I know what you describe above, except lens design is not something I've ever studied.
Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh
You describe my point well. The idea behind the photograph shouldn't be about shallow depth of field, there has to be substance, otherwise what's the damned point?
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
Why not just take photos with nothing in focus?
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
Hey! Check out my new F/2.8 pinhole camera!
Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh
Wabi sabi is the beauty of worn in/broken in objects - think of the leica geeks who go crazy over brassed black paint
In the watch world, it's lume that has yellowed with age, surface scratches, etc
One man's idea of wabi is another's idea of worn out junk
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Whoops. Patina. I stand corrected, I did need to know about that - thank you - I thought it was some sort of "instant collectible" brand. The Rolex Milgauss I've had since new (in 1982, $562 in Switzerland) has plenty of Wabi sabi. Makes big time WW collectors sick. All my guns have it too.
Originally Posted by GarageBoy
Nope. Not against the laws of physics.
Originally Posted by benjiboy
In fact, a perfect lens, i.e., one without aberrations, has its resolution limited only by diffraction. The larger the aperture, the more the resolution. Every doubling of aperture diameter, e.g., f/8 to f/4, results in doubling of resolution.
It's just that in the real world things aren't as easy as that.
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
To elaborate a bit further, every real and theoretical lens gets more diffraction with narrower apertures, that's physics and there's no way around it. So opening wider, every lens gets sharper.
Originally Posted by lxdude
But at the same time, counteracting that, every real lens gets sharper by stopping down, because it removes a lot of abberations that exist in 'real' lenses.
Put the two together, and you get that typical 'hill' curve where stopping down first increases resolution (to f/5.6-8 or so), then stopping down it gets worse again. If you could build real lenses as well as theoretical ones, with f/1.0 and no abberations wide open, besides having to mortgage your house for it, it would only get sharper wider open and be the sharpest lens ever. (and then it would only get used by some nerds who sit in their basement and take photos of Imatest charts and drool over numbers)
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
f/64 and be there.
Good, Neutral and Bad Bokeh is just a click away...
Originally Posted by pcsaba1981
I like the simple illustration that when you take pictures of flowers using a lens with the "bad" halo-type bokeh, branches that are out of focus will still be sharp because the bright outlines will be sharply defined.
Now, we all know good photographers work to reduce distractions in images. Our "job" is to remove soda cans from stream banks and pick up trash on the grass behind our subjects... We're supposed to straighten the folds of curtains and flick the stray hairs back from foreheads... So the idea of "Good Bokeh" which reduces distractions makes sense to me in that context.
But of course I personally do not do a good job removing distractions from my photographs, I am not likely to be able to capitalize on Good Bokeh...
Last edited by Bill Burk; 08-22-2013 at 10:37 PM. Click to view previous post history.