the situational aspect of specific backgrounds).
I agree completely:
" . . . great photographs can be made with really garbage lenses."
A number of years ago I took a "basic" photography class because my other
half saw it advertised and suggested it. A friend at work asked me how
much more hardware the class was going to be used to justify buying. The
discussion degenerated into a "dare" resulting in using a 50 year old
rangefinder with only a 50mm lens for the entire class. It has a small,
squinty viewfinder without framelines, knob winder, and its built-in
non-TTL meter "unlinked" to shutter or aperture is merely an advisory
"sanity check." After being accustomed to using a much more sophisticated
SLR system it was a challenge, often constraining, but definitely not
impossible. Best "dare" I ever accepted.
Lesson learned from the exercise:
Don't underestimate what can be done using a very basic camera with a
single standard lens. A few other members of the class did and were
surprised. It simply requires a thorough study of the subject material and
sorting out how to celebrate it within the camera's constraints.
Throwing money at cameras and lenses cannot buy excellent photographs; the
photographer must *make* them. Acer (currently lurking on this list) took
a college level photography class with an OM-1n and just a couple of lenses
(IIRC, a 50mm and a 28mm).
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|