I am surprised about how biased this article is in assigning attributes like ‘good’, ‘bad’ or ‘perfect’ to Bokeh shapes.
You can talk about this in these terms solely from an optical engineering pov.
The shape of Bokeh is often why a lens get picked for a shot.
What the author calls ‘bad Bokeh’ other people call ‘soap bubble Bokeh’ (google for it) and they are willing to cash out [2] for owning a lens that can produce this sort of thing.
This is an artistic choice[1].
This article’s generic statement that this sort of Bokeh creates images where the out of focus BG areas distract from the FG/in focus motive shows a narrow understanding of how Bokeh can be used in composing an image.
The "bad" pattern he calls out is not exactly the Trioplan soap-bubble style, it's the thing you get from a mirror telephoto lens.
In Trioplan images[1], the light intensity smoothly increases towards the edge of the disk of confusion, and creates a sharp edge. I agree that this looks kind of nice, although it's a quite specialized effect.
In mirror lens images[2], the "disk" of confusion is actually a ring, with two sharp edges rather than just one. This is not at all pretty, and as far as I know basically nobody buys these lenses for this effect.
This actually matters a lot, because other than this, mirrors are superior to refractive glass lenses in almost every way (note that astronomical telescopes are always mirror-based), so if it was not for the bad bokeh we'd all use them.
One thing I notice is when people get into photography bokeh is one of the first things that they want to emulate (another was HDR).
But once they know the basic rules[1] of photography well enough to break them, they tend to view bokeh as that puppy-love attraction and now they are on to more serious photography. That is to say, bokeh is sometimes used as a crutch before people learn the basic rules and then learn how and when to break them to create a better photograph.
> Two key terms in this definition are SUBJECTIVE and IMAGE. One cannot measure bokeh, as it is something that may be pleasing to one person and not another. I have my opinion of what makes for good bokeh, and, as I own this site, I get to define good and bad Bokeh for the purposes here!
And every time he mentions it he uses those caveats.
> You may have your own idea of what good bokeh is, but this site will be evaluating lenses based on MY opinions. And lets face it, there are actually times when BAD bokeh really works for a shot, but that is usually for people who have a whole lot more artistic talent than I do.
If anyone's interested in the technical details of implementing state of the art real-time bokeh in a game engine, Guillaume Abadie's "Life of a Bokeh" slides from SIGGRAPH 2018 are really good:
As a very nearsighted person, I can see bokeh if I take off my glasses and look at points of light - either nearby small lights, or far-away large lights. Also, when I look at a bright sky through a tree's canopy, the canopy transforms into a breathtaking mosaic of bokeh, which becomes animated if the tree is swaying in the wind. Can people with normal vision experience this?
Anyone can see what it looks like to be (strongly) nearsighted by putting a magnifying lens in front of their eyes.
Anyone nearsighted can estimate the strength of their nearsightedness by looking at an object close enough to be perfectly clear, then increasing the distance until the farthest where it appears clear. Take that distance in meters and invert it. The result is the amount of nearsightedness in diopters. For example : you see clear up to 50 cm away, or 0.5m, you have 2 diopters. You see clear up to 10 cm away, 0.1m you have 10 diopters.
Anyone with normal (or corrected) vision can estimate the strength of a magnifying lens by the same method. Most magnifying glasses are 5 to 20 diopters.
Well, perhaps not strictly anyone can, but you get the idea.
For me, points of light look like the canonical star shapes you see in telescope photos — which I don’t really understand because from what I’ve read, that effect is due to the braces which hold the telescope’s lens in place.
I have good vision, and I can see good bokeh if I focus closer than the objects I see, and bad bokeh if I focus farther than them (which is much easier to do).
And its all done in software (or ML) with recent phones to get around the lack of a good lenses system. And for most people it seems to work satisfactorily.
This has been one of the complaints against camera manufactures recently, that the firmware on the cameras is wildly archaic.
If we're talking about non-point and shoot cameras, such as DSLRs or Mirrorless Cameras that cost $500+ such as my Sony A6000, I absolutely DO NOT want post-processing done on my camera.
Portrait mode on my iPhone 7+ looks okay at a glance, but thinks like hair, wires, and twigs are TERRIBLE on closer inspection.
Not to say the software couldn't be improved. For example, after taking a 20 second exposure, I have to wait another ~15 seconds before I can take another photo. I'd love for that processing time to be cut down.
As a photographer I really don't ever want to use the camera software. Even when it's perfect for my application, I want RAW photographs because you have to fix so many other things before you ever get to special effects.
You need to crop, color correct, distortion correct, noise correct, exposure correct. Only after that would you ever really want to apply some kind of bokeh filter.
The entire reason to use a high end camera is to do it right. Camera software is never going to do it right until they start putting photoshop on cameras.
> And for most people it seems to work satisfactorily
Most people apparently don't look at their pictures.
The "enhanced" photos I've gotten from the Iphone for the last few models have just been getting worse. They look OK if you don't look too closely, but then they're just wrong. Blurry details on the same focal plane as crisp ones, crappy details with translucency, hair or anything else that confuses the "foreground/background" detector, they're just bad.
