Bokah

[Andybazyoung]

Without the aid of an image (not currently working) the question I wished to ask is: How much is too much bokah/blur? I hope I have that right.
I have, what I feel is a good image, but it has been said either there is too much or not enough blur. When, or at what time is blur/bokah properly utilised?
Andy

[chauncey]

Generally, good bokeh is defined by the lens involved and how the background is displayed...smoothness is the desired endgame.

[Mike Buckley]

Bokeh (generally spelled with an "e," not an "a") has to do with the quality and characteristics of the blurred background, not the amount of blur. Blur of course can be produced to any degree.

The attractiveness of the background blur has to do with two factors: the quality of the lens and the content of the background. The photographer exercises control over the content by deciding whether to include specular highlights, contrasting tonalities, tones that complement or provide contrast with the subject, and the like. That and the amount of blur depends totally on the photographer's taste and use of the equipment.

Background blur is commonly used to make a subject, such as the portrait of a person, stand out. If the background was perfectly in focus, the subject might not stand out as much as if the background is blurred.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Andy,

It sounds like your reviewers do not agree with your choice of Depth of Field (DoF), set mainly by aperture used, but impacted by your camera's sensor size (aka crop factor).

Are you confident in your use of aperture to achieve enough of the subject itself in focus?

Without seeing a couple of examples (one where they said "too much blur" and one where they said "not enough", it is difficult to assist with this further.

This may help during the current "TinyPic hiatus";
HELP THREAD: How can I post images here?

Whatever the "correct" amount (of DoF) is somewhat a subjective/artistic matter anyway. Although I would venture that a good rule-of-thumb would be whether, when viewing the image; you wished you could see more detail in the subject (more DoF was needed) or that certain details in the background or foreground were so sharp they attracted your attention away from the subject itself (less DoF was needed).

For any given lens, Bokeh (the quality of the blurry bits, as Mike has described) may well be better at some aperture settings than others, so this needs to be factored in to decisions made (when shooting) on subject distance and focal length (in addition to the choice of aperture).

Cheers,

[Black Pearl]

I've probably posted this before....but....this is the definitive paper on bokeh - http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b8b6f/embedtitelintern/cln_35_bokeh_en/$file/cln35_bokeh_en.pdf

[RobertsMx]

Without the aid of an image (not currently working) the question I wished to ask is: How much is too much bokah/blur? I hope I have that right.
I have, what I feel is a good image, but it has been said either there is too much or not enough blur. When, or at what time is blur/bokah properly utilised?
Andy

As long as you have sufficient depth of field, whether there is too much or too little blur is primarily about the message the image is meant to convey. Too much could be that the entire backdrop looses the context and is merely flat. Too little could be that there is no meaningful separation from the subject.

Sony NEX-3, Contax Zeiss 50mm f/1.7 Planar (f/2, 1/40s, ISO 200)

[TonyW]

I am puzzled by the statement that bokeh depends on the quality of the lens. It is obvious that it depends on what the background is and the amount of blur. The amount of blur depends on how far back the background is behind the main subject relative to the depth of field, which depends on the magnification and aperture. Otherwise, I can't see why the choice of lens is important at all unless it is hopelessly bad.

[chauncey]

Rather than a long treatise from us, check this link http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/02/11/what-is-bokeh/

[Mike Buckley]

I am puzzled by the statement that bokeh depends on the quality of the lens.

The optical quality of a lens affects everything in the photo. Some lenses are simply better than other lenses and some lenses are particularly renowned for the quality of their bokeh. As an example, Nikon makes a very nice 85mm f/1.8 lens that lists for USD $500. (I own one.) They also make a lens with the same focal length but with f/1.4 that lists for $1700. One reason people, especially pros, are willing to pay so much for that lens is because of the superior quality of the bokeh. The lens is made from a "secret recipe" that is simply better, as well it should be for that difference in price.

[RobertsMx]

I am puzzled by the statement that bokeh depends on the quality of the lens. It is obvious that it depends on what the background is and the amount of blur. The amount of blur depends on how far back the background is behind the main subject relative to the depth of field, which depends on the magnification and aperture. Otherwise, I can't see why the choice of lens is important at all unless it is hopelessly bad.

Quality of rendering can depend on the lens though. Here is an example of a silky smooth rendering of OOF areas with tack sharp in focus subject:

Sony A55, Sony 135mm f/2.8 STF

[TonyW]

I seem to be on my own here. But I persist.

