Bokeh

[cjmchch]

I recently took a photo for an assignment titled Bokeh and the below photo was my entry. Now while I accept it isn't that sharp an image given the Canon 18-55 kit lens I was using I was intrigued by a comment made by somebody and wondered if it is correct or whether in fact I need not take any notice.

The comment was that the bokeh was "too sharp" which interested me given that the depth of field was quite tight, especially in a flower garden. I'd be interested in what others thought.

http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs21/f/2007/289/7/b/bokeh_II_by_cjmchch.jpg

[Tejanos]

Hi!

I find the bokeh to be to sharp ...

Mark Jones

http://photoblog.tejanoscatfish.com/
http://photography.tejanoscatfish.com/



I recently took a photo for an assignment titled Bokeh and the below photo was my entry. Now while I accept it isn't that sharp an image given the Canon 18-55 kit lens I was using I was intrigued by a comment made by somebody and wondered if it is correct or whether in fact I need not take any notice.

The comment was that the bokeh was "too sharp" which interested me given that the depth of field was quite tight, especially in a flower garden. I'd be interested in what others thought.

http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs21/f/2007/289/7/b/bokeh_II_by_cjmchch.jpg

[pathfinder]

cjmcch,

Andy has a great thread about bokeh here (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=23924&highlight=bokeh)

The term Bokeh, refers to the aesthetic pleasing out of focus areas of an image. Webster's dictionary defines bokeh as "a Japanese term for the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of a photographic image"

Wikipedia has a longer article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh)


Bokeh refers to the dreamy, creamy, out of focus areas of an image, with a lack of sharp, discrete points of light, and with the blur circles of lights smooth, round rings, rather than polygons which can be seen with lenses with fewer numbers of iris blades used at less than their maximum aperture.

I am not sure, myself, what "sharp" means in the context of your image. You do not have a really out of focus image, so the bokeh still shows out of focus flowers and stalks, not a totally out of focus image with no discrete details. But the areas that are out of focus are not harshly displayed either.

A quick search on dgrin about bokeh finds the following threads, as well as Andy's that I linked up above.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=1054

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=27887

[cjmchch]

Thanks guys for the comments, they are appreciated. I'm looking forward to getting my new 24-70L lens delivered which should help with getting a btter bokeh. Great articles as well, thanks for the links.

[bham]

Yes cjmchch, I think they meant that if you really had good bokeh that you wouldn't be able to define the flowers in the background, or the building. I think they could have said you bokeh had too distinct shapes, to me that would be a better description of the situation vs saying the bokeh is too sharp.

[Glenn NK]

Although the following is entitled "Bokeh Test" (and it is), reading through it will give one a better feeling for the concept of bokeh.

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

And there is a surprise lens in the group.

[gus]

I can only assume they were looking for something more like the bokeh here. (http://WadjelaPhotography.smugmug.com/photos/22649697-M.jpg) Or here (http://WadjelaPhotography.smugmug.com/photos/22762447-M.jpg)...just more blended tones perhaps.

[Joves]

Bokeh is so sujective to each person. Pesonally I would have angled the shot to not have the other flowers in the backround. Being they are on a white backround and, will become defined because, of the contrast in the colors. You will notice that the green and, yeallow lower area has a greater bokeh. Just a suggestion for the next time. Thedarker backround would have given greater detail to your flower as well.

[Glenn NK]

Bokeh is so sujective to each person.

While it's true that to some extent, bokeh is subjective, after a careful reading of the "Bokeh Test" reference, I thought I could readily discern truly good from truly bad bokeh. In fact I thought I could tell the best lens from the one that basically came second - when it was presented to me.:D

I thought some of the other lenses completely fell apart under some circumstances, which to me wasn't completely subjective.

EDIT: As for the OP's image, I would say the bokeh wasn't bad, but fair. It didn't "jangle" my eyes as some of the Bokeh Test images did.

[jdryan3]

...given that the depth of field was quite tight...

While I agree with the others 'sharp' may not be the best descriptor, I'm not sure what you mean by the above statement. :scratch
Could you please clarify?

[bham]

My guess would be that in the same location a lens with a larger aperature (a 2.8, 2.0, or 1.8) could produce "good bokeh", but your kit lens was limited in this exact situation given the distance of the closer bulbs to the first bulb. A different angle on the in focus bulb may have produced the desire bokeh.:dunno