-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
mnhoj
gee aahrr
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Name
- John
Overrated and abused.
But I can't live without it.
But I can't live without it.
Jim McClain
Veteran
- Location
- Teh REAL Northern California
It helps if you have a clear understanding of the difference between shallow depth of field and bokeh. The videographer doesn't seem to. Bokeh is about the points of light and their spectral representation in the photo. Lots of photos using varying degrees of shallow depth of field in his examples had no or very little actual bokeh. So, I suggest he misunderstands the concept.
- Location
- Helsinki, Finland
This woke my interest and I did quick quantitative analysis of my RAW library. Not qualitative, other than the absolute misses have been deleted from the library already during import 
I would have said as rule of thumb that most of my pictures are with F/2.8 or f/4.0, but the graph shows I was only partially right....
Scientific value of this study is of course zero, because not all lenses in use are capable to 1/3 f-stop scale. But interesting study for me
I would have said as rule of thumb that most of my pictures are with F/2.8 or f/4.0, but the graph shows I was only partially right....
Scientific value of this study is of course zero, because not all lenses in use are capable to 1/3 f-stop scale. But interesting study for me
Cool stuff @Matero 
I personally lament for the fact that my recent body-lens selections have driven me into the fast aperture gang. The current body can't handle ISO3200+ very well whereas my previous bodies did; I like 50mm now whereas previously I stayed in 28-35 mm-e range. With the developed taste for 24x36 full frame image and details, I guess I'm pretty deep (or should I say, shallow) in it then.
DOF-wise I would like to shoot more but often settle for less. I loved Fuji X100T at f/5.6. I do love shooting my Leica 35mm at f/8 but it's not possible in the dark.
Then again, I'm not exactly saying 'no' to a sweet bokehlicious f/1.4 shot, so maybe my taste in the matter just hast "developed".
I personally lament for the fact that my recent body-lens selections have driven me into the fast aperture gang. The current body can't handle ISO3200+ very well whereas my previous bodies did; I like 50mm now whereas previously I stayed in 28-35 mm-e range. With the developed taste for 24x36 full frame image and details, I guess I'm pretty deep (or should I say, shallow) in it then.
DOF-wise I would like to shoot more but often settle for less. I loved Fuji X100T at f/5.6. I do love shooting my Leica 35mm at f/8 but it's not possible in the dark.
Then again, I'm not exactly saying 'no' to a sweet bokehlicious f/1.4 shot, so maybe my taste in the matter just hast "developed".
I would comment about the video and topic the following:
- Bokeh is not overrated in the slightest. Everyone can testify to ugly/nervous bokeh ruining a shot of theirs.
- Overly shallow depth of field is overrated amongst the normies but certainly NOT overrated among the photographers. Exactly how many threads do we have about "there's not enough bokeh!!!"? :roflmao: Everyone is always lamenting this same exact thing...
christilou
Legend
- Location
- Sunny Frimley
I'll add my two pen'orth. If you've paid x amount of £ for a very fast lens then why would you use it any way except wide open? On the other hand, in my experience , shooting wide open is not the be all and end all. Quite often the lighting requires that 1.2 fast lens but what you lose quite often is any context as everything else is just a huge mish mash of ugly blur. However, it really does work in some cases. The trick is to find the most open you can shoot whilst retaining some background detail ..... well anyway
Jim McClain
Veteran
- Location
- Teh REAL Northern California
Interesting study and it got me curious. This graph represents only the use of my Nikon D810 from 2014 to present.Scientific value of this study is of course zero, because not all lenses in use are capable to 1/3 f-stop scale. But interesting study for me
By the time I finished, I realized how little this actually shows. I have only 3 lenses, but all are zooms. I've shot at 20 different ISOs from 64-6400 and at nearly every different time of day or night. I'm primarily a landscape/townscape photographer (I don't live in a city and usually only shoot where I live), but a surprising number of my landscapes were shot at f/2.8 and were still acceptably sharp throughout. I've never used my D810 to capture bokeh, but I do admire good bokeh photos and hope sometime to be able to capture some myself. What I realize after creating this graph is that I have too much time on my hands and no discipline to use it more wisely.
