Digital BW, The Print

Just like there are F-64 nazis, there are bokeh nazis.  The F-64 
fanatics think that stopping down is the answer for every picture.  
This often disregards the fact that many lenses are fuzzier (due 
to refraction) stopped all the way down than they would be at F8 
or wider.   

Thanks Martin for your links.  They help present the bokeh 
fanatics view.  First, I love bokeh, but this good/bad axis for 
bokeh is really stuff for the guys who would rather spend their 
day testing than actually making photographs.  

Good bokeh happens when you have out of focus leaves or 
water as opposed to out of focus bricks.  Good bokeh is helped 
by shooting whatever lens you have wide open.  Bokeh gets 
good when your out of focus area is way out of focus.  It helps to 
be close to your subject of focus.  It can also help to be close to 
what will be out of focus.  Wide angle bokeh is more difficult than 
telephoto bokeh.  Wide angle bokeh can be done beautifully; see
http://www.marktucker.com for many examples.

The real kicker on this bokeh debate is the ability to add bokeh 
using photoshop filters.  Don't worry about your four bladed 
diaphragm and your F5.6 zoom lens.  I don't have fun doing it 
because I am more of an in-camera kind of guy, but a little 
playing with blur filters and the gradient tool and you could be 
making shots like Jan Groover or Keith Carter.  OK, so those 
artists really do it in-camera.

Back to in-camera work, my best lens for bokeh is my Noctilux 
F1.0.  That's a no brainer.  I've also gotten beautiful bokeh with 
my Mamiya 6 and 7, as well as with my many Fuji view camera 
lenses.  Don't go spending a lot of money for the so-called "good 
bokeh"  optics.  You can get the best bokeh you'll ever see from a 
$25 Holga camera.

Frank

http://www.culturalvisions.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> For those poor souls like myself going "Bokeh?" here are a 
couple of sites:
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
> http://www.pathcom.com/~vhchan/bokeh.html
> http://www.pathcom.com/~vhchan/bokeh.html
> http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf
> 
> You can find many more with a web search. Obviously a hot 
topic. I am more
> of the f:90 LF school so I have not really paid any attention to 
this. My
> initial reaction is that it seems much ado about very little, but I 
will
> reserve judgment as it has not been an issue in my work.
> 
> Martin Wesley
> 
> http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce" <smthopr@e...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...>
> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 10:01 AM
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: bokeh :was Shooting digital vs. film
> 
> 
> > on 9/7/2002 1:33 AM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y... at
> > DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y... wrote:
> >
> > > Message: 13
> > > Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 23:13:21 -0700
> > > From: Robert Morrison <rmorrison@p...>
> > > Subject: Re: Shooting digital vs. film
> > >
> > > On 9/6/02 8:06 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...> 
wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jerry,
> > >>
> > >>> Good God Austin, who cares what an out of focus area 
looks like?
> > >
> > > Oh my God, Jerry, you have committed the unthinkable 
utterance...bokeh
> > > rules!  If you still have any leica or contax lenses you should 
give
> them to
> > > charity (me) to do penitence!
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > Robert
> >
> >
> > Pure speculation here:  I think that the bokeh is not a property
> "designed"
> > into these lenses, but rather a function of the distance of the 
lens
> > position to the film plane.  When a lens is mounted at it's 
optimal
> distance
> > (the focal length is it not?), the lens can be made with the 
minimal
> amount
> > of glass.  An SLR throws a mirror in the way of the lens 
mounting
> position.
> > The lenses have to be designed to project the image to the 
film as if the
> > lens were mounted closer than it actually is.  This makes the 
lenses
> larger,
> > more complex, more expensive, and poor bokeh.
> >
> > So Leitz lenses made for the leica SLR will not have the 
same performance
> as
> > the same focal lengths made for the rangefinder bodies. 
Once the focal
> > length discussed is longer than the distance from the film to 
the front of
> > the mirror, the design for all camera types can be the same 
for that lens.
> >
> > -Bruce
> >
> > Visit my website at:
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, 
Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is 
at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
visiting this same
> page.
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep
> them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the 
subject header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks 
or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives 
and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >