Digital BW, The Print

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@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
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@yahoogroups.com at
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > Message: 13
> > Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 23:13:21 -0700
> > From: Robert Morrison <rmorrison@...>
> > Subject: Re: Shooting digital vs. film
> >
> > On 9/6/02 8:06 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> 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/
>
>
>

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/

> >
> >
> >

At 06:39 PM 9/7/2002 +0000, culturalvisions wrote:
>You can get the best bokeh you'll ever see from a
>$25 Holga camera.

But, but...It can't possibly be better bokeh than what some
folks maintain they get from their Leicas, can it?

And gosh, what about the resolution, not to mention
the dynamic range?

Is it even possible to do the math with a Holga?

-JimD

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "culturalvisions" 
<fmward@h...> wrote:
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. 

Well said, Frank.

My nomination for Bokeh Mojo Lens of the Year is the 
Hasselblad 110FE f/2, shot wide open, with a 32mm extension 
tube, with PortraBW film with a red filter. Just looking at even the 
crummy contact sheets is pure joy; then you scan them, and the 
angels begin to sing.

I think I like the word "bokeh", more than what it means.

To: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>

> 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.

I don't know why there is so much nonsense written about bokeh: "it doesn't exist", "it's BS", etc. Look, bokeh is simply the OOF blur in a photograph. As to what is good or bad bokeh is an aesthetic judgement, so there is likely to be a lot of disagreement. Below is a sensible discussion on bokeh from the Leica Users Group (Nov 2000) by Mike Johnston, former editor of _Photo_Techniques_ and the most sophicticated lens connoiseur that I know of:


Quote: 

No lens is perfect. As far as bokeh is concerned, you have to decide first if it's even _in_ your pictures (some people don't do that kind of photography), second if you like it or object to it (some people seem almost offended by out-of-focus areas in pictures, an attitude that truly perplexes me), and third--assuming your pictures have bokeh in them and you aren't offended by that fact--what "look" you tend to like. 

For me, there's more of a tendency for pictures to be ruined by rotten bokeh than for pictures to be improved by good bokeh. The point of "good" bokeh for me is to get backgrounds and foregrounds unobtrusively out of the way of the picture, and only very secondarily to perhaps create interesting washes of color or tone, and then only in certain cases. I have one friend who spent years deliberately exploring bokeh as an integral part of his photographic artwork, but I personally don't do that. 

As far as ranking lenses is concerned, most Nikon lenses suck to varying degrees (better to keep everything in focus if you shoot Nikkor!) although a few are pretty good. Most Canons are pretty good. (You can page through an issue of _Sports Illustrated_ and tell what kind of camera the photographers shoot by looking at the bokeh of the long lenses. I can tell N. vs. C. a mile away.) Leica lenses vary, from very good to just okay. That 75mm M is great, and so is the pre-ASPH 35mm Summicron if stopped down a bit. A Canon lens that is superb is the older 100mm EF macro. The EF 50/1.4 is very good too, although it's unpredictably flarey and I don't personally like that. As a general rule, most 35mms are okay (even the AF Nikkor 35mm f/2 is not too bad) and most 50mms are problematic (with some exceptions...although I personally like the Summarit better than the Noctilux, both are good). Assuming you actively _like_ bokeh (and please, no flames--believe me, I'm well aware that some people don't care), the absolute killer lenses for out-of-this-world bokeh are Rodenstocks--specifically the Apo-Sironar-S line. All of them I've seen or used are marvelous. I have a friend who shoots 6x9 with a short Rodenstock view camera lens just for the bokeh. <s> I'd personally never shoot a particular focal length, format, or brand of camera just for the bokeh, though I do avoid lenses that have bokeh that consistently annoys me. 