I prob'ly could have used it to try my hand at a bokeh photo - or to eat breakfast so I wouldn't be so darn hungry right now. All of my lenses are f/2.8, which is fast for landscape photography. I didn't buy them to shoot at 2.8 most of the time; I bought them so I could be relatively sure I would be able to capture the photos I wanted at even lower light levels. I bought them because most lenses don't provide the best quality at the largest or smallest apertures. The wider the aperture range, the better your opportunities for acceptable sharpness at 1 or 2 stops from the lens' capability. The reason so few of my landscapes are shot beyond f/11 is because details aren't as sharp (although smaller apertures do offer more opportunities for special effects). Part of what you see in my graph for images shot below f/5.6 are landscape/townscape, but also represent my attempt to stay involved in people photography (that was my focus in the 1980s & 90s). However, most of my portrait shots are at least one stop up from wide open simply because there's better detail in the eyes at 3.2 than 2.8. When I want more background blur, I just use a longer focal length and position my model farther away from other objects in the photo.
Want bokeh in a photo that doesn't have it? PiXimperfect and PHLEARN, 2 of my favorite Photoshop gurus on Youtube, both have recent videos on how to create it.
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Did somebody say F-One-point-Two? Canon 50/1.2 Wide-open, on the M9. This is the first F1.2 lens made for full-frame 35mm cameras, debuted in 1956- this one was made in 1957. Put it on the M9, perfect calibration. This one has perfect glass.
- Location
- Helsinki, Finland
@Jim McClain, your graph is interesting. What sticks to my eye :rolleyes-74: is that there is quite many pictures with f/11. I might be over-cautious of diffraction so I rarely go beyond f/5.6. Sweet spot in terms of diffraction, or avoidance of it, is quite often f/4.0-f/5.6 or f/8.0. Of course there’s lot more to think than just diffraction, but for me it explains the low number of pictures after f/5.6
For those interested, this article explains diffraction quite well (how I remember it from the beginning of my photography experiences)
photographylife.com
For those interested, this article explains diffraction quite well (how I remember it from the beginning of my photography experiences)
What Is Lens Diffraction?
In this article, we will explore the topic of lens diffraction in detail and talk about different techniques you can utilize to avoid it.
photographylife.com
mnhoj
gee aahrr
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Name
- John
I'll add my two pen'orth. If you've paid x amount of £ for a very fast lens then why would you use it any way except wide open? On the other hand, in my experience , shooting wide open is not the be all and end all. Quite often the lighting requires that 1.2 fast lens but what you lose quite often is any context as everything else is just a huge mish mash of ugly blur. However, it really does work in some cases. The trick is to find the most open you can shoot whilst retaining some background detail ..... well anyway
I love your shallow dof portraits.
They have a nice dreamy feel that is your signature.
mnhoj
gee aahrr
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Name
- John
I remember back in 2005 I went from a Canon G5 to a Nikon D50. I had tons of overexposed photos at F1.8 and 1/4000. I figured I wanted to utilize what the G5 did not provide. Silly me.
It did blur out the busy back grounds of all my kids shots. Not much time or effort to coax the kids out of the way of clutter(or clean it) back then.
That's what the study could have shown. The "context" of trash bins or a floor full of toys might not have scored as high.
It did blur out the busy back grounds of all my kids shots. Not much time or effort to coax the kids out of the way of clutter(or clean it) back then.
That's what the study could have shown. The "context" of trash bins or a floor full of toys might not have scored as high.
What I love about Leica Q is how it doesn't totally go bad at f/16, it gets a dreamlike "coating".
The diffraction limits are all sensor-size-related. M4/3 users might get wary after f/4, APSC shooters after f/5.6 and 35mm shooters after f/8. But how the lens renders has an effect on the perceived diffraction too.
