90mm f2.8 lens bokeh- no such thing as a stupid question...but

FoxT wrote: »

I agree - my (improved ) understanding of bokeh is that it is the rendition of out-of-focus highlights, and I don't see any in this pic.

I wasn't going to comment, but since you asked (before you edited your post):

humberklog wrote: »

Now I'd have that that's good control of DOF but not Bokeh. Am I way off?

I'm not really sure it evidences good control of depth-of-field. It's certainly shallow depth-of-field, although I don't think there's really much evidence of control other than making it as shallow as possible for that composition.

The bokeh is fairly neutral, but you can see a slight edge to some it that may become bothersome in certain circumstances if you want to be really anal.

The ironic thing is that I'm not fighting this these points because I think bokeh is very important, but because I think it isn't (or at least that its importance is greatly overstated and that the term is misused to the point that it could be considered harmful).

charybdis wrote: »

That is true, but I still don't know what you think it proves.

I'm not surprised.

I was mostly posting to see if you absolutely, positively, with no exceptions, always had to get the last word in. You passed.

humberklog wrote: »

Thanks for the tip on DOF but it's just not my thing.

Cracking answer for the rest as well too.

Oh and completely off topic (but the threads kinda rolling like that)...are you a boy or a girl?

I'm male (although I can understand why you'd think otherwise, given my mythological namesake).

FoxT wrote: »

I think shallow DOF has its place, but I dont go running around looking for 'Bokeh'....So just went & shot these a few mins ago..

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_QUZCzGXHyzw/TVhq9U9ncWI/AAAAAAAAMqo/ucfLOfpibIg/s400/IMG_1127.JPG

I think the reflections off the keys in the background is bokeh. It is an OOF highlight. Lots of other areas in the pic are oof , but they are not highlights.


In this one, I would regard the oof highlight on the bottle as Bokeh:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_QUZCzGXHyzw/TVhrJ-15qdI/AAAAAAAAMqs/90ONoKs94rY/s400/IMG_1129.JPG

Am I on the right track with this? Or, is the entire oof areas on each pic 'Bokeh' ?

It occurred to me while I was shooting them that the no. of iris blades was completely unimportant - as shot wide open.

I don't really think you're on the right track.

The out-of-focus highlights aren't bokeh, they're out-of-focus highlights.

It might help if you think of the term "bokeh" in a similar way to how you'd think of the term "colour rendition" (I'm not saying that they're directly related, just that the terms are used similarly). Lenses render colours differently: colour rendition is a characteristic of lens design. In the same way, lenses render out-of-focus areas of an image differently: rendering of out-of-focus areas is a characteristic of lens design.

You could kinda point to a specific portion of an image and say "that's colour rendition", and you wouldn't be entirely incorrect, but it would be a strange way to use the term and isn't really a meaningful statement.

In the same way, pointing to a specific portion of an image and saying "that's rendition of and out-of-focus area", or "that's bokeh", wouldn't be considered entirely incorrect, but it would be a similarly strange thing to say.

Bokeh is a property of a lens, not of an image.

humberklog wrote: »

drift front
fore to bubblicious
and to front


I'm going Haiku
For le****su
moo moo.

Bokeh is something
You probably should ignore
And focus elsewhere.

melekalikimaka wrote: »

bokeh, not the most beautiful, but clearly defined...



imo

A response planned, but
'melekalikimaka'
takes up all the space

charybdis wrote: »

(Also, does this mean you were saying silly things on purpose?)

At the end there, yes. I ceased being bothered enough to waste time countering casuistry.

For instance, you said:

There's a Pentacon 135mm f/2.8 lens that has 19 aperture blades, for example. Why would they put so much effort into building a lens for this expressed purpose, only to fall short on the number of blades?

In answer to my reply where I mentioned 'the law of diminishing returns'. My answer to your question would have been the same as that I had already given.

As for Zeiss. I couldn't be bothered with the long answer, but it would have had something to do with when did Zeiss design lenses for Hasselblads, when did the Japanese concept of Bokeh become more widely known in the west, and why do Zeiss now design a lens with 9 blades instead of 5?

Engineers tend not to put 9 wheels on cars when four will do, It would add unnecessary complication and cost. Engineers who design lenses would be no different.

