03-07-2011, 01:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2011, 02:19 PM by mst.)
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1299497127' post='6568']
It's strange that, we get away from the content and focus on language problems. I'm not sure if I used wrong expressions (within the context) and sorry for any inconveince. But apart from language issues, there's still no "I did not understant what you are saying" coming to me. And to complete my knowledge regarding bokeh, I will insist on the verification of my following statement:
To my knowledge, the amount of blur is different at a particular image within the distance from subject to background. Consider an image taken @ f/1.4. The amount of blur in 10cm distance from subject will be different than the amount of blur in 40m distance (given that both are OOF). If we close the aperture, the blurred range mentioned will be changing (will be shifted towards infinity) but the difference in the amount of blur will still be there (though, will be very less, almost not visible in the resulting image). In other words, the blur in nearer OOF area is less than the blur in distant OOF area. And this has an effect on smoothness of the color transitions (in near vs. distant OOF planes). Because closing or opening the aperture has an effect on results of the spherical aberrations.
So, I was asking to BC and now to you to explain me if I'm wrong. Then maybe I can have the opportunity to correct myself. But, please do not change the subject by pointing out linguistic problems concerning technical explanations. Language is a tool for communication, and every tool can be fixed, but the content is essential.
Serkan
[/quote]
You are not wrong about the AMOUNT of "blur" at all. But talking about bokeh is not about talking about the amount of blur, it is about the character of the OOF areas.
Good bokah, pleasant bokeh, is not about HOW blurry things get, it is about how the blur gets "rendered". And this has to do with the optics themselves, not with distances to subjects or a highlight here and there. So when we/I talk about a lens having better/smoother/more pleasant/creamier bokeh, it is not that the lens, compared to other lenses with the same focal length, shooting at the same subject/background distance, produces more blur. It is that the blur, the way it is rendered, is nicer.
Only that.
So, yes you are right that the shooting distance varies the amount of blur in OOF areas. And no, that has nothing to do with good or bad bokeh.
A very good example of a lens with unattractive/busy/bad bokeh is the Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8 DX.
Take a look at how the background here is very restless, almost vibrating:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/35mm-f18/DSC_8339-bad-bokeh-ryan.jpg
As you see, there is not a lot of blur. But the character of the blur is very unattractive. That is what we use the term "bokeh" for, describing the character of the blur, not the amount.
of course, the more you blur (shooting distance), the less obvious bad bokeh becomes.
More examples of the same lens:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/110/4559911104_1df24a6953_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4499941927_f9ea922f16_b.jpg
Of course, you can avoid not so nice bokeh to show up. You vary/adjust shooting distance and DOF. That is just part of learning your gear.
Or you choose lenses with have a nicer bokeh character.
OK, I will try to point it out with the first image you've linked:
Do you think the character of blur (color transitions, OOF highlights etc.) would be different if the stand behind was closer to the kid (given that all other settings will be the same)?
I think it would not be the same. This is the core of my statement concerning the generalization of yours. There are a lot of variables effecting the properties of bokeh, even for a particular lens itself. Of course some of them (maybe like the one you mentioned) can be classified under "bokeh hall of shame", but this does not justify your generalization since among the lenses with good bokeh, some would have comparatively better results than the other depending on the too much changing factors I've mentioned.
Serkan
BC, you're really repeating yourself and I think we all got the message now that you don't like the bokeh of the Nikkor DX 35. I just fail to see the reason for the battle you're fighting here ... except to manifest your fan-warlord title.
As I and others said, you can find samples with unpleasant bokeh for almost any lens if you search long enough. That includes the EF 35/2.0 (and you wouldn't have to search long for this one).
However, please do me a favour and stop embedding other people's work. Links will have to do, unless you own the copyright or have permission to embed the images.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1299507392' post='6579']
BC, you're really repeating yourself and I think we all got the message now that you don't like the bokeh of the Nikkor DX 35. I just fail to see the reason for the battle you're fighting here ... except to manifest your fan-warlord title.
As I and others said, you can find samples with unpleasant bokeh for almost any lens if you search long enough. That includes the EF 35/2.0 (and you wouldn't have to search long for this one).
However, please do me a favour and stop embedding other people's work. Links will have to do, unless you own the copyright or have permission to embed the images.
-- Markus
[/quote]
Of couse you can find images with not so nice bokeh of the Canon 35mm f2, it is a 35mm lens after all. And of course you can also find images of that lens showing 5 sided highlights. That does not mean, though, that the Nikon 35mm f1.8 is not worse, bokeh wise. Look, I know you have a feeling you need to defend your brand, but it really is no secret that the nisen-bokeh of the 35mm f1.8 just is not great. ANd it is just not right to argue that it is of the same quality of the Canon 35mm f2. Then one really does not get "bokeh".
And about copyright: one does not violate copyright by linking to an image. Nor does one need permission to linking an image. Whether the link is just a link, or shows the image itself. Even copying an image (which I did not do) is allowable under normal fair use. The images I linked to I showed the source page it is linked from (the Ken Rockwell page) or used images that are allowed to link to by the makers on flickr (one can allow or not allow linking and copying of the images there).
I did not use other people's work and stated it was mine, I did not copy any work.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299510354' post='6581']
Look, I know you have a feeling you need to defend your brand[/quote]
Pardon?