My highschool physicist would say that 8-12-megapixel M43 cameras handle higher diffraction limits than 32-megapixel APSC cameras easily.
Jonathan F/2
All-Pro
- Location
- Los Angeles, USA
- Name
- Jonathan
Based on FF DSLR equipment, I buy my lenses based on usage. For example, I'll buy 2.8 zooms because I know I'll be shooting in low light conditions where I can't control my position in relation to the subject (ex: stage performances, sideline sports). I'll buy 1.4 primes when I need absolute image quality, with mobility of movement and the ability to isolate the subject, but with a physical weight/size penalty (ex: serious portraiture). I'll buy 1.8 primes because I want a smaller physical sized lens, while still having low light and subject isolation capabilities (ex: travel, street). I'll buy f/4 zooms and/or primes because I don't need the low light abilities of 2.8 for a particular focal range and/or I have fast primes to cover the gaps, but still need the ability to zoom on subjects or the reach of a telephoto prime, but in a smaller f/4 package (indoor flash/strobe photography, daytime sports).
I know M-mount glass throws the equation out the door, since most are primes and the 1.2 and 1.4 lenses are still quite small and the 2.5-2.8 lenses are usually pancakes! Though I still think knowing how to utilize aperture for a given subject matter still applies! DOF control is merely the end result of the subject at hand, not something that's used on a whim for any occasion.
Actual discussion of bokeh is a whole different topic though!
I know M-mount glass throws the equation out the door, since most are primes and the 1.2 and 1.4 lenses are still quite small and the 2.5-2.8 lenses are usually pancakes! Though I still think knowing how to utilize aperture for a given subject matter still applies! DOF control is merely the end result of the subject at hand, not something that's used on a whim for any occasion.
Actual discussion of bokeh is a whole different topic though!
Last edited:
If you think about it, I think at least, bokeh is actually EVERYTHING the lens does. The focal plane is infinitesimal and what you regard being "in focus" is solely dependent on your viewing distance, CoC and other factors.
What's sharp is sharp, there's no subjective qualities to a sharp lump of pixels. But the unsharpness, the bokeh, starts immediately. Even things that appear critically sharp enough viewed afar or at intended settings have bokeh all to it, and that contributes to the lens' character.
What's sharp is sharp, there's no subjective qualities to a sharp lump of pixels. But the unsharpness, the bokeh, starts immediately. Even things that appear critically sharp enough viewed afar or at intended settings have bokeh all to it, and that contributes to the lens' character.
- Location
- Boston Burbs
- Name
- David
A couple of reasons I can think of:
- They're often just plainly better lenses.
- Fast glass allows more light in the image circle so AF and metering systems work faster.
- In this age of EVFs and LCDs it allows for a greater range of exposure simulation.*
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
I come from a videography background, way back when video cameras were marginally adequate and the sensors were tiny. When I discovered that the digital cameras and their sensors were larger and depth of field was shallower, it was amazing. And so I went nuts on the shallow depth of field that was previously unattainable on the video cameras of the day, including the Sony PD-150.
Fast forward years later, I'm still going nuts on the shallow depth of field but there have been occasions in recent years when I've gained self-awareness that a small number of my photos are overdone in terms of the DoF. So I started stopping down on my photography.
However, I take the occasional paid gig in wedding photography, experimented with deep DoF, and came to the conclusion that in the majority of cases, deep DoF doesn't work. It'll work only in certain circumstances when it calls for it but in most cases shallow DoF is the thing that works.
Fast forward years later, I'm still going nuts on the shallow depth of field but there have been occasions in recent years when I've gained self-awareness that a small number of my photos are overdone in terms of the DoF. So I started stopping down on my photography.
However, I take the occasional paid gig in wedding photography, experimented with deep DoF, and came to the conclusion that in the majority of cases, deep DoF doesn't work. It'll work only in certain circumstances when it calls for it but in most cases shallow DoF is the thing that works.
Similar threads
N/A