Photography is all aesthetics for me. A picture is as good as it looks. Only a handful of photographers don't suck, and only a handful of their photographs don't suck. Which doesn't leave much. That makes it kind of annoying when an otherwise great picture is ruined by tizzy or ni-sen (double-line) bokeh in the o-o-f areas simply because the photographer has never bothered to look at the out-of-focus areas of his or her pictures or never tried different lenses to see what they do. We saw a lot of this when it started to be fashionable (sorry, "hot") among advertising photographers to use a lot of o-o-f, a dozen years ago or so. Many of them shot bad lenses with jarring o-o-f effects, completely insensitive to the visual effect they were copycatting. 

Lens connoisseurship is not at all a prerequisite for being a good photographer, and I admit that I'm a lens connoisseur. My favorite lenses are those that achieve a balance of properties without any standout flaws, and if that includes a lack of standout virtues, that's okay with me. (I like the look of black-and-white 35mm pictures--in fact I prefer that look to all others--and am not obsessed with getting them to look like medium-format pictures.) So the lenses I like best maybe don't have "perfect" bokeh, but that's okay--I accept imperfection if the overall balance is good. 

End quote 


Austin Franklin stated that Leica and Zeiss design good bokeh into their lenses. That is certainly not true today because the newest ASPH lenses (24mm, 35mm, 90 mm), according to Erwin Puts, have a sharp transition from the in-focus to out-of-focus areas which generally results in "bad bokeh." In contrast, the older 75-Summilux and 35-Summicron (last versions before the ASPH versions of these lenses) have superb bokeh. In a quest for super-sharp/high contrast lenses Leica may now be throwing out the bokeh with the bathwater, and may be designing  whose properties knowledgeable users of older Leica lenses may not like. Indeed, I've seen several posts on the Leica forum on photo.net by people who bought the latest ASPH lenses, and then went back to the pre-ASPH versions because they did not like th e bokeh.

Bokeh has become important to me in some recent color photographs that I've shot a large apertures (e.g., Noctilux at f/1), examples of which you can see on my portfolio on photo.net. I have also become interest in the nature of o-o-f areas in B&W.

--Mitch

To: "culturalvisions" <fmward@...> 

>Bokeh gets 
>good when your out of focus area is way out of focus.

That's true when you create washes of color, or of tones in B&W, as with the Noctilux at f/1. On the photo.net Leica forum there is an execellent example of bad bokeh by Doug Herr, a wildlife photographer: it's a picture of small bird with the o-o-f grass and bushes in the background with ugly "two-line" bokeh. In his posting, Doug Herr states that he could improve the bokeh with that lens by throwing the background completely out of focus; but he goes on to state that in his photography he wants to show the environment of the bird so, over the years, he has selected telephoto lenses with good bokeh.

--Mitch

From: Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...> 

>Martin, I hope someone who lists Bokeh as one of their Gods will put up
>a really good example of the same image, one taken with a lens with
>"bad" bokeh, and one with a lens that has simply Supergobslopsius bokeh.
> I want to see the actual difference.

As I wrote in another posting, there is an excellent example of a picture ruined by bad bokeh in a thread on the photo.net Leica forum, titled something like "Example of bad bokeh by Doug Herr, a wildlife photographer. You can do a "search" in the forum.


>In any case, I can't see a landscape photographer having any interest in
>an out of focus area, as there usually aren't any.

Whether there are any or not depends entirely how you look, or perhaps I should say, on your vision -- and that's not an Anselm Adams vision. Look at _Landscapes_ by Ray K. Metzer (published by Aperture in 200). In this book there are many photographs in which Metzker seems to be exploring the nature of vision, and has many o-o-f areas in the foreground. Fascinating photographs.

--Mitch

> My nomination for Bokeh Mojo Lens of the Year is the
> Hasselblad 110FE f/2, shot wide open...

Mark,

I second that nomination.  The image I provided a link to was shot with that
very lense.

Austin

culturalvisions wrote:

>Just like there are F-64 nazis, there are bokeh nazis. 
>


And Godwin's Law once again may have raised its ugly head. It's amazing 
how consistent that little bugger is.





