On 5/3/2012 7:17 AM, Ken Norton wrote:.
> I'm convinced that we've been taking the whole concept of bokeh a bit
> too far.
Again, twice in a couple of days, what do you mean we ... ?
> First of all, the old adage that crop-sensor cameras can't do
> the bokeh dance is as false as it comes. Of course, garbage kit zoom
> lenses with a maximum of F5.6 aperture don't help matters any, but
> that's optics, not format.
Agreed, the quality of OOF parts of an image are an objective fact, to which
various people will have various reactions.
How achieved, or given in to, is a technical issue, separate from the image.
This is what I have been exploring myself. It's also what I've been urging
Dawid to take into greater consideration in
his work. It matters not how wonderful any of the tools and materials are in
various way, if the result does not
entirely express the esthetic intended.
> I shot many hundreds of photos a couple weeks ago at my big annual
> shindig where the 100/2 lived on the E-1. "Bokeh? Youse wanna talk
> bokeh? Here's you bokeh, punk."
They are event photos. How does it matter, other than to you? Put it in a
landscape, a portrait, a still life, an art
image of some sort; show Dawid up in bokeh.
> Fine-toothed bokeh
By "fine-toothed", I take you to mean smooth? I prefer no teeth at all. :-)
> images usually have nice grab value (no distracting
> backgrounds to take away from the primary subject), but it's an
> effect. Just like any effect, it can be overused.
I don't entirely agree. I see (pun) slow, soft movement from in to out of focus
and smooth, soft edged OOF highlights as
natural, quite similar to how we see the world. Look straight ahead, focus on
something near or far, but pay attention
to the OOF areas of your vision.
The edgy bokeh created by modern lens designs, particularly for smaller
formats, is unlike natural vision. So I would
characterize it as the effect. And it may be used to good artistic purpose, but
most of the time, it is an unintended
and unnatural consequence of equipment and technique.
I remember the first time I met someone who had grown up in the Midwest in the
40s and 50s, and who preferred caned peas
to frozen, even to fresh. I believe several unintended consequences of
technical limitations have reached that status
with viewers of photographs.
If, for example, the early photographic processes were grainless, the
introduction of graininess would be seen as artsy
artifact, of limited use. I believe the same is true of nasty, edgy bokeh.
> I'm of the opinion that it's our current version of the "Cokin Star Filter".
That is an effect, not an analog of natural vision.
Bokeh Are Us Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|