Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,921   Posts: 1,584,891   Online: 1112
      
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2678910111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 130
  1. #111
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,560
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Using a wide aperture gives shallow DOF. The design of the lens determines the character of the out-of-focus areas ('OOFAs'). These are two different things. Since most all 50s for 35mm are double-Gauss designs, their OOFAs will be similar; differences will be due to the optimisation chosen as well as the degree of "retrofocality" of the lens in question. Lastly the shape of the aperture will determine the shape of out-of-focus highlights.
    Usually when I hear or read someone babbling mindlessly about the "great bokeh" their lens has I translate it thusly:"I can't take a decent picture to save my life, so I read some nonsense on the internet and bought this lens which I'm now making an a$$ of myself with".

    I learned that a wide aperture was useful to separate the subject from it's surroundings/background, as well as taking photos in poor light. But that was a long time ago, much has changed in 40 years.
    I know what you describe above, except lens design is not something I've ever studied.

    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

  2. #112

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I know what you describe above, except lens design is not something I've ever studied.

    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?
    Why not just take photos with nothing in focus?

  3. #113
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Why not just take photos with nothing in focus?
    Hey! Check out my new F/2.8 pinhole camera!
    K.S. Klain

  4. #114

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Klainmeister View Post
    Hey! Check out my new F/2.8 pinhole camera!
    You could sell those, I bet.

  5. #115

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    390
    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

  6. #116

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,679
    Quote Originally Posted by GarageBoy View Post
    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
    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.

  7. #117
    Prest_400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Why not just take photos with nothing in focus?
    I've got myopia and can assure it's a bit annoying. Plus the bokeh (in my eyes) is rather bad.
    I don't know if they sell summiluxes that can mount on here...

    I did have a short "Bokeh" period, thankfully Kodachrome distracted me from that. As it needed plenty of light, it did bring in bokeh too. Nowadays I find myself ocassionally using selective focus, but not in an exaggerated way.
    My fastest lens is the classic 50mm 1.8. I'd love more aperture for the light gathering!

    As of wabi-sabi, it reminded me of preworn/faded new jeans. I buy new solid indigo/black jeans and let them get worn.
    I make fun of it by telling that you can always put 'em into the back of the van and let them drag down the road. Just as shown on brainiac (an UK science TV show)

  8. #118
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,756
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    no lens gives it's best performance wide open it's against the laws of physics.
    Nope. Not against the laws of physics.
    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.

  9. #119
    Dr Croubie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    rAdelaide
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,554
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Nope. Not against the laws of physics.
    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.
    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.
    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.

  10. #120
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,583
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by pcsaba1981 View Post
    Can somebody explain me when an out of focus image is considered beautiful and when it is not?

    I use shallow DoF when I want to make attention onto the subject, who is usually my wife or my child . I usually don't take too much attention about the out of focus image (background).

    So when bokeh is beautiful?
    Good, Neutral and Bad Bokeh is just a click away...

    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.

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

    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.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin