![]() There is one important thing to remember: the front bokeh(bokeh in front) of a lens can be very different to the back bokeh. The more you know the lens, the better you use make use of the bokeh. I do observe how the bokeh change at different focus distance, different lighting, different objects and etc. I don't define bokeh as either good/bad/great as it won't help me to take better photos. ![]() I have to assume that there is some personal preference or other deeper thought behind his body of work.Ĭalvin83 wrote: Thanks David for giving me a credit on my photos! I'm familiar with Calvin's Flickr stream and he uses many vintage lenses with many differing bokeh characters, frequently using that character to the advantage of his compositions. Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100 Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17 Saving grace is providing an example of the answers sought. I disagree strongly with the unnecessary judgement. and images can be elevated to greatness by creative use of bokeh. The Japanese coined the term, so "boke" is correct, but the common usage variant is fine too.įor me a great image isn't dependent on a particular bokeh character, but it can certainly be enhanced by the right bokeh. I have seen defocus simulations applied in PP that look decent, but on average they're just another effect that makes an image look more contrived (IMO). suitable for use in images you're going to put on your home-made holiday greeting cards. On the topic of shaped aperture inserts: in my opinion they are the star filter of the 2010s. Yes, Instagram has gotten better since then, but it's still not a favorite of mine. ![]() I also feel like sometimes, this sort of effect is an artistic crutch, an easy way to give an average image an extra degree of "wow", much like the Instagram filters I loathed when *everyone* was slapping them on any image posted to the hip-to-be-square alternative to real photography. I'll confess to being fascinated by "special effect" bokeh as generated by various vintage (or purpose built) optics and many of them are genuinely fantastic, though I feel like there can always be too much of a good thing and right now there's a lot of blown out, bubbly swirling bokeh floating around out there. ![]() Next best in my experience is the Minolta 35mm f/1.4 on a FF digital, which has the ability to render images with smooth transitions and that 3D effect that detailed images with this sort of bokeh often display. I find that my Bronica ETR series system has this sort of bokeh by default (even the wide angle glass) and if I had a dedicated darkroom to process roll after roll of 120 film without excessive cost, that would become my main camera system. So, my preference in most of my own images is for smooth bokeh that transitions from focus to de-focus in a way that draws the eye to the sharp part of the image, *without* erasing all detail of the OOF part. The best lens is the one you have with you. Is this "good" bokeh?ĭo you think the current fascination with extreme bokeh like "swirly" bokeh will fade?Īre you a purist (bokeh is *only* created by the optic) or are bokeh-like effects added in post OK?ĭoes bokeh quality make or break Images for you?įlickr Tamron 04B 200mm f/3.5 close focus Tamron 54B SP 300mm f/5.6 tele macro to topĬalvin83 wrote: The one that suits the scene. So many of the vintage lenses lauded for their bokeh, have *technically* terrible bokeh rendering, but act as a creative effect when used in a way that emphasizes those characteristics. creamy, swirly, smooth, buttery, bubbly, coarse, hashy, glow-y, busy, edgy or some complex, image specific combination of any or all of the above? Posted: Sun 3:14 pm Post subject: What makes great bokeh?Īwa54 wrote: What, in *your* opinion makes great bokeh.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |