Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,716   Posts: 1,514,788   Online: 837
      
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 88
  1. #21
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    I've been following this, rather closely. I see examples here of various optical pheomena ... but I can't really grasp the idea of (choosing words carefully), "GOOD" bokeh, and "BAD" bokeh.

    Is it possible to post an image of each ... intensely "Good" and intensely "Bad' for comparison?
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  2. #22
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,134
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    I've been following this, rather closely. I see examples here of various optical pheomena ... but I can't really grasp the idea of (choosing words carefully), "GOOD" bokeh, and "BAD" bokeh.

    Is it possible to post an image of each ... intensely "Good" and intensely "Bad' for comparison?
    Go back to my "bad bokeh" example and look at the clutter in the trees. If the lens had better bokeh, you would see smooth transitions between light and shadow, not clutter. For the explanation of why that is, read the Ken Rockwell article linked above.

    Here's an example of what I think to be good bokeh (Bessa II, 105/3.5 Color-Heliar). The subject is well separated from the out-of-focus background and no double-lines in the background--



    Here's an example of "bad" double-line bokeh from a 500/8.0 mirror lens (I think it was a Soligor)--

    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #23
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,001
    Images
    117
    I can see where the rendering out of focus areas when shooting birds can be a real issue.

    *

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    The Ken Rockwell article is pretty good, but "bokeh" isn't just about specular highlights.

    Another distracting feature can be double lines in the out-of-focus area. Long before anyone used the term "bokeh" in photography, the Wollensak advertised the Verito as a lens that did not create distracting double lines in the out-of-focus area.
    I think double lines may be a consequence of very poor bokeh in Rockwell's terms. If you take a line, then defocus it by turning every point on the line into a circle, you will get two parallell lines to either side of the original line.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Here is bad bokeh - from a digial throwaway for ebay
    http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/bender1.jpg

    Seeing stuff like this gives me the sensation of fingernails across a blackboard.

  6. #26

  7. #27
    titrisol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,671
    Images
    8
    Pardon the ingorance.....Why is that bad bokeh?
    the background was probably a forest or something..

    Quote Originally Posted by jjstafford
    Here is bad bokeh - from a digial throwaway for ebay
    http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/bender1.jpg

    Seeing stuff like this gives me the sensation of fingernails across a blackboard.
    I see the examples on the links... I thought some of those are not valid since there are not especular reflections and/or lights in there but I see the point.
    Last edited by titrisol; 06-01-2005 at 10:42 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: I think I get it now
    Mama took my APX away.....

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by luvcameras
    Are you sure that background hasn't some photoshop clone-tooling?

  9. #29
    titrisol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,671
    Images
    8
    I'm not sure I get it....
    is this good bad or ugly bouquet?
    and why?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails ballet_small.jpg  
    Mama took my APX away.....

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by luvcameras
    David - my point is that, in general, I am hard pressed to think of images from the 1920's to 50's, lets say, that have bad bokeh....If you look at HCB's work, most done with Leica - no bad bokeh there....other photogs used larger format...Weegee - dont find bad bokeh....etc
    A lot of Rolleiflex images from that era show spectacularly bad bokeh, looking much like the Biotar pics. MF Tessar lenses often seem to show that "spinning" effect. My 50s Minolta Autocord does the same thing at the wider apertures.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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