NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Fons Baerken on April 22, 2018, 15:33:47
-
Came across this site looking for information on the nikkor O 55mm f/1.2,
http://toby-marshall.com/galleries/bokeh-tales/ (http://toby-marshall.com/galleries/bokeh-tales/)
by photographer Toby Marshall
-
Interesting examples. Thanks for the link.
-
Yep know him!
Could we please write "bokeh" as it is spoken and commenly written? THX!
-
I heard a British photographer saying bokey
-
Interesting. So far as I'm aware, the bokeh of my CRT is not that busy...
The pronunciation of "bokey" can be quite different from that of the original Japanese word.
-
Interesting. So far as I'm aware, the bokeh of my CRT is not that busy...
The pronunciation of "bokey" can be quite different from that of the original Japanese word.
Akira, it massively depends on the background, as a busy BG often leads to "crazy" bokeh, and just a little shift and it gets very smooth.
Have this very often with my lenses, admittedly when I shoot out in nature...
Here for example:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/809/26782725827_a6801c7e06_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/835/26782725777_83dacea234_o.jpg)
Shot using a Carl Zeiss Jena VISIONAR 1.9/168mm projection lens
-
It would appear that a slight change of position or view with the same background produces a rather different effect.
It appears the tulip on the right moved during exposure. The point remains good, what troubles me with many of theses very narrow focus lenses is the frequent harsh rendering of the background. It appears that the contrast in the background image seems to influence that rendering, particularly highlights which seem to be rendered as rings or circular doughnuts which to me negates the whole idea of trying to create a smooth, non distracting background.
I wonder if flat lighting (cloudy) rather than direct sunlight might make a big difference, by avoiding the strong contrast and highlights.
-
Thanks Fons, interesting site. I am not quite sure why, but the examples of the boke of the CRT Nikkor brought a smile to my face.... something airy and whimsical about it and not something I've often seen. Fabulous, kind of a "feel good" rendering. :)
-
I wonder if flat lighting (cloudy) rather than direct sunlight might make a big difference, by avoiding the strong contrast and highlights.
Yes, because rendering of low-contrast, or colour-only out of focus transitions is a different thing from rendering of highlights. "Bokeh" usually refers to the rendering of out of focus highlights, but sometimes that is mixed up with rendering of low-contrast transitions.
Highlights are imaged at the size and shape of the aperture, and in the absence of spherical aberration the rendering is smooth-edged and uniform - not blurry at all. It is only spherical aberration that makes out-of-focus highlights blurry. Under-corrected spherical aberration gives highlights behind the focal plane brighter centres and fuzzy edges - the look everyone likes - while highlights in front of the focal plane have darker centres and sharp, bright rims; over-corrected spherical aberration gives the reverse.
-
It would appear that a slight change of position or view with the same background produces a rather different effect.
It appears the tulip on the right moved during exposure. The point remains good, what troubles me with many of theses very narrow focus lenses is the frequent harsh rendering of the background. It appears that the contrast in the background image seems to influence that rendering, particularly highlights which seem to be rendered as rings or circular doughnuts which to me negates the whole idea of trying to create a smooth, non distracting background.
I wonder if flat lighting (cloudy) rather than direct sunlight might make a big difference, by avoiding the strong contrast and highlights.
There was no movement, it is the extremely shallow DOF of that 1.9/168mm lens and its special rendering. It is a Double Gauss design (6e/6g)
-
Akira, it massively depends on the background, as a busy BG often leads to "crazy" bokeh, and just a little shift and it gets very smooth.
Have this very often with my lenses, admittedly when I shoot out in nature...
Here for example:
Shot using a Carl Zeiss Jena VISIONAR 1.9/168mm projection lens
Klaus, thank you for the note. Probably I haven't seen the busy bokeh of CRT myself simply because I have used my CRT only at its designed magnification or larger using M2 ring where bokeh tends to be so large that even the otherwise busy bokeh would become creamy...
-
Hi,
That’s me. Glad to meet you all. I’m pretty much always shooting wide open, at which aperture the CRT Nikkor can give pretty crazy results in terms of bokeh rendering. I’m sometimes down to f1.4 to cut down on highlight “bloom” but past that the unique rendering gets pretty tame. Much as I love Michael’s stunning work (which first got me interested in these lenses) I don’t have the patience for tripods and stages and stacking. Of course at very close focusing distances, unique bokeh effects get lessened (just as at longer focusing distances.) For us bokeholics, it is a game of finding the optimal focusing distance and depth relationship of objects for a given focal length and aperture.
To weigh in on the bokeh pronunciation debate: Having spent more than three decades in Japan, for me it can only be bo-KEH. Hearing BO-ka, as many Americans insist on pronouncing it, kind of makes my skin crawl, and I am set to thinking about places in Florida and veggie burgers. But not as bad as hearing karaoke pronounced “carry okie”, so I count my blessings.
