Bokeh vs shallow Depth of Field

[Kym]

So when is it good Bokeh or just shallow depth of field? Lets discuss...

Definition:

Bokeh (derived from Japanese, a noun boke 暈け, meaning "blur" or "haze") is a photographic term referring to the appearance of point of light sources in an out-of-focus area of an image produced by a camera lens using a shallow depth of field. Different lens bokeh produces different aesthetic qualities in out-of-focus backgrounds, which are often used to reduce distractions and emphasise the primary subject.

When the term Bokeh is used it usually refers to the aesthetic quality of the OOF part of the image; not just the fact it is OOF.

Using recent images of mine - is this good Bokeh or just OOF background?

Please post your own images to the thread for discussion as well !

I had to clone out a 2nd powerline on this one as well.


Iceberg Rose

[DzRbenson]

I would say #1 is Bokeh and #2 is DOF.

Here are a few of mine, First 2 are Bokeh I think, the last is just good DOF control

[DzRbenson]

Just having a read about Bokeh and there are some interesting thoughts, I think the line is blurred from what is OOF DOF and what is Bokeh, they may overlay at a point.

"Bokeh describes the appearance, or "feel," of out-of-focus areas. Bokeh is not how far something is out-of-focus, bokeh is the character of whatever blur is there. "

[Kym]

Just having a read about Bokeh and there are some interesting thoughts, I think the line is blurred from what is OOF DOF and what is Bokeh, they may overlay at a point.
"Bokeh describes the appearance, or "feel," of out-of-focus areas. Bokeh is not how far something is out-of-focus, bokeh is the character of whatever blur is there. "

Exactly! So what is good Bokeh? - hence this thread. I agree with your assessments above.

The pleasing aesthetic aspects of the background are what is important.

[DzRbenson]

If its just out of focus to me that is what it is, however if there are highlights that are OOF and certain shapes, that starts to create Bokeh.

[RuthJ]

I've heard good bokeh described as 'creamy'. To me, there is a smoothness and lack of shape to it. I don't believe that a busy background that is inadequately out of focus or blurred could ever have good bokeh.

Here are my bokeh offerings...the colour in the first is deliberate





I think the first is bokeh...the second would be debateable.

[Steadyhands]

First, here's an example of extremely shallow DoF. F1.2
No.1


Pleasing background? Subject isolation?
No.2


Smooth Creamy background. Is it just out of focus or good Bokeh.

No.3

[arthurking83]

The way in which I see(and judge) bokeh:

Magpie shot. Technically bad bokeh if you try to maintain the line that good bokeh is supposed to be pleasing, but in that magpie image the nervous looking bokeh isn't so bad.
It probably stems from the fact that it's uniform, and it makes a mottled lke effect which you'd normally see as a backdrop for a portrait studio... so in this particular case it looks more than acceptable. But if it were my lens at those settings, I'd be watching that kind of bokeh carefully.
Rose shot. Perfect bokeh! You can clearly make out the shapes of the background and it's 'buttery' smooth, or creamy as the regular terminology dictates. I'd have no hesitation in using that lens with now much care to how the bokeh would be rendered, as long as it's rendered consistently nicely across the aperture and focus distance range.

DzR's images:
#1 bokeh looks like it's bordering on being nervous(top right corner). It's starts to show a small level of nervyness, even though it's looks well controlled, as there is a nice smoothness coming out. Another lens I'd be careful of if I want good bokeh.
#2 better bokeh. There are small circular highlights, but you can see that the circle is not perfectly formed or defined, mainly at the edges of the frame.
#3 that looks like a slightly more closed down aperture setting(I haven't checked the exif data for the vitals ). Bokeh is bokeh and regardless of how well you control DOF it makes no difference as to how well a lens's blur will render. You can minimise the impact of bad bokeh by varying aperture and focus distance to the subject, but the only way you can make bad bokeh look OK is by PPing it with gaussian blur(or whatever)

I have two 50mm primes and from memory the Siggy 50/1.4 renders bokeh much nicer than the Nikon 50/1.2 at wider apertures. I think(from memory again) at about f/4 or so, the Nikon 50 is quite ok.