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299510354' post='6581']
but it really is no secret that the nisen-bokeh of the 35mm f1.8 just is not great. ANd it is just not right to argue that it is of the same quality of the Canon 35mm f2. Then one really does not get "bokeh".[/quote]
Now, who's defending his brand here?
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299510354' post='6581']
one does not violate copyright by linking to an image.[/quote]
Right.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299510354' post='6581']
Nor does one need permission to linking an image.[/quote]
Right.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299510354' post='6581']
Whether the link is just a link, or shows the image itself.[/quote]
Wrong.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299510354' post='6581']
Even copying an image (which I did not do) is allowable under normal fair use.[/quote]
Wrong again. Please remember that we're located in Germany and thus bound to German copyright laws.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299510354' post='6581']
I did not use other people's work and stated it was mine, I did not copy any work.
[/quote]
I didn't say so. I simply requested to stop embedding those images, because it could lead to legal trouble for us.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
A funny little discovery I made about the definition of "Bokeh" - I noticed it while reading the Zeiss Makro Planar 100/2 review by Markus. If I'm lucky, I might be getting this lens tomorrow! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
From the review:
"The bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur) is a primary aspect for an ultra large aperture lens and the 100mm f/2 does not disappoint us here - mostly. The blur is very smooth and buttery."
As we see above, the words "bokeh" and "blur" are used interchangeably. In this case the quality of the blur/bokeh is "smooth and buttery" (it also means that "bokeh" alone does not describe the quality, it needs additional adjectives).
Anyway, smooth and buttery sounds good to me. If anyone is still reading this, Monochrom in Berlin (www.monochrom.de) are doing a special offer on Zeiss ZE/ZF lenses until tomorrow night - the 100/2 is 250 euros cheaper than normal.
Regards,
Pinhole
[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1299539833' post='6588']
A funny little discovery I made about the definition of "Bokeh" - I noticed it while reading the Zeiss Makro Planar 100/2 review by Markus. If I'm lucky, I might be getting this lens tomorrow! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
From the review:
"The bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur) is a primary aspect for an ultra large aperture lens and the 100mm f/2 does not disappoint us here - mostly. The blur is very smooth and buttery."
As we see above, the words "bokeh" and "blur" are used interchangeably. In this case the quality of the blur/bokeh is "smooth and buttery" (it also means that "bokeh" alone does not describe the quality, it needs additional adjectives).
Anyway, smooth and buttery sounds good to me. If anyone is still reading this, Monochrom in Berlin (www.monochrom.de) are doing a special offer on Zeiss ZE/ZF lenses until tomorrow night - the 100/2 is 250 euros cheaper than normal.
Regards,
Pinhole
[/quote]
Come on Pinhole. They are not used interchangeably. It says that Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Stop fighting the same thing over and over.
Something is blurry when it is not sharp. Something can be more blurry, or less blurry. One could talk about "amount" of blur even.
So far "blur".
Now bokeh: The CHARACTER of blurry parts of a photograph.
A car is a car. It can be bigger, or it can be smaller. Colour is a term to describe the shade/hue/tonality of the car. A colour can be described as warm, ugly, or other terms. Yet, car and colour are not interchangeable. One is the actual subject, the other is a descriptive term to describe an aspect of that subject.
Now, about that Zeiss 100mm f2, a very nice lens. If it is a focal length you enjoy, it should serve you well. Do note that is macro lens, it only gives you 1:2 macro. Very nice as portrait lens too.
genotypewriter
Unregistered
Hi Pinhole,
[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1299495611' post='6566']
Now, the linguistic issue is, if we take bokeh as a noun describing the blur - and thus requiring adjectival modifiers (harsh, soft, creamy etc.) to complete its meaning, there is no grammatical reason why we should be forbidden from using other modifiers to describe the amount of bokeh - (thus, a photo in which all areas are in focus has by definition "very little bokeh".
[/quote]
Well let's take the noun "mother" for example. We might be able to use the adjectives kind, young, fit, running or even yummy with it but we can we say, for example, a quasarian mother? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
Coming down to the basics of languages, a language has: (1) an alphabet, (2) words and (3) grammar rules. If we can't just combine letters from the existing alphabet and create any new word as we wish, how is it possible for us to use existing grammar rules in any way wish and expect a sensible sentence? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
GTW
bryan conner
Unregistered
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1299548709' post='6591']
If we can't just combine letters from the existing alphabet and create any new word as we wish, how is it possible for us to use existing grammar rules in any way wish and expect a sensible sentence? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
GTW
[/quote]
You, to be able this to do, a Jedi Warrior have like Yoda to be. [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1299548709' post='6591']
Hi Pinhole,
Well let's take the noun "mother" for example. We might be able to use the adjectives kind, young, fit, running or even yummy with it but we can we say, for example, a quasarian mother? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
Coming down to the basics of languages, a language has: (1) an alphabet, (2) words and (3) grammar rules. If we can't just combine letters from the existing alphabet and create any new word as we wish, how is it possible for us to use existing grammar rules in any way wish and expect a sensible sentence? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
GTW
[/quote]
Examples:
A rusty diamond.
A racing banana.
Rock hard air.
An al dente Mercedes.
A little bokeh.
|
