"Bokeh", Who cares?

[sk66]

WTH? I'd never even heard the term until switching to digital several years ago. (I've been into photography since the 70's!) But now you hear about it all the time....

When did the out of focus part of a photo become more important than the subject? And the "quality" of the out of focus part???? Really?

I see so many people buying/recommending large aperture lenses and running around shooting wide open "for the bokeh".... It's even being promoted as a good reason to buy a FF body!

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for getting the DOF right in order to provide separation and focus attention where you want it.....that's "proper" use of DOF.

But shooting at f/1.whatever or buying a FF body for bokeh? WTH?? There are other things way more important to be concerned with....like maybe the subject/composition/lighting etc etc etc.

Sorry, I just had to....

[Jonbar18]

anit-bokeh, who cares? What exactly do you have against people liking a shallow DOF?

[Bruce A]

Steve, let those feelings out. You seem to have this hang up about bokeh. If it's not important to you then why worry. It's obviously of some importance to others as it is a trait that applies to their taste. Some people like ice-cream with their apple pie and custard others don't, but it doesn't change the apple pie. Bokeh from various lenses, number of aperture blades and shapes of aperture blades make differences that either appeal or don't appeal to some photographers. If you don't like the soft creamy bokeh and prefer the more harsh detailed type or the bokeh that gives a certain number of points to out of focus lights or reflections well that's you. I don't have experience with FF bodies (yet) but bokeh is just as available in CS cameras and more to do with the lens I would have thought. But why does this bother you so much?

[Rentham]

[RichardTaylor]

Do I like lumpy food (hexagons?) or do I like smooth & creamy?
I will take smooth and creamy any any day..... but I don't go chasing it.

[metallion58]

One thread wasn't enough?

[sk66]

Shallow DOF is not "bokeh". They are different things. I think people confuse the terms and that adds to the problems.
Shallow DOF can be achieved with any DSLR (crop or FF) and any lens. It's achieved by subject distance and lens selection for FOV. Almost all of my lenses are f/2.8's and none are f/1.somethings....I have no problem achieving shallow DOF.

I don't know of any pro photographers (or highly advanced for that matter) that makes their first selection criteria for lens/body the bokeh. There's probably some that do, but they probably shouldn't.

If you have money to spend and you care about bokeh; fine. It does have it's place. But it really should be about the last thing you really care about.

I guess my problem comes from so much emphasis being placed on "bokeh" and shallow DOF. People listen to us on these forums/web and if everyone is saying how fantastic f/1.4 is for getting great Bokeh or how much better a FF body is for getting bokeh etc etc people go out and buy the stuff thinking it's important.

Then you have everyone running around taking all of their pictures wide open with that fabulous "nifty fifty" they just bought (or worse) and this leads to more problems and frustration and possibly expense.

If it's just a hundred bucks for a nifty fifty and you learn a lot from it...great. Not so much if someone were to drop $1-2k for an 85mm f/1.4. I can't even imagine switching to FF and upgrading a kit of lenses for bokeh (or shallow DOF).

There was once a thread about "I hate my nifty fifty" and the OP was surprised to hear so many (experienced) photographers agree...It is apparently a "dirty secret", why is that?

All of these things and gear have their places, but if not kept in perspective leads to a lot of expense/frustration for little benefit. I would say switching to FF and upgrading a kit of lenses or buying that $2k 85mm f/1.4 is a "smart expense" for maybe 5% of people. Whether it is a "justifiable expense" is only up to you. To make such decisions appropriately one needs to understand what you are getting and put those things into proper perspective.

I don't think we are really helping a lot of people with all of the "hype".
I think I'll start another thread about switching to FF and see who thinks it was a "smart move"....I don't expect to get a lot of "honest answers" though.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by metallion58

One thread wasn't enough?

Probably should have been...but I wanted more to see this.

[OsmosisStudios]

I'm with you, Sk66. I can appreciate a good, smooth, creamy out-of-focus area, but It's not a necessity, and not something I go looking for in a lens. I also dont shoot at f/1.XX: f/2.8 is good enough for what I need most time (yes, even on 40-50mm). Besides, focal length does the job just as well.

[Rentham]

Maybe I've missed all the threads where people advocated going FF just for bokeh. I have seen people indicate sensor size as a factor in depth of field. That is absolutely true and valid observation.

Why does it bother you if people care about the quality of the bokeh? If someone has a style that leans heavily on shallow DOF, why not use a lens that renders the bokeh well? I'd contend that someone like Lisa H, who uses shallow DOF masterfully, is better served with a lens that does not render a jagged and harsh OOF area.