Re: [Leica] What is bad bokeh?

[John McLeod <johnmcleod@worldnet.att.net>]

Jeff --

Thanks for the reply.  I agree with everything you said.  This Nikon 50/1.4
is very sharp, but certain out-of-focus (OUF) areas look horrible --
overally contrasty, harsh, and "digitized" as my wife said, very
distracting.  Interesting in that it is only in some shots.  If it's a
closeup and the background is totally blown out, the OUF looks fine.  But if
it's a full body shot at say 2.8 or 4.0, the OUF is very distracting.  Sure
it is going to be a little busier than you'll get at 1.4 on a head shot, but
some of these images are verging on the ridiculous.  Even my
non-photographer wife and mother both commented that something was "wrong"
and "unnatural" with the these shots.

After seeing this problem, I would say the best OUF areas should be natural,
unobtrusive, somewhat soft and vague looking.  The Nikon 50 makes the OUF
areas stand out.  Some of it may be related to the inherent contrast of the
lens.  Nikon lenses, in general, I think are noted for contrast.  Sometimes
this can work against an image.

I'm a little crazy with this whole issue at the moment because I just
plunked down almost $3,000 for an F5 and 50/1.4.  Now I'm wondering if I
shouldn't have just gone for the R8 (I already have 2 R6's and three R
lenses), even though I find the R8 somewhat uncomfortable to hold (too fat
and chunky front to back).  Never thought I'd sell a Nikon body or lens
because of the OUF areas though.

I can't remember what system you use Jeff?

John 
- ----------
From: "Jeff S" <segawa@netone.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> 
Subject: Re: [Leica] What is bad bokeh?
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:09:01 -0700 

John,
A number of months ago, Photo Techniques had a handful of very good articles
describing "boke" (pronounced "bo keh"). Believe it was the June '97 issue,
and if back issues are still available, well worth seeking--they have photos
to illustrate! What I found especially interesting were the statements that
Canon, Nikon and others know how to design it into a lens, and in fact,
sometimes do.

What I mostly notice in a lens which is good at it is that optically, it's a
good balance, maybe flaring a bit easily, but in a way resulting in
localized loss of contrast, not a ugly light blotch surrounded by entirely
flare-free bits, and perhaps not seeming to be razor-sharp or ultra high
contrast, but producing a nice, smooth (not soft!) consistency which
encourages experimentation with large apertures and shallow depth of field.

Among others, I've really enjoyed using a late '60s 80/2.8 Zeiss Planar on a
Rolleiflex SL66-wonderful setup for macro use, where shallow depth of field
is unavoidable.

Other optics, such as the 75 and 150mm Mamiya Six lenses, and various MF
Fujinons, have been very different beasts, capable of dazzling, razor-sharp,
contrasty results, but for the most part, I preferred to have no significant
out-of-focus elements in my shots, or if it were unavoidable, chose
relatively featureless elements.

For most shooting, I've found that good boke, accompanied by a slight loss
of apparent sharpness and contrast, is easier to live with than dazzling
apparent sharpness and contrast (crispy critters!), and so-so boke, but
certain accomodations can be made--I got a number of good cityscapes and
some brilliant 'chromes from the Fujis and Mamiyas--I just toss out the ones
that show out-of-focus gremlins :-)

Jeff

PS: The visual gremlins that I toss out quickest are: backlit dark foliage
with hexagonal highlights, annoyingly hard-edged (despite being out of
focus!) background elements or clumped-up dark masses

- -----Original Message-----
From: John McLeod <johnmcleod@worldnet.att.net>
>I have a passing familiarity with what "bokeh" is, but am curious if there
>is a consensus on what good bokeh is (compared with, say, "bad" bokeh :)  ?