That is the quality of the out of focus areas in a photo. Bad bokeh will look harsh and sometimes like a fairly sharp but double image. Good bokeh is creamy..
Pentax *istDS, F50/1.7 @ F2.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Pentax *istDS, Rokunar 90 macro @ F8, ISO 1600.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..
Bokeh refers to the quality of the out-of-focus areas in an image..
Ref.:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokehhttp://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Bokeh..
As I understand it the term means the pictorial characteristics of the out of focus portions of an image (outside the DOF). Allegedly different lenses impart different pictorial characteristics in the out-of-focus areas hence some lens have good "bokeh" and some are not so good..
IMHO it's a way for people continue to flap their lips when they have nothing to say. Arguing over the bokeh of two Summicron lenses is akin to angels on a pinhead...
If the site search feature is down, you can always do an advanced search on Google for results from domain http://forums.dpreview.com..
Most things have already been said but:.
1. It is a Japanese word..
2. Generally speaking the more leaves there are on the aperture iris (e.g. 9 rather than 7) the better the bokeh.
Some people can get a bit anal on the subject but again generally speaking bad bokeh means the OOF area has sharp almost crystaline structure even though out of focus whereas good bokeh will be very smooth and thus not distract from the in focus image.Chris Elliott.
*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.
Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..
As others have given good definitions, lets discuss what it means to a photographer..
I spend a LOT of money on getting better bokeh. I've got a Nikon D80 and specifically did NOT get the amazing ultra zoom 18-200 VR ($800-900 USD) because of it's sometimes contrasty bokeh. I want my dSLR to give buttery-soft bokeh..
To me personally, bokeh is supposed to be able to ENHANCE an image. By clearly separating the focal plane from Out Of Focus (OOF) areas and/or by not distracting the viewer's eyes away from the subject..
Whether this is important to you (or another) is clearly a personal preference..
Cheers.Davidmy flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/prodesma/.
From my Canon S3 IS, notice the 'hexagonal' shapes? I don't think this is terrible bokeh for an ultra-zoom... (but I think at some early point your eye will wander around the background looking at the hexagons...).
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Similar situation to above, somewhat 'contrasty' background lighting, and bokeh effect here is less 'geometric' but still not ultra soft/smooth w/ my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 walkaround lens. Again, tough w/ high-contrast lighted background:.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Now we're talking! Here's my Tokina 90mm f/2.5 macro lens on my D80. notice the OOF areas BOTH in front and behind the focal plane? Feel how it draws your eye to the subject in the frame? Well, not to be presumptuous, but that's what I hope for here:.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
A pretty high-key lighting situation, notice no harsh transitions in the bokeh?.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
I don't think anything can outshine this lens o' mine. I mean, seriously this bokeh is what I wish I could get with every lens... When I want it. However, I realize that sometimes you may want the background in better focus (less bokeh)..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..
Acsmith wrote:.
As I understand it the term means the pictorial characteristics ofthe out of focus portions of an image (outside the DOF). Allegedlydifferent lenses impart different pictorial characteristics in theout-of-focus areas hence some lens have good "bokeh" and some arenot so good..
IMHO it's a way for people continue to flap their lips when theyhave nothing to say. Arguing over the bokeh of two Summicronlenses is akin to angels on a pinhead..
There's certainly such a thing as bad bokeh: http://upload.wikimedia.org/...ommons/3/33/Heron_and_donut_bokeh_20070607.jpg (3MB image)..
I'm sorry but the bokeh in these examples has as much to do with the scene as it does the lens...
Mostly BS. Most people bang on about it without any clue as to what it actually is. If you really want to know, get the April 2007 copy of 'Black and White Photography' magazine and read Mike Johnston's column on the subject. He should know, as he introduced the concept to Western photographers..
In the column, he points to an article at.
Http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml.
Which he commisioned in 1996 for the magazine he was editing at the time. Well worth searching out both the above article and the magazine. If you're into B/W photography, you should make the magazine a regular purchase. Although, AFAIK it's only in English - sorry.Rob.
If you're bored...http://braveulysses.deviantart.com/gallery.
'Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything.' Sydney Smith (1771-1845)..
... then beg buy borrow or steal a Nikon "DC" lens..
