Bokeh, Bokeh, Bokeh....?

[Kevin Crisp]

Don't take this question the wrong way; I am not trying to make a point by just asking it. (I am not trying to make a point at all, this is a question.) This truly is something I am curious about. Here goes: It seems to me that during the time I have used this forum and its predecessor that the subject of "bokeh" has gone from an occasionally (rarely) mentioned comment/subject to something of extraordinary interest and importance to many people. The first time I saw the word I had no idea what people were discussing. I've been seriously interested in photography and darkroom work since about 1970 and the only time I had ever heard the subject mentioned before this forum (and it wasn't by that name) was when someone told me he thought his Leica rendered out of focus parts of the negative in a pleasant way.

It seems like the frequency of its current discussion puts it up there in interest with the availability of sheet film. I'm not saying Bokeh particulars are unimportant or non existent, so those of you who were already mentally forming your responses can take a deep breath. What I am wondering is whether this subject (under this name or another) was something of such apparent interest, say, ten years ago. I honestly don't know the answer. If it wasn't, then why has it become so important to so many people now?

[Greg Lockrey]

I'm hearing ya. My history with photography is as long as yours and the first time I heard of it and it's apparent importance is at the Leica Forum on Pnet. I'm from the school of "getting as much depth of field and sharpness as possible".:confused: We called it "the Leica glow" in the olden days.

[Oren Grad]

It's easier to discuss something when you can attach a concise, easy to remember name to it. Funny that you should ask just now; the suite of feature articles in Photo Techniques magazine that introduced the term into common usage in the West ran in the May/June 1997 issue, exactly ten years ago.

As to whether it's very important to more people outside of Japan now - very important being defined by changes in how people spend their money - as opposed to just being discussed more widely, I don't know.

The classic lens experts here will remind us that the concept was appreciated and discussed in the large format world many decades ago, though the Japanese term was not used. Perhaps an equally interesting question is why the concept retreated from the spotlight for such a long while.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Two helpful links:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-04-04.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

The term bokeh, I suspect, has come to have a number of different meanings, quite different from how they were orginally introduced to the English speaking world by our own Oren Grad, Mike Johnston, and others. In particular I notice that "bokeh" is now often identified with lens abberations (eg: the "swirly" bokeh seen in the corners of some Petzval lenses), and eBay sellers now tout this poor bokeh as a major selling point. Has the notion of a neutral bokeh been lost?

In any case, alongside Oren's reminder that these concepts were "appreciated and discussed in the large format world many decades ago", I think that we can also link recent concern with bokeh to a questioning of the f64 aesthetic, and an increasing interest in pictorialism. I have witnessed some of these changes in this very forum over the past six and a half years.

[Eric James]

It's easier to discuss something when you can attach a concise...

Well said Oren! I used this same point to explain the concept of bokeh to someone just yesterday. To offer an analogy: There is a technique used in rockclimbing called "dead pointing"; dead pointing involves launching for a hold in such a way that you arrive at the hold with minimal kinetic energy (you're more likely to fight gravity this way). Before I knew the term I had learned to use the technique, but once I had a name for it I employed it regularly, and my climbing improved. The same is true for the concept of bokeh in my photography. I learned of it in 1997 or so in photo.net discussions - back when my only lens was a 50mm 1.4 for 35mm.

As Oren points out, if you have a concise term to wrap around a concept, your awareness of the concept is enhanced. It's not the importance or validity of the concept that grows, it our awareness.

Most viewers focus in on that which is sharply focused; in landscape work this may include everything - it's often our goal anyway. Portraiture and still life often lends itself to selective focus - leaving upwards of 90% of the image in the out-of-focus realm. If you care about your entire image, then you'll learn to care about bokeh.

These threads and the attached photos from forum participants have really inspired me:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=22286&highlight=wide

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=25403

And the work and websites of our resident bokeh masters, Ken, Jack, and Jim, have inspired me as well.

[Brian C. Miller]

It really depends on what you want from a lens. I just bought a Versar from one of the forum members specifically for its boke effects when opened wide. The photograph has to be properly composed for the boke to be a positive component.

