6/24/2023 0 Comments Good vs bad bokeh examplesJust because the image was shot at f2 or wider, and with a background so far away and defocused that you don’t actually get to see ANY background detail, doesn’t automatically give you great bokeh. So it would still be true to say that bokeh isn’t the same as shallow depth-of-field.Īll of which kills me when people fawn over how awesome the bokeh is of their Canon 50mm f1.4 or Nikon 50mm f1.4 lenses. Using a different LENS with different characteristics will give you more pleasing bokeh than a lens with harsh bokeh, more so than a change in aperture would. While it is true that a given lens will maintain certain optical traits across its aperture range – such as how in these examples it renders background highlights – there are some characteristics, usually uncontrolled aberrations, that are only visible at wider apertures: soft corners, coma, vignetting, etc., that can all contribute to what might be considered a “more pleasing bokeh.” as someone pointed out to me, this is mostly true. But, going from f5.6 to f2 doesn’t give you “more pleasing bokeh” … it just gives you shallower depth of field.īut. A description such as “more pleasing bokeh”. but you do get shallower depth of field.Īlso, phrases like “more bokeh” are nonsensical terms. Therefore, you don’t get “more bokeh” by going from f5.6 to f2. Bokeh is about the quality of the background blur, and not directly about the depth-of-field.īokeh is a function of the optics, and specifically describes the quality of the out of focus areas – whether it is smooth or harsh. shallow depth-of-field is NOT the same as bokeh. And worse, just because they achieve shallow DoF, talk about “getting more bokeh”. I frequently see photographers confuse shallow depth-of-field (DoF), and call it bokeh. And yes, the client might not notice, but I do. The photos should still serve as a comparison.)Īnyway … this was one of the reasons I sold the 28-105 mm lens. I did try to keep things as consistent as possible, but little kids aren’t inanimate. (The part of the railing that is visible, seems to be clearer in the one shot, but that was because she moved slightly and I had to refocus on her eyes. and the 100% crop from the 28-105mm zoom at 105mm setting. The out-of-focus areas look ‘wiry’, whereas the 105mm DC lens has a very smooth looking out of focus background. The general photo is reduced in size, but the other two are 100% crops, shot with low sharpening on the D2H, both lenses at f5.6Īs you should be able to see from these crops, the 28-105mm zoom has a harsh bokeh. my daughter in our backyard, with some back-lighting and arbitrary The 105mm DC lens has superb bokeh, so it should be quite apparent in comparison photographs why I didn’t like the 28-105mm lens in this respect. I used two lenses here, comparing the Nikon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 with one of the very best lenses that Nikon has. It isn’t art, so don’t critique the photography – I wanted those random out-of-focus items in the background. To illustrate how good bokeh appears, and what poor bokeh looks like, I had set up this simple shot. When you see good bokeh, you’ll recognize it. However, when you’re able to recognize the difference between good bokeh and poor / harsh bokeh, then it becomes less subjective I believe. – and in the case of the Nikon DC lenses, by how certain aberrations are selectively introduced.īokeh is usually described as being subjective, and it largely is. – the distance of the out-of-focus objects, – the actual aperture used will also affect bokeh to some extent, – the number of blades in the aperture mechanism, – specifically, how spherical aberrations are corrected, The bokeh of a lens is influenced by numerous factors, including Since the softness of the background blur is usually more important than how the foreground items are blurred, bokeh usually relates to the background blur. how pleasing the blur looks of the background areas. Bokeh is the term used to describe the quality of background blur in a photo,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |