There's always impressionism.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Travel/NorthEast_2010/Coastal%20Maine/Mt_Desert_and_Acadia/Miscellaneous&image=_MG_1250crstex.jpg>
On 1/25/2011 1:08 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> Yikes, Moose, you are the ultimate Bokeh critic!
Sometimes I don't get it. Some things seem at least relatively simple to me.
B&W vs. color - not simple.
In 8 bit, 0 = black, 255 = white, 46 = 18% gray, etc. = simple
Good flesh tones = not simple.
Yellow = 570–590 nm = simple.
Bokeh qualities = fairly simple.
Bokeh preferences = not simple.
Rating gymnastic performance = not simple.
Measuring high jump height = simple.
Without making artistic value judgments, it would be fairly easy to construct a
1-10 bokeh scale, 1 = hard edged annular
ring and 10 = airy disk. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk>
I have made a personal judgment that that same range is from awful to
excellent, for the simple reason that that's how I
react to images I view. Someone else might have different tastes, perhaps the
reverse of mine, or that 5 is best and
deviations from the middle are worse.
So when someone talks about the rendering characteristics of a lens and offers
examples of its good bokeh, I tend to
respond based on the overall range of possible bokeh. If it's a 2 or three,
I'll say it's pretty bad.
Now I might also say; it's pretty good for a 50 mm lens, but suddenly things
get complicated. The image of grasses I
linked is a not atypical example of a classic double-gauss 50 mm lens for 35mm
with focal plane at 2-3 feet and
background with highlights far away. Take the same lens with focal plane and
background closer together, either near or
far, and the bokeh will usually be better, sometimes much better.
Take another look at the extension tube close-up of a flashlight Jim posted
today. 50/1.8 Takumar, with not bad bokeh,
maybe 4 or 5. But I'll bet if he duplicated my grass image, bokeh would be much
the same.
So, pant, pant, although you take my comment to be primarily about the lens,
it's really only about the image I see on
my screen, which I would put, for this specific image, at 2, maybe 3 on the
imaginary scale. For all I know, the same
lens may 'draw' images with better or worse at various different combinations
of aperture, focal distance and OOF object
distances.
> My only salvation was your earlier statement that basically no 50mm lenses
> ever have good Bokeh, so I guess your sentiment that the Heliar's Bokeh is OK
> is actually a pretty big compliment :-)
As above, I can't say anything meaningful about the lens. I've only seen two
example images and bokeh is only an issue
with one. I'm NOT trying to say your lens is good or bad!
> I am surprised you don't just shoot soft-focus lenses on large format. At
> least then you can still get some semblance of resolution
Still not quite where I'm coming from. Say I have a car with a top speed of
160kph. One person may say that's faster
than they would ever need. Another may say that's way too slow for them. The
measured top speed is objective. The other
two statements are value or taste judgments.
My comments on the bokeh of "Cowboy" were meant to be relatively objective,
simple statements about the image and where
the bokeh falls within the range of possible bokehs. If further examples
indicate that there are no 50 mm lenses for 35
mm that have good bokeh in those circumstances, and I want good bokeh, then as
you say, I should investigate different
lenses and/or formats for such a shot.
> (unlike the crappy,
Subjective. My taste tends to disagree, depending on which one
> but smooth,
Much more objective, and it would be hard not to agree.
> examples you posted of e.g. the Sima soft focus lens on the OM-4).
I actually think the Kiron at f4 is a very nice combination of sharpness in the
focal plane and smooth bokeh as it goes OOF.
> Happy bokeh hunting!
Thanks. In practice, other constraints, such as the size and weight I am
willing to carry, focal range flexibility, low
light capability, and so on, mean that I generally don't make bokeh a high
priority in selecting equipment. As I said
before, I print, post and publish a fair number of images with less than ideal
bokeh. It's all part of the endless dance
with light that is photography.
Also, as a denizen of the digital darkroom, I have various post processing
options for altering bokeh.
A. Blurry Moose
> Dawid
>
>
>
> On 25 Jan 2011, at 8:21 AM, Moose wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/2011 12:34 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
>>> "Cowboy Passenger"
>>> http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/023/d/4/cowboy_passenger_by_philosomatographer-d37vorl.jpg
>>> (guess focus at min. focus distance, not a sharp image)
>> At the risk of digging my self deeper in a bokeh hole . . . You may
>> well have different tastes, opinions than those
>> expressed here, but at least I can hope to make what I'm talking
>> about clearer.
> <snip>
>
>> If you look at the overhead lights on the left of "Cowboy
>> Passenger", a couple
>> brightish and one below them quite dim, you will see the same sort
>> of slightly darker center, surrounded by a bright
>> halo. On the bright ones, at least the halo has a soft edge. If it
>> had really good bokeh, the edges of the other bright
>> areas would also tail off more smoothly.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