My DLSR will be in service for quite a while longer.
This is very much a subjective interpretation and I don't mean to be picking at nits, however most smartphones have tremendous lens systems. They just happen to have a short focal length (e.g. 1.54mm, 4.25mm and 6mm on the iPhone 11). Depth of field is primarily a function of focal length, and the smaller the focal length the larger the depth of field. Which is why portrait photographers often use zoom lenses.
In the real world though 99% of the time what people are aiming for is simply sharp photos where the subject is in focus. That small focal length makes that much, much more likely, yielding a dramatically higher percentage of "keeper" photos. Shallow depth of field photos are a gimmick in most cases.
No, it hasn't. This comes up every time someone on HN mentions anything to do with photography - mostly, it seems, from people who don't do a lot of photography or at the very least aren't closely familiar with interchangeable-lens cameras - and it never stops being nonsense.
There are plenty of things that could be improved about DSLR and mirrorless cameras, in the firmware and out of it. The number of those things which are in any way related to, or could be in any way improved by, the idea of jamming a smartphone into an interchangeable-lens camera, is zero.
(In case anyone's inclined to question my own chops: that's fair, considering my line of argument. I don't post much of my work lately, but here's my best shot of 2019, taken from a distance of six inches with a Nikon D500 and a 105mm macro lens: https://aaron-m.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/DSC_9393.jpg - so you can look at that and judge for yourself whether I'm qualified to speak to the question of how familiarity with interchangeable-lens cameras influences the perceived value of junking up their UI with a lot of smartphone garbage.)
Someone should mention the oval shaped, very cinematic, Anamorphic bokeh. Bokeh is not just the shape of blurry small light sources, but also changes the quality of any out of focus region, since the blur is doubled vertically compared to horizontally. A good read on the subject with images https://www.provideocoalition.com/three-lenses-a-look-at-bok...
One of my favorite Bokeh lenses is the Nikon 500mm reflex telephoto lens. The "Mak" style with a rear primary mirror and a front secondary works a lot like common compact telescopes. The Bokeh is tricky to apply, it's a fixed zoom telephoto lens so your subject must be at least 10 meters or so a way and it's hard to handhold, but the "donut" aperture of the lens makes for some very cool (or weird depending on your tastes) effects. The article calls this a "bad" lens but I love the effect.
>as I own this site, I get to define good and bad Bokeh for the purposes here! The other key term is “image.” Bokeh is a property of IMAGES, not a property of LENSES.
Shape is important. I find that some lenses have a different look on-axis versus off-axis, either leading to ugly smearing, or pretty twirly bokeh.
The aesthetic also depends on image. Nice crisp circles of light are sometimes nicer than a Gaussian blur. As someone pointed out, mirror lenses have their uses too.
> I find that some lenses have a different look on-axis versus off-axis, either leading to ugly smearing, or pretty twirly bokeh.
This is indeed pretty interesting. It seems like double-Gauss lens designs like the Zeiss Planar and Biotar are especially prone to this kind of distortion. There's a Russian copy of the 58mm Biotar called the Helios 44 that's popular on eBay for this reason (lots of people use an adapter to put it on a MFT camera and shoot video with it).
Bokeh is subjective. While the rings instead of filled circles resulting from a mirror lens look worse in many cases, I have seen cases where the 'rings' actually add to the image.
[+] [-] virtualritz|6 years ago|reply
The shape of Bokeh is often why a lens get picked for a shot.
What the author calls ‘bad Bokeh’ other people call ‘soap bubble Bokeh’ (google for it) and they are willing to cash out [2] for owning a lens that can produce this sort of thing. This is an artistic choice[1].
This article’s generic statement that this sort of Bokeh creates images where the out of focus BG areas distract from the FG/in focus motive shows a narrow understanding of how Bokeh can be used in composing an image.
[1] https://www.shutterbug.com/content/creating-unique-macro-ima...
[2] Caveat: I bought a Meyer Optik Trioplan 100mm f/2.8 replica on Kickstarter for this very reason: the ‘bad’ soap bubble Bokeh. I love this lens.
[+] [-] capn_cabbage|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vilhelm_s|6 years ago|reply
In Trioplan images[1], the light intensity smoothly increases towards the edge of the disk of confusion, and creates a sharp edge. I agree that this looks kind of nice, although it's a quite specialized effect.
In mirror lens images[2], the "disk" of confusion is actually a ring, with two sharp edges rather than just one. This is not at all pretty, and as far as I know basically nobody buys these lenses for this effect.
This actually matters a lot, because other than this, mirrors are superior to refractive glass lenses in almost every way (note that astronomical telescopes are always mirror-based), so if it was not for the bad bokeh we'd all use them.
[1] https://fujilove.com/the-legend-and-the-bubble-bokeh-review-... [2] https://hoaiphai.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/recumbent-review-t...
[+] [-] mc32|6 years ago|reply
[1]https://www.flickr.com/groups/94761711@N00/discuss/721576221...
[+] [-] scarejunba|6 years ago|reply
And every time he mentions it he uses those caveats.
> You may have your own idea of what good bokeh is, but this site will be evaluating lenses based on MY opinions. And lets face it, there are actually times when BAD bokeh really works for a shot, but that is usually for people who have a whole lot more artistic talent than I do.
