Bokeh?

[Mr. Lips]

From about 1977 till the early 2000s, I would have categorized myself as a photography enthusiast.

I don't remember ever hearing the term bokeh, though, at 71, my memory probably isn't perfect.

Now that I'm getting back into photography, it's bokeh this and bokeh that.

People talk about it like it's the holy grail, but descriptions of it sound like descriptions of dark matter or quarks or something. 

What the heck is it and why should I, as a landscape/nature photographer, care about it?

[Cameratose]

As a landscape photographer, bokeh is your enemy. It is the blur created by the out of focus area on a shallow depth of field that makes the subject 'pop' out, almost in 3D. I'm not one to care about it much myself, but here's an example:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

There is smooth Bokeh and nervous Bokeh, Bokeh balls, and cat's eyes, and it goes on and on. It is tiresome to me as well. 

I have heard it pronounced as Bo-Kay and Bo-Kuh. 

I like a deeper DOF, one thing I miss about Mu-4/3 gear. As a landscape photographer you want in-focus from front to back as a rule. There may be times you want something to pop out, but as long as you know how to create the look, you can ignore the white noise and just shoot! 

[Cameratose]

No idea why the image has stopped showing, and no idea why this forum is set so you can't go back and edit. An administrator needs to change that setting.   

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited January 21 by Cameratose

[Pieter]

3 hours ago, Cameratose said:

no idea why this forum is set so you can't go back and edit.

You can, but only within like 10 minutes after posting. I guess it's to prevent falsification of history.

[Pieter]

4 hours ago, Cameratose said:

There is smooth Bokeh and nervous Bokeh, Bokeh balls, and cat's eyes, and it goes on and on. It is tiresome to me as well.

Bokeh is indeed as much about the quality of out of focus blur as it is about the quantity. Especially the focus transition zone (where things go from 'within focus' to 'out of focus') may be under scrutiny when assessing bokeh. Another optical 'defect' which manifests itself in bokeh is LoCa (longitinal chromatic abberation). Some call it ugly green/magenta halos in contrasty out-of-focus areas, others call it character.

[Cameratose]

12 minutes ago, Pieter said:

You can, but only within like 10 minutes after posting. I guess it's to prevent falsification of history.

Agreed, but it's ancient thinking. Any modern forum lets you edit whenever. It's simply a setting they could click to turn off. It's one reason I won't post many photos here. After 10 minutes I lose complete control over my own property. 

[Mr. Lips]

14 hours ago, Pieter said:

Bokeh is indeed as much about the quality of out of focus blur as it is about the quantity. Especially the focus transition zone (where things go from 'within focus' to 'out of focus') may be under scrutiny when assessing bokeh. Another optical 'defect' which manifests itself in bokeh is LoCa (longitinal chromatic abberation). Some call it ugly green/magenta halos in contrasty out-of-focus areas, others call it character.

Like Cameratose, I usually go for as much depth of field as I can, but sometimes there is no getting around out of focus areas, such as a closeup of a cactus flower.  I guess, everything else being equal, I might be concerned about a lenses bokeh, but everything else is seldom equal.  At this point in my photography I think I have bigger problems than unattractive bokeh.

[Pieter]

1 hour ago, Mr. Lips said:

I usually go for as much depth of field as I can

That's what I got from your post here:

When shooting at f/11, bokeh is indeed not something you should be concerned with, unless when shooting closeup. Nearly all lenses have a polygonal iris shape at f/11 which naturally gives a more edgy rendering of out of focus areas.

@Cameratose's example is perfect for demonstrating the relevance of bokeh. To some extent you can influence the backdrop of a shot, but if it is busy foliage relatively close by, it'd better not be distracting from your subject. Some lenses are able to create a more pleasing background than others, even at the same aperture setting and focal length. For the impact of the entire image one might even argue that the smoothness of the background is as relevant as the sharpness of the subject.

[Cameratose]

5 hours ago, Mr. Lips said:

Like Cameratose, I usually go for as much depth of field as I can, but sometimes there is no getting around out of focus areas, such as a closeup of a cactus flower.  

Shooting a cactus flower is probably where you do want to have nice bokeh. I can't recall which camera you're shooting, or maybe you haven't said, but using live view you can see what the shot will look like before you press the button. Try setting up on a flower or something stationary where you can control the background and see the changes different settings make.