Bokeh is real, but sometimes is hidden by the similarity of lenses or subject
choice.
If you shoot a subject with strong, out-of-focus highlights you will see much
of the bokeh, good or bad. Many lenses concentrate their OOF light into the
outside of the blur circles, looking like bright-edged, pastel disks. This is
typically termed "bad bokeh". More desirable is a smooth disk.
Also, some lenses produce different bokeh ahead of the subject's plane of focus
vs. behind. Most lens systems that stress bokeh emphasize bokeh behind the
subject because that's what is most often seen.
So you can really see and evaluate bokeh with a subject where the background
produces strong OOF highlights, preferrably at different distances from the
subject to gauge.
I see very few differences between the two images you posted.
How far was the background from the subject?
Skip
----- Original Message ---------------
Subject: [OM] Ah, Bokeh! Or is it Hokey?
From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:12:34 +0000
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx (Oly List)
>Last summer I did a short series (about half a roll of Provia 100F) of test
>shots to compare the 90/2 Zuiko and the 90/2.8 Tamron macros. I couldn't tell
>any real difference. Now, since the bokeh subject has reared its fuzzy head
>again, and because the 90/2 Zuiko is said by many to have the most wonderful
>bokeh, I'm putting up a couple of shots, one taken with each lens. About the
>only things these lenses have in common is that they both have nine-blade
>diaphragms.
>
>These are straight scans, with no sharpening or other adjustments whatsoever,
>of a deliberatly chosen "difficult" subject in fairly harsh lighting. For
>some reason, although scanned at 2700 d.p.i. before being JPGed down to 800
>pixels wide, they look kinda "soft." I promise, though, that they are equally
>sharp and have oodles of detail. But anyway, I'm doing this only for the
>bokeh, so "soft" don't much matter.
>
>If anybody can see any difference, I hope they'll 'splain it to me. I guess
>I'm just not all that sensitive, because bokeh has never been that important
>to me. Unless it's really bad and/or the subject is really boring, I usually
>don't even notice it.
>
>http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-724214.html
>http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-724215.html
>
>Walt, the bokeh clod
>
>--
>"Anything more than 500 yards from
>the car just isn't photogenic." --
>Edward Weston
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|