Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,809   Posts: 1,581,534   Online: 939
      
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 128
  1. #51
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,949
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    Stone- he's talking about the Mamiya 6/7 family of rangefinders, not the RB/RZ.
    OH!! Yes in that case the Rangefinder wasn't designed for close focus, there is a macro attachment for it but using a TLR is better


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  2. #52
    msbarnes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    382
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    Stone- he's talking about the Mamiya 6/7 family of rangefinders, not the RB/RZ.
    Yep. The OP was thinking about the Mamiya 7 but you are correct in that the RB/RZ closely.
    Michael | tumblr

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,657
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    This thread belongs in the bulshitters thread!

    a) blade count is mostly irrelevant for bokeh because generally (unless there are very few) you can't count 'em in the image. There are lenses with few blades and beautiful bokeh (e.g. CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4 with hexagons)
    b) the dominant factor for smooth bokeh in a traditional lens is the presence of spherical aberration. It dims the edges of the blur discs, thereby reducing hard edges
    c) the ultimate bokeh machine is the Minolta/Sony 135 STF due to the presence of its apodisation filter. You get blur gaussians not blur discs, therefore absolutely NO hard edges in the OOF area. It's like taking a defocused image of a defocused image...
    d) second choice are the sink-strainer lenses as seen on some MF systems
    e) anyone who thinks poorly of Mamiya bokeh# - on the basis of half-remembered internet "wisdom" - needs a good slap.


    # or any major brand. They all have "good" and "bad" lenses and if you stick to primes, the bad are few and far between. You can get horrific bokeh from super-zooms though - again with the correction of SA to enhance sharpness often causes nisen bokeh.
    Anything to do with &0keh is BS.

  4. #54
    msbarnes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    382
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Anything to do with &0keh is BS.
    BS, maybe. Over-rated and over-analyzed, yes.
    Michael | tumblr

  5. #55
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,509
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    Why do so many people get their knickers in a knot over the term and what it represents? I get the annoyance at discussions that put way too much emphasis on it and/or get snobby about which lens has the "best" bokeh - but it's just a word that encapsulates the quality of out of focus areas. Some lenses have smooth and creamy bokeh - some have harsh and discordant. Most are somewhere in between. We know that the shape of the lens aperture has a major impact on the quality of out-of-focus areas - the more round the aperture, the smoother, to a point. I remember seeing some chromes a friend of mine shot using a 14" Commercial Ektar, a 14" Caltar, and a 355mm Kern Gold-Dot Dagor. The Ektar and Caltar were very close, as they should be - they both are in the same shutter (an Ilex #5), and the 14" Caltar is for all intents and purposes a 14" Commercial Ektar. The Gold-Dot Dagor was noticeably harsher, as it was mounted in a modern Copal 3 with either a 6 or 8 blade aperture. The surprising thing about the Ektar/Caltar was that there was in fact a difference. The Caltar was based on the 14" Commercial Ektar, and was very slightly tweaked. The difference proves that lens design in itself does have something to do with it, not just aperture.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,002
    I have read that the Rodenstock Imagons in the early shutters had better bokeh than the later ones in the Compur and Copal shutters. The ones in the Copal shutters being the worst. Since the lenses were the same it appears a rounder aperture does affect bokeh.

    Like I said earlier, I'm not a lens expert.

    Like theFlyingCamera I do love my 14" Commercial Ektar.

  7. #57
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,332
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Anything to do with &0keh is BS.
    Yeah, no. It is a thing and there are distinct differences that can quite reasonably be called "good" (smoothness) and "bad" (line-doubling due to overcorrected SA). Just because most internet discussion of it is ignorant (e.g. the fixation on aperture blade count) doesn't imply that the concept doesn't exist and/or is poorly defined.

    Examples of bad "nisen" bokeh: one, two^. Note the bright rings at the outside edge of each blur-circle; these are due to overcorrection of spherical aberration and it is considered to be ugly because it creates strong features with very high spatial frequency in areas that you're trying to blur out and take the focus away from. It causes line-doubling and all sorts of distracting nastiness.

    And for the opposite extreme, examples: one, two, many from the STF. Note the edges of the background highlights (first image) and how they've been dimmed out by the apodisation filter. With a normal lens, all those coloured blobs would have been sharp circular discs. When applied to an image with a less deliberately-distracting background, the apodisation filter results in extreme smoothness.
    Last edited by polyglot; 04-22-2013 at 07:46 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #58
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,681
    Images
    15
    In 35 years of photography I have never occupied myself with the subjective theory of bokeh. Never. I'm amazed at the discourse here. Does anybody actually do serious, considered photography? Do the clients — are there any? — actually remark or fuss and fidget "all about the bokeh"? Or is it about chasing little circles around the frame? Please. Bokeh is bullshit. Get on with serious photography and leave this pseudo-intellectual drivel to such rubbish heaps as the revered photo.net Bokeh Club (where else...) .
    “The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
    Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
    the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see."
    ~Edward Weston, 1922.

  9. #59
    hoffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,960
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    57
    So PDJ, you are telling me that you are not a member of the following Flickr group - http://www.flickr.com/groups/bokehwhores/

    Japan have just called. They want their word back...

  10. #60
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,509
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    In 35 years of photography I have never occupied myself with the subjective theory of bokeh. Never. I'm amazed at the discourse here. Does anybody actually do serious, considered photography? Do the clients — are there any? — actually remark or fuss and fidget "all about the bokeh"? Or is it about chasing little circles around the frame? Please. Bokeh is bullshit. Get on with serious photography and leave this pseudo-intellectual drivel to such rubbish heaps as the revered photo.net Bokeh Club (where else...) .
    When you are in the business of selling an aesthetically pleasing object, then the mechanics of how you arrive at an aesthetically pleasing object are very germane and not bullshit. If your audience/client is news media, where the content is not just primary but in fact the only factor in buying an image, then yes, bokeh is irrelevant. But when you're selling art to hang on someone's wall, or you've been commissioned to make a portrait, then absolutely it is germane and important. Nobody is going to buy a portrait that only part of it looks good. Only Gilbert Stuart and Leondardo Da Vinci can get away with selling portraits that aren't finished. Maybe clients can't describe why they don't like a particular image because they don't think about it every day or have the professional vocabulary to articulate it, but it's kind of like porn - they know it when they see it. So even if your clients can't explain why they don't like some photo, you should be able to identify those aesthetic characteristics and describe them so you know why you're selling/losing business.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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