Bokeh

[IanDG]

What was the lens?  The Elmar 50/3.5?

I'll have to find out, the loan is over, I handed it back

[rogerzilla]

If it was teensy and pushed back almost completely flat into the body, it was the Elmar.  They have really nice bokeh at about f/4-f/5.6 (which is about optimum for most lenses; wider than that and you can get odd swirl effects, narrower and it sharpens up the background too much).

Here's an example of swirly bokeh from the Summar opened up to f/2.8.  It's a bit distracting.



And this is a Summaron 35/3.5 wide open; same double-Gauss lens design, same swirls.

[IanDG]

It was the Elmar 3.5/50

This is the camera I borrowed

[rogerzilla]

It's an amazing lens for only 4 elements.  Almost equally sharp at all apertures.

f/4 (perfect bokeh)



f/16

[Jaded]

What was the lens?  The Elmar 50/3.5?

I'll have to find out, the loan is over, I handed it back

It will be in the EXIF 

[rogerzilla]

This data recording malarkey is nothing new.  All my old shots say KODAK TRI-X SAFETY FILM 5036 

[mike]

I always thought bokeh was to do with how bright spots of light were treated in the out of focus areas,

out of focus i can do:
(35 f2)
(50 f2)

what I think of as bokeh is harder...  would this count?
(35 f2)

[Biggsy]

I always thought bokeh was to do with how bright spots of light were treated in the out of focus areas,

Different people seem to use "bokeh" to mean different things.

There is, some suppose, a link between out-of-focus highlights and general out-of-focus blur.  The general blur will be good if highlights appear as perfect even discs rather than onion rings, says the theory.

[rogerzilla]

Bokeh is just the appearance of OOF areas.  Although the appearance is a bit subjective, it's actually quite easy to specify what causes "good" bokeh in a lens design sense; Airy discs* where the centre is brighter than the perimeter.  This makes all OOF points blur together smoothly.  Conversely, Airy discs where the perimeter is brighter than the centre make for "bad" bokeh, with any OOF lines being doubled. 

You can design lenses for good bokeh; Nikon make a special DC lens where it's adjustable.

The shape of the aperture, incidentally, affects the appearance of OOF point highlights but doesn't affect bokeh otherwise.  Some of the nicest bokeh I've seen came from a lens with a six-bladed aperture.


*an out-of-focus point of light

[AndyK]

[ed_o_brain]

It's a shame my watermarks look so prominent on these


bokeh 1 by Daniel Cadden Photo, on Flickr


bokeh 2 by Daniel Cadden Photo, on Flickr

[ed_o_brain]

More bokeh... creative product shots!


PoC 3 by Daniel Cadden Photo, on Flickr 

Be gentle on the crit.. this is a proof of concept, not a finished work!

[David Martin]

It looks like your bokeh is photoshop - that very even light spread that doesn't seem to fit what one would expect (something that more closely approximates a point function?)

..d

[ed_o_brain]

Ha!

No that's real Bokeh.
Layer 1: Background, white fill, 100% opacity.

Layer 2: OoF fairy lights (photo), 50% opacity, normal blending
Layer 3: OoF fairy lights (photo), 50% opacity, "lighten" blending
Layer 4: Layer 3 duplicated and rotated 180º.

Layers 2,3,4 were then flattened. Saturation and contrast were both reduced. Curves used to lighten the shadows.

Layer 5: ~15% opacity white fill
Layer 6: ~20% opacity white fill vignetting (it's clear in the middle
Layer 7: Product photo

I reduced the saturation in the product layer, decreased the highlights relative to the rest of the tonal values in that layer and finally lifted the levels in their entirity. Finally the all the layers were flattened.

So yes the image is heavily photoshoped, but the bokeh is genuine. It's Nikon 85mm f1.4 bokeh - which the more I look at it, the more I like it.

Tha main difference between the earlier dark images and the later light images is that the earlier ones were shot at night and the later ones were shot in front of a window covered with a sheet of thin linen to diffuse the light.

[rogerzilla]

The product looks stuck on (which it is).

Easy enough to do this as a straight shot.  A black (darkened) background with Christmas tree lights would work well.

[ed_o_brain]

The product looks stuck on (which it is).

"Be gentle on the crit.. this is a proof of concept, not a finished work!"
This isn't the actual product the background is for. I've just splodged something on there to give a client an idea of what's possible.

Easy enough to do this as a straight shot.  A black (darkened) background with Christmas tree lights would work well.

That's what the earlier posts are?? They are too distracting for a product background.


Anyway, this thread was about bokeh...

[David Martin]

For a seasonal view you could try the same OOF shot but with a shaped cutout on the front of the lens to give eg. hearts, christmas trees etc.

[ed_o_brain]

That's a good idea. Thank you.
It's not a seasonal shot. The product is a year-round product called 'JOY'.

This is the seasonal shot:

Aromatherapy oils - product photo by Daniel Cadden Photo, on Flickr

Now I'll not drag the thread any more OT!! Sorry!!

[rogerzilla]

This was the first shot with the Summarit-M 35mm lens.  The bokeh is supposed to be comparable to the pre-ASPH Leica Summicron, known as the "Bokeh King".  TBH, it's not all that special although it's pleasant enough.  Kodak Ektar 100 sucks - not sharp enough and it loses the highlights as badly as a digicam.

[rogerzilla]

Here's the craziest bokeh you can get - a Leitz Summar (1937, 6 elements, uncoated) wide open.  It's like LSD; the background rolls itself up into a big swirl.  Actually, there isn't much sharp in this except the centre of the frame, f/2 being somewhat beyond the capabilities of the glasses available pre-WWII.  It's a very good lens between f/3.6 and f/6.3.



If the last two photos don't convince you that bokeh exists, it's important and it varies from lens to lens...I give up!

[David Martin]

I have to say that the bokeh in the last pic is a particularly horrible example..

Here is one I took at the weekend where selective focus and lighting allows a bit of a story to be told. The bokeh is in the 'what bokeh' category - really getting out the way completely - totally characterless.


Untitled by davidmamartin, on Flickr

[Pingu]

That's a bit freaky - is she gravitational lensing?

[ed_o_brain]

Here's the craziest bokeh you can get - a Leitz Summar (1937, 6 elements, uncoated) wide open.  It's like LSD; the background rolls itself up into a big swirl.  Actually, there isn't much sharp in this except the centre of the frame, f/2 being somewhat beyond the capabilities of the glasses available pre-WWII.  It's a very good lens between f/3.6 and f/6.3.



If the last two photos don't convince you that bokeh exists, it's important and it varies from lens to lens...I give up!

What focal length? Gimme some idea of the physical aperture maan!
I would like try try it on an M9 just to produce a grungy Tone compressed HDR.

[rogerzilla]

50mm at f/2.2 and there are some serious residual aberrations!

[Riggers]

What hit me first, was the dress sense!!


Nice.