Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,302   Posts: 1,536,194   Online: 706
      
Page 1 of 9 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 88
  1. #1
    luvcameras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    379

  2. #2
    medform-norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    863
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by luvcameras
    Okay, I'm in my worst European mood: honest, straightforward and without any sense of tact or political correctness.

    About the site:
    too many adds and pop-ups for our (ancient browser's) taste, I would rate this site as a ....

    just kidding! It just seems to me it is hard to rate something as subjective as bokeh and assign values to lenses. Smells to me of driving prices of lenses up (or down) unnecessarily.

    But: I miss bokeh tests for larger format lenses or old and obscure lenses.

    The summicron bokeh pic lookes nice, but I wanna know which lens would do the same for me on the scale of let's say, a 2x3 or 4x5" lens - and I'm probably not alone either.

    Or am I...? Hello hello ..... (echo) hello hello...

    Norm
    (.... 'orm, 'orm)
    ;-)

  3. #3
    eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,586
    Images
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by medform-norm
    Or am I...? Hello hello ..... (echo) hello hello...

    Norm
    (.... 'orm, 'orm)
    ;-)
    When I squint my eyes and look at a photograph, the bokeh looks really good no matter what lens they used

    Lots of Leica's on that list wasn't it. Who knows, maybe a few years from now, bokeh won't be the word on photo lists but something else.

    Lets start a new technical term on something "Pleasing Flare". Yah, that's it...my lens has bad bokeh, but good pleasing flare.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    While I agree that bokeh is an important ingredient in the way a photo looks and that it can be classified. Since it is aesthetic I believe that one can only determine for themselves wether a given lens has pleasing or displeasing bokeh.

  5. #5
    eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,586
    Images
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Claire Senft
    While I agree that bokeh is an important ingredient in the way a photo looks and that it can be classified. Since it is aesthetic I believe that one can only determine for themselves wether a given lens has pleasing or displeasing bokeh.
    I think it is all a conspiracy for owner's of those lenses (and future suckers...err, owners) to up the price even more in the future. Usually, photos that say "umm , nice bokeh"...is kinda like saying "ummm, yah, my date was okay, she had a nice...umm...personality". I guess its a fallback to say if the photo wasn't that good, then complement the parts that are "out-of-focus".

    My $10.00 Spiratone Portragon has nice bokeh...wonder why it didn't make the list? Imagine if it was! Man, I can sell it for like $1,000 bucks! I know, I"ll make another web page, copy all those links, and post non-scientific data (because EVERYTHING you read on the I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T is True!) about my Portragon and jack up the price of that lens!

  6. #6
    Mongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    960
    I've always found the bokeh on the 135mm f/4.7 Graflex Optar to be very pleasing. I'm surprised that they sell so cheaply. (Perhaps the fact that about a zillion of them were manufactured helps keep the price down. )
    Film is cheap. Opportunities are priceless.

  7. #7
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,236
    Images
    20
    Lots of tessar-types like that Optar have nice bokeh. They're plentiful and cheap.
    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

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mexico City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    597
    Images
    122

    Am I wrong?

    First time I heard the word Bokeh was when a japanese photographer mention it about an image of mine. I ask him what was the meaning of it, he answered that there are no translation, but what it means is how some lenses because the design of their diaphragm renders polygonal figures in the reflexions or highlights that are out of focus, and a good Bokeh is that that keeps it's shape even if the focus goes really out. As I understood, Bokeh is kind of "mood with a shape".

    Now I discover out of the web page mentioned that it is something so complicated that need an explanation the lenght of some pages full of diagrams and formulas.

    The photo Bird of Paradise enclosed is an example of what I think Bokeh means.

    the lense is a Carl Zeiss Distagon f 4, 50 mm
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 305005.jpg  
    Jose A. Martinez

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    625
    It's not just about the shape of the aperture. The only good explanation is on http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

    Luvcameras, your page is nice, but I find the real test of bokeh is shooting with small sources of light in the background, such as streetlights or sunlight streaming through leaves. Any lens will render low-contrast background with no point light sources acceptably.

  10. #10
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,236
    Images
    20
    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.

    There is also the "plastic" (in the positive sense) "three-dimensional" look that occurs when there is a sharp separation between the in-focus and the out-of-focus area, that is a sign of good bokeh. Heliars are particularly known for this effect.
    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

Page 1 of 9 1234567 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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