Many times the boke of the photograph (not the lens) detracts from the overall image. I have a couple like that, and I've seen others. A big out-of-focus bright spot draws the eye from the subject.


Hmmm, a search on the Japanese-English dictionaries is interesting. The last time I did searches on boke, I came up with "missing the mark." This time I came up with "まとはずれ" for missing the mark (http://www.saiga-jp.com/cgi-bin/dic.cgi?m=search&sc=0&f=0&j=%E3%81%BE%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AF%E3%81%9A%E3%82%8C&g=&e=&s=&rt=0&start=1&sid=1178256162_6163), which appears to be pronounced mato-teki. (A related word seems to be "irrelevant" 的外れ, mato-hazure). Boke (http://jisho.org/words?jap=boke&eng=&dict=edict) gives, at best, "to fade" (惚ける), and at worst, "to bring calamity upon oneself" (墓穴を掘る).

[Oren Grad]

Brian, Japanese is a really fun language to study - there are enough homophones to keep one's head spinning, bring calamity upon oneself, induce senility, etc. ;)

My copy of the fourth (1991) edition of the Koojien, a comprehensive Japanese-Japanese dictionary, explicitly lists unsharpness of focus as one of the meanings of bokeru (惚ける), in addition to fading color and fading mental acuity.

The other items you picked up are not relevant.

[Jim Galli]

A subject I'm guilty of stirring up a little dust on myself. I haven't taken a quantitative scientific approach at all. But I have given the phenomenon more than a little thought.

Here is one angle fwiw. I think we're seeing a very similar reaction to a very similar occurance with almost exactly 100 years span in between. Stieglitz and the Photo Secession were reacting to a dual phenomenon. The anastigmat lens, and the hand held roll film camera. Suddenly the mindless masses were making millions of mindless sharp snapshots with their Kodaks and Senecas and the snooty as ever art community moved dead opposite with their pictorialist lenses. They were seperate from the riff raff.

I think we're seeing something very similar. How many oversharpened Canon 5D scenics with dripping colors can a person take before they go looking for something slightly more ecclectic.

That only partly explains the phenomena. The other argument is that the pictures when done well can be truely beautiful. The ones that Jack Flesher posted (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=238841&postcount=72) of the Orchids done with color IR and a PS 945 just knocked my socks off. They are the most gorgeous pictures I've seen in many a day. Certainly removed and indeed in a whole other class from the usual rock and knot hole pictures we LF types subscribe to.

[Ole Tjugen]

If we define "good bokeh" as "a pleasing transition between the sharp and the unsharp parts of a picture", then that was a major selling point for Voigtländer's Heliar in the 1930's.

It seems to me that the concept has been known for a long time, it just hasn't been summed up in one word until recently.

I have an original advertisment (in German) somewhere here, what I wrote is a translation from memory.

[Oren Grad]

For another interesting historical reference, see this page from the 1912-13 Wollensak catalog (http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensakcate/p12.html), in which the Verito is described as showing "no distortion, double lines or other optical imperfections". "Double lines", of course, is what the Japanese call "ni-sen bokeh" (literally, "two-line bokeh").

Again, an interesting question is what changed so that in 1912-13 Wollensak would consider that to be an effective selling point, but later on considered it not worth mentioning.

[Uli Mayer]

Whatever the concept of "bokeh", and by whichever factors(s) it's produced, these disputes IMO will perpetuate without tangible results as long as there are no generally accepted test methods to verify 'pleasing transition' between in and out of focus image parts, 'three-dimensionality', etc. - or the lack thereof.
Paul Rudolph, who among other lenses invented the Plasmat (also renowned for smooth transition and 'Tiefenorientierung') on several occasions complained that lenses are almost solely tested vis-à-vis flat test charts that will never show how a lens will represent spacial objects - "things" - that are the main field of photography. According to him ihe had already started work to fill this gap when poor health forced him to leave Zeiss in 1909.

Strong opposition against his claim that the Plasmat's 'Tiefenorientierung' (aka 'Bokey') was indebted to a significant reduction of sphero-chromatism with this design, led Rudolph then to present a new testing device which was to relieve opticians from interpolating the lens' spacial representation on the sole basis of flat test chart results.