Heck! even the damned 500mm mirror lens can produce 'good' bokeh, and we all know how badly they render bokeh with their ugly donut shaped highlights! But used in a specific manner, it can enhance the image in a weird manner....


once again.. it is technically bad bokeh(as it's from the mirror lens) But I think it looks appropriate for the scene, and was rendered how I wanted it to be. I wanted it to be a ghoulish looking scene, and I remember whilst in Adelaide, Nicole was with me when I decided it was time to bring out the mirror lens for this scene and take many steps back, where I could have just used the 80-200/2.8, but it wouldn't have created the blurred donut rings to try to make the ghoulish faces I wanted.
I that case the bokeh actually looks good(to me).. and normally if I use the 500mm for what it was intended for, that is long reach, I almost invariably gaussian blur the horrid looking donut highlights out in PP.

many really fast primes will usually render bokeh badly at their two fastest aperture settings, I noticed that the Siggy looked a bit better than the Nikon(AF-S) in that respect, after all I wanted a fast prime so it has to work best at it's fastest.. even though the Siggy cost more, was bigger, heavier, and!!...... a Sigma, not a Nikon!!

I think as with most forms of art(and bokeh really is about art) it's very subjective and some people just like different.

I think that totally obliterated backgrounds, of which you see lots of in bird photos taken with super tele lenses, is not bokeh... it's just a blurred background, and as long as it's not over exposed too much, it'll always look nice.
Any lens can do that if it allows a great amount of subject isolation, ie. can focus close enough on a subject that is far from the background.

Anyhow!.. I'll post some comparos taken with my two fifties.

[cale]

I've always understoood the meaning of bokeh as the 'quality' of the oof areas of the photo, whether in the background or foreground. The quality of the bokeh in photos can be subjective but the meaning of the word 'bokeh' is not.

When reading discussions about this topic on different forums I've seen many people confuse bokeh with dof, and some think that the oof areas of the photo ARE bokeh but they're not, it's the how pleasing these oof areas are to look at. Hence the dof can be too shallow but you can't have too much bokeh.

Too me creamy backgrounds are nicer.

[Omytion]

I've always understoood the meaning of bokeh as the 'quality' of the oof areas of the photo, whether in the background or foreground. The quality of the bokeh in photos can be subjective but the meaning of the word 'bokeh' is not.

When reading discussions about this topic on different forums I've seen many people confuse bokeh with dof, and some think that the oof areas of the photo ARE bokeh but they're not, it's the how pleasing these oof areas are to look at. Hence the dof can be too shallow but you can't have too much bokeh.

Too me creamy backgrounds are nicer.

My understanding was that It's simply a noun, not an adjective. Areas that are oof in a photograph, whether by human error or intent, have a bokeh that is the result of the lenses and the aperture and can be described in terms of patterning and subjective quality.

Thus the word bokeh is used in a similar way to "shadow" or "highlight". You would describe the DoF as "shallow"/"deep"/etc and the bokeh as "nice"/"horrific"/"creamy"/whatever.

[ving]

haha!!! you guys are funny!

just go and take some friggin photos.

oh and my take... bokeh is just the oof bg (or fg) area of a photo which is affected by dof (and other things)
example: bokeh created by depth of field, subject isolation from bg materials and aperture shape.

[Erin]

To me, "bokeh" has always been those gorgeous orb patterns caused by light reflection/flare in the background of the image, not just necessary just the OOF part in general.

[Omytion]

"Those gorgeous orb patterns" are how you're describing the bokeh. In another shot with a different lens you may describe the bokeh in terms of "nasty angular orbs" or "chopped up".

Good bokeh is generally taken to be a smooth, unchoppy blur. But whatever the effects manifested, be they choppy, creamy or full of nougat goodness, they are the result of the aperture blades, the lenses and the chosen DOF acting on the lighting and hue contrasts in the area out of focus.

Just because there aren't lovely sparkly magical effects visible doesn't mean there is no bokeh, it just means the bokeh has no interesting characteristics.

[LJG]

Here is a link to a very interesting read on the subject. It is very long and technical but interesting. It will clarify a lot and some of us are probably off the mark with what we thought haha

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6...5_Bokeh_en.pdf

[arthurking83]

They would both be classified as good bokeh, but I suspect that #2 would be very good bokeh.

The semi circular highlights in #1 let it down a little, as the highlights should always be rendered in a circular shape to be considered into the very good-excellent category.

An OOF background will be one where there is no detail in it to distinguish what it consists of, whereas in #2 you can clearly distinguish the rocks, even though they are blurred heavily.

[colemansmithadam]

Wow, my head. Very interesting but got bored of the linguistics battle.
I agree with those who said it's all in the eye of the beholder, many things come into play, it all depends on how you, the person behind the lens decides to compose the shot, did you want to keep an element of where the subject is or do you want your subject to jump out like the seagul shot. It's all relative.