On the subject of Depth of Field/"Bokeh"

[GPS]

It really doesn't seem to matter-
the arguments are yours, the original topic of this thread has been long sidestepped,
and only your own agenda is at work.

Apparently, the original topic was about stopping down, and aperture blades,
and the effect it might have on the rendition of out of focus areas,
insofar as I could decipher it.

Lens design wasn't mentioned in the original proposition.

...

joseph

Joseph, I wholly agree with you, it's annoying if a thread is sidestepped.
Congratulations, You know what the thread is about.
Now what is it you said for the original topic discussed..? Pardon..?

[jb7]

I come here to learn,
and I've learned a lot here-

I agree with Jim when he says that conversations about bokeh are a relatively new phenomenon,
and discussions usually revolve about the quality of out of focus areas experienced by people using miniature formats.

I agree with him when he says that bokeh from larger formats is generally a given-
although I don't have any exotic or antique glass, the quality of bokeh (tautological) from my standard large format lenses is superior.

Bokeh is a word borrowed from the Japanese,
that is not to say that conversations about the same phenomenon haven't been part of photography and optics for centuries now-
as has been demonstrated and referenced on this thread, despite protestations to the contrary.

Bokeh is something I've only recently become acquainted with;
shooting interiors using sharp wide angles,
you tend not to come into contact with it too much.

I'd much prefer, as a photographer, to talk about the qualities of the picture
than become bogged down in a circular argument about antique lens design,
which wasn't part of the premise of the original proposition.

Photographers use lenses, get to know their character, and make lens selections based on the pictorial qualities (among other things) they want to achieve.
I'll hang on any piece of useful information, and become irked by people who seem to pick niggardly contrary arguments seemingly for their own sake,
and without making a positive addition to the conversation.

Photographers generally don't design lenses-

Last year, I did a little test, almost as an afterthought-
so the two pictures don't match particularly well-
the P55 wasn't scanned very well either...

I post it here just to prove my interest in the subject...




The projector lens didn't have a diaphragm,
but the Nikkor ƒ/1.2 was shot wide open too.

My interpretation of 'bokeh', the quality of out of focus areas of an image,
includes rendition of those areas by lenses exhibiting abberations,
including some of the portrait lenses mentioned.

They might not have been designed with 'bokeh' in mind,
but photographers have used them with 'bokeh' in mind.

I really don't see the difficulty with this,
and would really like to get back on track,
and pick up some crumbs from those here who know what they are talking about,
and are willing to add to the conversation-


joseph

[Struan Gray]

...

[GPS]

...
They might not have been designed with 'bokeh' in mind,
but photographers have used them with 'bokeh' in mind.

I really don't see the difficulty with this,
...

joseph

Neither do I Joseph and that was what is so surprisingly contested by some without having a proof of the contrary.
If you have access to the Applied Photography by Ray maybe you can find the explanation of the greater number of aperture leaves in some older lenses, surprised that nobody took that info up. Cheers!

[Ken Lee]

I'll take the blame for any distraction. It was my post which diverted the subject.

Oops ! Sorry !

[Carioca]

I come here to learn,
and I've learned a lot here-

I agree with Jim when he says that conversations about bokeh are a relatively new phenomenon,
and discussions usually revolve about the quality of out of focus areas experienced by people using miniature formats.

I agree with him when he says that bokeh from larger formats is generally a given-
although I don't have any exotic or antique glass, the quality of bokeh (tautological) from my standard large format lenses is superior.

Bokeh is a word borrowed from the Japanese,
that is not to say that conversations about the same phenomenon haven't been part of photography and optics for centuries now-
as has been demonstrated and referenced on this thread, despite protestations to the contrary.

Bokeh is something I've only recently become acquainted with;
shooting interiors using sharp wide angles,
you tend not to come into contact with it too much.

I'd much prefer, as a photographer, to talk about the qualities of the picture
than become bogged down in a circular argument about antique lens design,
which wasn't part of the premise of the original proposition.

Photographers use lenses, get to know their character, and make lens selections based on the pictorial qualities (among other things) they want to achieve.
I'll hang on any piece of useful information, and become irked by people who seem to pick niggardly contrary arguments seemingly for their own sake,
and without making a positive addition to the conversation.

Photographers generally don't design lenses-

Last year, I did a little test, almost as an afterthought-
so the two pictures don't match particularly well-
the P55 wasn't scanned very well either...

I post it here just to prove my interest in the subject...




The projector lens didn't have a diaphragm,
but the Nikkor ƒ/1.2 was shot wide open too.

My interpretation of 'bokeh', the quality of out of focus areas of an image,
includes rendition of those areas by lenses exhibiting abberations,
including some of the portrait lenses mentioned.

They might not have been designed with 'bokeh' in mind,
but photographers have used them with 'bokeh' in mind.

I really don't see the difficulty with this,
and would really like to get back on track,
and pick up some crumbs from those here who know what they are talking about,
and are willing to add to the conversation-


joseph

Excellent 'Intermezzo' of this thread, Joseph, thank you!

Nice to see that members also use their lenses, and not only talk about them.

Sidney

[GPS]

I'll take the blame for any distraction. It was my post which diverted the subject.

Oops ! Sorry !

When it comes to me, you have my absolution. Notice that the OP was content with the heated debate, that says it all.
It is incredible how emotions can take over when someone dares to say - there is no old lens known in the world designed specifically for good bokeh. Wow! On baricades..!

[mrpengun]

When it comes to me, you have my absolution. Notice that the OP was content with the heated debate, that says it all.
It is incredible how emotions can take over when someone dares to say - there is no old lens known in the world designed specifically for good bokeh. Wow! On baricades..!

For a while i was wondering if I was going to have to apologize for starting such a controversial thread :-)

Either way, I think in the days where nearly the entire spectrum of photography is permeated with ultra-flat imagery, issues and thoughts regarding depth of field are worth while, regardless of how they start or where they end up.

[CCHarrison]

"SO someone invented the internal iris aperture."

That would be CC Harrison about 1857...US Patent 21,470. See my article here:

http://www.antiquecameras.net/1857ccharrisonlens.html

Dan

[ric_kb]

HTDHTT.
\This link popped up during my searching the DC lenses from Nikon...
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/im...kkor/n32_e.htm

it mentions their design thinking (brief, non technical) on their Defocus Control...

Richard
silverprankster.com