-
Hi all.
I only looked at the results for about 10 of the lenses but that is the ugliest bokeh I ever saw. They mostly remind me of the horrible bokeh from mirror lenses.
I did like the background photo on his web site.
JIM
-
IMO, the kind of "bokeh" at the site linked, after about the first one (which is pleasant), just does not interest me. It is too much for me and I find it harsh and no fun looking at. Just shows how we each are different and see (and like) things differently.
-
IMO, the kind of "bokeh" at the site linked, after about the first one (which is pleasant), just does not interest me. It is too much for me and I find it harsh and no fun looking at. Just shows how we each are different and see (and like) things differently.
It all came basically from some Asian photographers who developed some interest in that kind of "crazy" bokeh - and the price of thoese lenses, especially Dallmeyer went through the roof. This then triggered some interest in Indonesia, Europe and the US and people took out their Triolpans and posted many "soap bubble" images (still do) and the price of that lens went crazy too. BUt this was rather moderate bokeh.
There is another direction, showing very creamy and smooth BG rendering, so just the opposite of the above, especially for shooting portraits with needed BG separation, hence where very long and very fast lenses came in fashion, namely the Zeiss Visionar and other high speed, double gauss projection lenses (like Bausch & Lomb, ISCO, Schneider,...). I personally tend to this latter type more, but sometimes it itches me to do the "asian crazy bokeh style" just for the fun of it...
PS: please be reminded that Toby uses software for micro contrast and structural enhancements to bring out this "special" bokeh, most such lenses behave much more "normal" if used "out of cam" ... so don't blame such lenses please, if you do not like such, they can perform much more pleasing.... :-)
So there is obviously room for both and plenty of suitable lenses to support both "tastes". ;-)
-
I understand what's going on with this "aggravated" bokeh. I have a Triopan and some of the Russian lenses that produce this kind of bokeh. I just don't like the effect. My idea of bokeh is a soft blurry background, rather than what we see in these linked examples, making the background the main focus or subject of the photo. It is the opposite of what I want bokeh to do, IMO. LOL.
-
I understand what's going on with this "aggravated" bokeh. I have a Triopan and some of the Russian lenses that produce this kind of bokeh. I just don't like the effect. My idea of bokeh is a soft blurry background, rather than what we see in these linked examples, making the background the main focus or subject of the photo. It is the opposite of what I want bokeh to do, IMO. LOL.
Sure Michael, we're both have the same linking - others have different likings ;-)
-
Obviously I'm different, lol. Actually I do like some examples of soft and smooth bokeh, but I am a fan of impressionism and modern art, and am interested in seeing what is possible with different optical formuale and lenses in terms of achieving different effects. I know it goes against the grain for many but don't forget that riots broke out at the first performances of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in Paris...
I may eventually slink back in my cave and moderate the effects I am exploring, but for now I like this ride and the departure from the normal bokeh achieved with less quirky lenses.
-
Obviously I'm different, lol. Actually I do like some examples of soft and smooth bokeh, but I am a fan of impressionism and modern art, and am interested in seeing what is possible with different optical formuale and lenses in terms of achieving different effects. I know it goes against the grain for many but don't forget that riots broke out at the first performances of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in Paris...
I may eventually slink back in my cave and moderate the effects I am exploring, but for now I like this ride and the departure from the normal bokeh achieved with less quirky lenses.
Nothing wrong about it Toby, I like your experiments and would be quite happy to see more of it (and to hear what you used and how)!!
-
Obviously I'm different, lol. Actually I do like some examples of soft and smooth bokeh, but I am a fan of impressionism and modern art, and am interested in seeing what is possible with different optical formuale and lenses in terms of achieving different effects. I know it goes against the grain for many but don't forget that riots broke out at the first performances of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in Paris...
I may eventually slink back in my cave and moderate the effects I am exploring, but for now I like this ride and the departure from the normal bokeh achieved with less quirky lenses.
I don’t think riots are about to break out any time soon about bokeh here. The group is filled with all sorts of different views of photography. Michael takes his photography in the direction of extreme detail, Birna post photos with colors I’ve never seen in nature, others seem incapable of getting anything in focus, all are appreciated for their different approaches. Keep it up and keep sharing. It is best when we learn something or get new ideas from each other.
-
Generally I prefer lenses with smooth background rendering so that it is less distracting. It is one of the reasons I like the 105/2.5.
However I have also come to appreciate lenses with so-called harsh bokeh, such as those which create the soap-bubble effect. Used in the right situation they can give very interesting results. I also enjoyed the pictures Jakov took with his 135 DC lens with the DC ring turned to the max the "wrong" way ... in my quest for smooth bokeh I would never have dreamed of trying that, but his pictures of tulips with funky bokeh are very beautiful.
A lens is like a brush used to paint a picture. Some are easier to use to get pleasing results, but in the hands of a good artist, almost any brush can be used to good effect.