Keith
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 9/7/02 2:15 PM, "marktuckerdotcom" <mtucker508@...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "culturalvisions"
> <fmward@h...> wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Well said, Frank.
> 
> My nomination for Bokeh Mojo Lens of the Year is the
> Hasselblad 110FE f/2, shot wide open, with a 32mm extension
> tube, with PortraBW film with a red filter. Just looking at even the
> crummy contact sheets is pure joy; then you scan them, and the
> angels begin to sing.
> 
> I think I like the word "bokeh", more than what it means.


I think I will name my next dog Bokeh.  And I can't wait to tell my wife
that I've got bokeh mojo.

My favorite bokeh lenses of late are a Voigtlander 50mm/f1.5 and my old
Canon FD1.4 from the mid 60's.  It warms my heart to think of the President
of Corsa (the Japanese company that makes Voigtlander lenses) deliberating
about bokeh in his lenses...I understand he has more bokeh mojo than any
other living human!

No bokeh for me this week...I have to take pictures of mountains and lakes
and geysers...wait...could there be bokeh with geysers...Jerry?

:-)

Robert

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "marktuckerdotcom" 
<mtucker508@y...> wrote:

> My nomination for Bokeh Mojo Lens of the Year is the 
> Hasselblad 110FE f/2, shot wide open, with a 32mm extension 
> tube, with PortraBW film with a red filter. Just looking at even 
the 
> crummy contact sheets is pure joy; then you scan them, and 
the 
> angels begin to sing.

I've got that lens, also.  But I've only got the 16mm extension 
tube:-)   Actually, I'm selling a 110 F2 Planar with the Hassy 2000 
fcm body.   Anyone hungry for some bokeh mojo can contact me 
off list.  I also have the 80 F2 Planar on my Contax 645.  That's 
enough mojo for any northerner.

Frank

mailto:frank@...

Here are some examples of bokeh.  The upper left portrait and 
upper right  food shot were both taken with the Noctilux at f1.0.  
The lower right statue was made with a Zork tilt adaptor and a 
Rodenstock Rodagon 105mm enlarging lens at 5.6.

http://www.culturalvisions.com/newsite/pages/recentWork/index.
html 

Sorry for the long link.  You may have to cut and paste.  Or hit 
"recent work" at:

http://www.culturalvisions.com

FYI, the other two non panoramas on this page were also shot 
with the Noctilux at F1.0.  Bokeh is less of an issue in them.

Thanks, Mitch, for the 3 illuminating posts and quotes.  I will 
check into photo.net for your examples.

Frank

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Mitch Alland 
<malland@m...> wrote:
> To: "culturalvisions" <fmward@h...> 
> 
> >Bokeh gets 
> >good when your out of focus area is way out of focus.
> 
> That's true when you create washes of color, or of tones in 
B&W, as with the Noctilux at f/1. On the photo.net Leica forum 
there is an execellent example of bad bokeh by Doug Herr, a 
wildlife photographer: it's a picture of small bird with the o-o-f 
grass and bushes in the background with ugly "two-line" bokeh. 
In his posting, Doug Herr states that he could improve the bokeh 
with that lens by throwing the background completely out of 
focus; but he goes on to state that in his photography he wants 
to show the environment of the bird so, over the years, he has 
selected telephoto lenses with good bokeh.
> 
> --Mitch

Pardon my ignorance but what exactly does the 32mm extension get you 
in this situation?  I thought that they were used for macro work.

Thanks,

Richard

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "marktuckerdotcom" 
<mtucker508@y...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "culturalvisions" 
> <fmward@h...> wrote:
> 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. 
> 
> Well said, Frank.
> 
> My nomination for Bokeh Mojo Lens of the Year is the 
> Hasselblad 110FE f/2, shot wide open, with a 32mm extension 
> tube, with PortraBW film with a red filter. Just looking at even 
the 

> crummy contact sheets is pure joy; then you scan them, and the 
> angels begin to sing.
> 
> I think I like the word "bokeh", more than what it means.