They have a feature where you can adjust the internals of the lens and alter the appearance of the out-of-focus areas without affecting the sharpness of the focus point. The setting is different for areas in front of and behind the focus point, and if you experiment, you find that what is superficially "just a blur" can look very different, and either good or bad (on these lenses, if the settings are wrong, for example)..
For one example, go to http://www.dhewi.co.uk/picture.php?picture=1077.
People get very obsessed with bokeh, beyond what's reasonable, but there is something to it, even if it's largely a matter of taste...
Acsmith wrote:.
I'm sorry but the bokeh in these examples has as much to do withthe scene as it does the lens..
The other posters are much more knowledged than myself. However, I think they might not have explained that the characteristics of the lens affect the bokeh..
One simple generality is that nice bokeh required shallow "depth of field", and a "bright" lens enable larger aperture, which results in shallower depth of field. If you google "depth of field formula", you will see the different parameters that affect depth of field.JonathanF..
Trust me. I fully understand DOF. Beyond 5/7/9 blades on the aperture iris what that are talking about can't be designed in. The aperture shape will come into play only when light is leaking through the backgroud in what are functionally pinholes. The "plastic" effect is largely a function of processing, not the lens. Also trust me that I've read a 1500 word discussion of bokeh in a photographics art magazine and the two different models/same focal of Summicron lenses. The two photos used as examples were neither controlled enough to be lab tests nor worthy of being considered art...
Acsmith wrote:.
Trust me. I fully understand DOF. Beyond 5/7/9 blades on theaperture iris what that are talking about can't be designed in.The aperture shape will come into play only when light is leakingthrough the backgroud in what are functionally pinholes. The"plastic" effect is largely a function of processing, not the lens.Also trust me that I've read a 1500 word discussion of bokeh in aphotographics art magazine and the two different models/same focalof Summicron lenses. The two photos used as examples were neithercontrolled enough to be lab tests nor worthy of being consideredart..
Sorry, I mis-read the thread, and got posters mixed up. No offence.JonathanF..
Let me see... these quotes:.
Acsmith wrote:.
IMHO it's a way for people continue to flap their lips when theyhave nothing to say. Arguing over the bokeh of two Summicronlenses is akin to angels on a pinhead..
......
Trust me. I fully understand DOF. Beyond 5/7/9 blades on theaperture iris what that are talking about can't be designed in.The aperture shape will come into play only when light is leakingthrough the backgroud in what are functionally pinholes. The"plastic" effect is largely a function of processing, not the lens.Also trust me that I've read a 1500 word discussion of bokeh in aphotographics art magazine and the two different models/same focalof Summicron lenses. The two photos used as examples were neithercontrolled enough to be lab tests nor worthy of being consideredart..
......
I'm sorry but the bokeh in these examples has as much to do withthe scene as it does the lens..
In summation, acsmith wrote::.
IMHO it's a way for people continue to flap their lips when theyhave nothing to say..
Look, I was trying to be CONSTRUCTIVE and add to the already fine definitions. Photography is a visual medium. I included samples. You don't have to like the samples I posted. You don't have to agree they are perfect examples of bokeh. I am NOT disagreeing that scene plays a part in the bokeh in these (well, gosh, doesn't it ALWAYS?).
I dint include architectural shots, because they really wouldn't show ANY bokeh. 'nuff said.
Exactly what are you ADDING to this discussion? Saying these are NOT good samples of bokeh? (It's not a controlled test?). So, where is your contribution?... Oh right, telling us 'you read a 1500 word discussion on bokeh.' You should get a hero cookie..
OP asked "whats bokeh".You DO REALIZE this is the BEGINNER'S FORUM, right?.
I've about had enough of these forums. I often chime in (to help?) with some of my own experiences, and get railed for it. I ask a question every once in a while and get all of two replies- if I'm that lucky. And the ones saying 'your post isn't good'... Gosh, ever notice they aren't CONTRIBUTING. Just like to bash and argue.
Acsmith wrote::.
IMHO it's a way for people continue to flap their lips when theyhave nothing to say..
Cheers.Davidmy flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/prodesma/..
Acsmith wrote:.
I'm sorry but the bokeh in these examples has as much to do withthe scene as it does the lens..
But it does illustrates bokeh as do several other posts here. So why knock it? This is not a comparative test of different lenses.This is a beginners forum remember!.
Chris Elliott.
*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.
Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..