You asked what the fact so many highly regarded lenses having high blade counts proves? Nothing except the self evident fact they don't have 5. One could wonder why that is though. Since you have been so keen to point out a lens can have 5 blades, we know there is unlikely to be a mechanical reason why all those mentioned have nearly double that number. Therefore, logically, given what we know about engineers, there is likely to be some other good reason. I'll make a wild unprovable guess that it might be related to optical performance.

You believe what you want to, and I shall do likewise.

I fully agree, however... , one of my 9 bladed Zuikos was made in 1984. I certainly never came across any reference to bokeh until the late 90's and none of the marketing gumpff I have from the period makes any reference to blade count. The only reference was in the technical specs for lenses.

Maybe it was a very subtle understated Japanese thing where it was included for those in the know or they kept such references to the Japanese market literature and not the external market stuff because they thought it wouldn't be understood?

I haven't been shopping for lenses for a while, is it common for blade count to be touted in the marketing blurb these days?

I think Bokeh refers to the quality of the out of focus areas in the photo, not the extent of the DOF nor any compositional element of the photo.

From an optical point of view, focal length, aperture, diaphragm shape and even sensor size will all play their part on the final Bokeh quality. While most people will agree on specific cases of good and bad bokeh, it's still highly subjective and you can't really measure it.

Bokeh is most obvious where there are highly contrasting points of light in the background of a shallow DOF image. Here is an example of good bokeh (some might even call this "odd" bokeh, and the lens used is somewhat of Bokeh lover's staple):


anniina by Samuli Ikäheimo, on Flickr

Unusually wide apertures can also lead to very obvious Bokeh:


bubbling over by moaan, on Flickr

Promac wrote: »

Bokeh is just the quality of the out of focus area in a shot. Is it out of focus, and does it look nice? If yes - nice bokeh. If no - not nice bokeh. It's well enough defined at this stage and the definition is hardly a subjective thing - sure, deciding if a specific shot has good or bad bokeh is subjective but the definition of bokeh itself isn't.

Wikipedia explains it best (as usual):

Wikipedia
is great but not prescriptive.
Context is needed.

And, your description
Is at odds with the one in
Wikipedia.

cnocbui wrote: »

At the end there, yes. I ceased being bothered enough to waste time countering casuistry.

Fails to make a point,
tries to claim he was trolling
because he is mad.

cnocbui wrote: »

For instance, you said: In answer to my reply where I mentioned 'the law of diminishing returns'. My answer to your question would have been the same as that I had already given.

I do not think the
diminishing returns law
applies in this case.

It doesn't explain
the Minolta STF
having so few blades

when you consider
that it was over-designed
for bokeh bestness.

Surely such a lens
over-designed to this end
wouldn't skimp on blades.

Unless, the effect,
is greatly overstated,
of diaphragm shape.

The aperture blades'
strong influence on bokeh
is not established.

Nobody has shown
bokeh and aperture blades
are associated.

cnocbui wrote: »

As for Zeiss. I couldn't be bothered with the long answer, but it would have had something to do with when did Zeiss design lenses for Hasselblads, when did the Japanese concept of Bokeh become more widely known in the west, and why do Zeiss now design a lens with 9 blades instead of 5?

Engineers tend not to put 9 wheels on cars when four will do, It would add unnecessary complication and cost. Engineers who design lenses would be no different.

You asked what the fact so many highly regarded lenses having high blade counts proves? Nothing except the self evident fact they don't have 5. One could wonder why that is though. Since you have been so keen to point out a lens can have 5 blades, we know there is unlikely to be a mechanical reason why all those mentioned have nearly double that number. Therefore, logically, given what we know about engineers, there is likely to be some other good reason. I'll make a wild unprovable guess that it might be related to optical performance.

Many old lenses
contain more aperture blades
than any of those.

Many old lenses
contain less aperture blades
than any of those.

Have you considered
the reason for lots of blades
isn't for bokeh?

cnocbui wrote: »

You believe what you want to, and I shall do likewise.

Subjectivity
in reality along
with it in bokeh?

jpb1974 wrote: »

I'm not sure what it
is that you're referring to.
"Beating a dead horse."