[+] [-] fireattack|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amrrs|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tylermw|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonas21|6 years ago|reply
https://epicgames.ent.box.com/s/s86j70iamxvsuu6j35pilypficzn...
Unfortunately, a video of the talk doesn't seem to be available online.
[+] [-] pyridines|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s_gourichon|6 years ago|reply
Anyone nearsighted can estimate the strength of their nearsightedness by looking at an object close enough to be perfectly clear, then increasing the distance until the farthest where it appears clear. Take that distance in meters and invert it. The result is the amount of nearsightedness in diopters. For example : you see clear up to 50 cm away, or 0.5m, you have 2 diopters. You see clear up to 10 cm away, 0.1m you have 10 diopters.
Anyone with normal (or corrected) vision can estimate the strength of a magnifying lens by the same method. Most magnifying glasses are 5 to 20 diopters.
Well, perhaps not strictly anyone can, but you get the idea.
[+] [-] gdubs|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seszett|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomc1985|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saagarjha|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tudelo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StillBored|6 years ago|reply
This has been one of the complaints against camera manufactures recently, that the firmware on the cameras is wildly archaic.
[+] [-] penagwin|6 years ago|reply
Portrait mode on my iPhone 7+ looks okay at a glance, but thinks like hair, wires, and twigs are TERRIBLE on closer inspection.
Not to say the software couldn't be improved. For example, after taking a 20 second exposure, I have to wait another ~15 seconds before I can take another photo. I'd love for that processing time to be cut down.
[+] [-] behringer|6 years ago|reply
You need to crop, color correct, distortion correct, noise correct, exposure correct. Only after that would you ever really want to apply some kind of bokeh filter.
The entire reason to use a high end camera is to do it right. Camera software is never going to do it right until they start putting photoshop on cameras.
[+] [-] bufferoverflow|6 years ago|reply
Plus it can't possibly work correctly with transparent and semi-transparent objects like glass.
[+] [-] __jal|6 years ago|reply
Most people apparently don't look at their pictures.
The "enhanced" photos I've gotten from the Iphone for the last few models have just been getting worse. They look OK if you don't look too closely, but then they're just wrong. Blurry details on the same focal plane as crisp ones, crappy details with translucency, hair or anything else that confuses the "foreground/background" detector, they're just bad.
My DLSR will be in service for quite a while longer.
[+] [-] endorphone|6 years ago|reply
This is very much a subjective interpretation and I don't mean to be picking at nits, however most smartphones have tremendous lens systems. They just happen to have a short focal length (e.g. 1.54mm, 4.25mm and 6mm on the iPhone 11). Depth of field is primarily a function of focal length, and the smaller the focal length the larger the depth of field. Which is why portrait photographers often use zoom lenses.
In the real world though 99% of the time what people are aiming for is simply sharp photos where the subject is in focus. That small focal length makes that much, much more likely, yielding a dramatically higher percentage of "keeper" photos. Shallow depth of field photos are a gimmick in most cases.
[+] [-] throwanem|6 years ago|reply
There are plenty of things that could be improved about DSLR and mirrorless cameras, in the firmware and out of it. The number of those things which are in any way related to, or could be in any way improved by, the idea of jamming a smartphone into an interchangeable-lens camera, is zero.
(In case anyone's inclined to question my own chops: that's fair, considering my line of argument. I don't post much of my work lately, but here's my best shot of 2019, taken from a distance of six inches with a Nikon D500 and a 105mm macro lens: https://aaron-m.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/DSC_9393.jpg - so you can look at that and judge for yourself whether I'm qualified to speak to the question of how familiarity with interchangeable-lens cameras influences the perceived value of junking up their UI with a lot of smartphone garbage.)
[+] [-] volkk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gerbilly|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thyselius|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twic|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michelpp|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiofih|6 years ago|reply
Here are some shots from the Nikkor 500mm:
http://www.indeed.co.jp/blog/scrap2/lens/reflexnikkor_500mm_...
[+] [-] droitbutch|6 years ago|reply
1st paragraph:
>as I own this site, I get to define good and bad Bokeh for the purposes here! The other key term is “image.” Bokeh is a property of IMAGES, not a property of LENSES.
[+] [-] murgindrag|6 years ago|reply
The aesthetic also depends on image. Nice crisp circles of light are sometimes nicer than a Gaussian blur. As someone pointed out, mirror lenses have their uses too.
But there are lenses with just bad bokeh too.
[+] [-] jake-low|6 years ago|reply
This is indeed pretty interesting. It seems like double-Gauss lens designs like the Zeiss Planar and Biotar are especially prone to this kind of distortion. There's a Russian copy of the 58mm Biotar called the Helios 44 that's popular on eBay for this reason (lots of people use an adapter to put it on a MFT camera and shoot video with it).
[+] [-] timw4mail|6 years ago|reply
Bokeh is subjective. While the rings instead of filled circles resulting from a mirror lens look worse in many cases, I have seen cases where the 'rings' actually add to the image.
[+] [-] nimish|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kseo3l|6 years ago|reply