I looked at the reference that Chauncey quoted and I thought that it was not very convincing. The reference to the Zeiss site (www.zeiss.com) that Robin (black pearl) quoted was much more authoritative. I was interested to read there in the discussion on bokeh "Many effects are attributed to the lens even though they are mainly caused by the subject in front of the camera. Differences between lenses are often very marginal but are then grossly exaggerated".

I was slightly wrong because according to the Zeiss article there are some effects of the lens, but they are not ones that I have ever seen. One of the effects of the particular lens design is that of the shape of the aperture. If it is polygonal rather that circular that shape can be seen in the bright patches in the bokeh. The other effects that are mentioned are due to spherical aberration and its correction. These can affect particularly the edges of the bright patches.

It is true of course that the quality of the whole picture, in particular the sharpness of the main subject, is dependent on the quality of the lens.

The examples shown by Manu are both very good, with nicely chosen amounts of blurriness and nice sharpness where it is appropriate. I think the choices of focus point, depths of field and backgrounds are what has made the pictures.

[Mike Buckley]

Differences between lenses are often very marginal but are then grossly exaggerated".

Think about the words in that statement in great detail. I could infer (and I do) that some differences are not at all marginal and when not, they are not necessarily exaggerated at all, much less grossly so.

The examples shown by Manu are both very good

With all due respect to Manu, I don't think the two examples test the quality of bokeh very well. For me, the best test of bokeh quality comes into play when there are specular highlights in the background. The first example has only one that seems to be causing flare. The second example has none.

Just my opinion.

[Brev00]

There is no such thing as too much bokeh or too much blur or not enough bokeh or not enough blur. What you show in your image is entirely up to your own artistic intention. Even a completely out of focus image can be wonderful. Completely clear landscapes can be captivating. Without seeing the exact image in question, I am completely unable to evaluate whether it reached the sort of objectives you were after. Your lack of confidence and reliance on the other's point of view does tell me a great deal. So, when you have the chance, show us the image in question and explain your own point of view about it. Does it work in your eyes. If not, what would you change?

[Mike Buckley]

There is no such thing as too much bokeh or too much blur or not enough bokeh or not enough blur.

Larry,

You seem to be equating bokeh with blur. They are not the same, not remotely. Bokeh exists only when a photographer has imposed blur upon a photograph, just as pregnancy exists only when two entities have mated (notwithstanding a certain immaculate conception mentioned in the Bible). Sorry, but I never have been very good at analogies.

[Glenn NK]

I've posted this previously, and I repost it with some trepidation - not everyone will want to spend the effort required to read it all. It took me a few goes to read all of it (I eventually did), and found the effort worthwhile in understanding bokeh. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

It's not unusual to confuse blur and bokeh.

Bokeh is all about the quality of blur, not the amount.

Any lens set to the correct f/stop and focus distance will produce blur - that's what DOF is all about.

Not all lenses will produce pleasing bokeh - some lenses produce very ugly and distracting bokeh.

Also keep in mind that quality of bokeh can be somewhat subjective.

http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

Glenn

[Andybazyoung]

Thank you Glenn for re-posting the article about bokeh. At 4am it looks a little onerous to digest but I will read it properly later. What I do feel right now though is 'one persons idea of good bokeh is not necessarily good for the next person'.
I will keep trying nonetheless.
Andy

[rpcrowe]

I would think that the amount of blur (as opposed to the quality of the blurred areas) is dependent upon the image.

In this shot of my goldendoodle, the background which is lawn and ice plant is totally out of focus while the bokeh is creamy smooth. There was absolutely nothing of interest in the background so I totally obscured it. However, if the bokeh were not smooth and was choppy, it would have detracted from the dog. (1.6x format, 165mm @ f/5.6)



In this shot the background is only slightly blurred which imparts a sense of location (China) to the shot. However the blurred background still allows separation of my main subjects. (1.6x format, 200mm @ f/4)



Both were shot with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS lens

[Brev00]

Not really any more confused than normal. I was responding with the same phrasing as the op except he used a slant between the words while I used the word or. I did only add detail to the blur aspect with the differentiation between total blur and total clarity. Maybe I should have also differentiated between an image with wild and profuse bokeh highlights and one with a subtle creaminess. My main point is that the end result is a matter of artistic discretion, not right or wrong, too much or too little. People will always differ in artistic evaluations. What is important is what the op intended and achieved. His lack of confidence tells me that he does not feel 100% successful and might be able to use some feedback.