Anyway, I think
"Tilting against the windmill"
is appropriate.

FoxT wrote: »

You are absolutely correct here - unfortunately, engineers have to do what Product Managers tell them to do!! I suspect that in many cases 7,8,9....19 blades are designed in for marketing purposes - ie 'this lens has 9 blades so therefore is better than the 5-bladed one'

This kind of thing happens all the time....

On cars, the trend is for alloy wheels with wide, low-profile tyres. This is not, in general, an optimal solution from an engineering or a cost point of view.

On compact cameras, you have all kinds of features that many people will never use (gimmicky in-camera editing functions etc) - and some features that are positively unhelpful (digital zoom), and some that are sub-optimal (pixel density too high, at the expense of high ISO performance ) for marketing purposes.

-FoxT

It so happens that
features are determined by
what will sell better.

If enough people
think more blades means more bokeh
they'll be catered to.

cnocbui wrote: »

I fully agree, however... , one of my 9 bladed Zuikos was made in 1984. I certainly never came across any reference to bokeh until the late 90's and none of the marketing gumpff I have from the period makes any reference to blade count. The only reference was in the technical specs for lenses.

Maybe it was a very subtle understated Japanese thing where it was included for those in the know or they kept such references to the Japanese market literature and not the external market stuff because they thought it wouldn't be understood?

I haven't been shopping for lenses for a while, is it common for blade count to be touted in the marketing blurb these days?

It's almost as if
number of blades and bokeh
are unrelated.

Many non-Japan
lens manufacturers made
lenses with more blades.

FoxT wrote: »

Blade count is not a headline feature, but it is not a 'small print' issue either. Lens reviewers mention it quite a bit, even going so far as to state whether the blades are rounded or not.

I did a good bit of photography in the 80's then went on an extended break...back then , I'd never heard of it. But the web has lots of references to it now. I have no idea when it emerged or where it came from, or why a Japanese word is used, etc.

The reality
is that nobody has shown
strong links between them.

mloc wrote: »

I think Bokeh refers to the quality of the out of focus areas in the photo, not the extent of the DOF nor any compositional element of the photo.

Saying "quality"
without qualification
is just meaningless.

Although, I would say
I broadly agree with much
that is in this post.

mloc wrote: »

From an optical point of view, focal length, aperture, diaphragm shape and even sensor size will all play their part on the final Bokeh quality. While most people will agree on specific cases of good and bad bokeh, it's still highly subjective and you can't really measure it.

Aspects of bokeh
can be measured easily
and then classified.

Sensor size has no
affect bokeh, but it does
affect depth-of-field.

Shallow depth-of field
is not the same as bokeh.
You are conflating.

RE: preferences,
There's no accounting for taste,
in bokeh or not.

mloc wrote: »

Bokeh is most obvious where there are highly contrasting points of light in the background of a shallow DOF image. Here is an example of good bokeh (some might even call this "odd" bokeh, and the lens used is somewhat of Bokeh lover's staple):

anniina by Samuli Ikäheimo, on Flickr

Unusually wide apertures can also lead to very obvious Bokeh:

bubbling over by moaan, on Flickr

Actually, both
evidence "bad", "nisen", or
"hard edged" bokeh.

That's not to say that
they're unpleasant images.
But they are not "good".

Promac wrote: »

In the reviews about lenses yeah, certainly. More blades gives a more rounded appearance to the highlights in out of focus areas. 5 blades = pentagons while 9 blades (especially curved) = nice smooth circles like in mloc's examples.

Again, I will stress
this ain't the same as bokeh
or much related.

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Why can't everyone do the gentlemanly thing and just agree to disagree. Otherwise you'll all be here this time next year................ or until the mods lock it from the frustration that it's surely causing!

Oi! Don't be stifling important discussion.

charybdis wrote: »

...

Chary wins.

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

or until the mods lock it from the frustration that it's surely causing!

(I think this thread may have run its course - ding-de-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding)

AnCatDubh wrote: »

em, but you posted to a c-l-o-s-e-d thread...... you must have jedi like powers sir to transverse the ultimate close thread function of vbulletin. I bow to your greatness.

anyhow wasn't responding to you :P

It was not you I
was referring to. These are
not the droids you seek.