This device was quite simple: a square grid of wooden slats ( 1.25 x 1.25m) with 25 test objects where the slats crossed. In a way the whole thing resembled a partial model of a rising grand stand in a stadium where seats had been replaced by poles carrying stepped flags with test figures clued onto them. Rudolph's article in "Photographische Industrie" 1924, p.795f includes 2 photos.

Wouldn't it be worthwhile to build such a test object and to try it out? - It may well get disputes on 'bokey" a couple of steps forward.

Cheers ( and my apologies for the post's length)
Uli

[Shen45]

Excellent information Uli. Do you have any photographs representing his test methods?

Steve

[Uli Mayer]

Thanks, Steve.
I have a copy of this article. But the two illustrations would need quite a bit of 'photoshopping' before being of much use if thumbnailed here. If you want to use your skills with that ( I have none ) I could scan and mail the two page to you.
Uli

[Ken Lee]

why has it become so important to so many people now?

Blame it on Jim Galli - and the space aliens that supply him with lenses...

... and the thread called Wide F***ing Open! (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=22286)

[Walter Calahan]

I find the whole subject strange since so many postings are about whether one lens is sharper than another, and then in the next breath, 'bokeh' comes up.

For me, sharpness and 'bokeh' are just the grammar and word order of a sentence. In the end is the sentence worth reading, just as whether a photograph is worth looking at.

Image content, and its ability to reach the view's heart, is what really matters. If the viewer is more concerned about whether an image has good 'bokeh' or is sharp, then the content of the image is too weak to render these two subjective technical details invisible.

[Ken Lee]

"Image content, and its ability to reach the view's heart, is what really matters. If the viewer is more concerned about whether an image has good 'bokeh' or is sharp, then the content of the image is too weak to render these two subjective technical details invisible."

An excellent point.

On the other hand, while talented violinists can make music from almost any violin, they will try out many different instruments before they find the violin with "just the right sound" they are seeking - and often, they don't know what the right sound is, until they hear it.

[wfwhitaker]

My own "bokeh awareness" has come about simply as a result of gaining more experience with an ever-increasing variety of lenses. And even though I'm drawn to older lenses with various qualities, both in and out of focus, the subject of bokeh ironically did not become an issue until I began using a lens with a reputation for being very, very sharp. One image made with that lens had an out-of-focus background which struck me as the visual equivalent to fingernails on a chalkboard. It was the linear objects in the background which were the most offensive and left me feeling like I was cross-eyed. An internet search later and I discovered that this was the "nisen-bokeh" (which Oren referenced earlier). I was seeing double (literally!) lines in the background. While it might not have bothered another viewer, I couldn't stand it. I ended up selling that lens.

The reference which I found helpful is here: http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html . It's very well written and illustrated and does a good job of taking some of the mystery out of the bokeh business. His optics page (http://www.vanwalree.com/optics.html) is a very good read, too.

[Bruce Watson]

...while talented violinists can make music from almost any violin, they will try out many different instruments before they find the violin with "just the right sound" they are seeking - and often, they don't know what the right sound is, until they hear it.

And what they hear is different than what we hear. A large part of the sound they hear is transmitted directly through their bones. Literally, the violin resonates with them. This is why they can't pick a violin by hearing someone else play it. They have to play it themselves to get a literal feel for it.

Very interesting stuff, the interaction between musician and instrument.

[Paul Metcalf]

Wouldn't it be worthwhile to build such a test object and to try it out? - It may well get disputes on 'bokey" a couple of steps forward.
Uli

I seriously doubt it would advance the disputes (torwards any resolution). The prinicipal reason I believe Bokeh is "in" is because it provides an opportunity to be different from other interpretations of the same subject. Same phenomenon with the re-advent in alternative processes - they by their nature produce varying effects (even when following the same process). It's a reaction (as mentioned earlier) to the onslaught of so much in photography being the same nowadays.

I like Wollensaks' description of the Verito: "as the eyes see." And as similiarly stated about musicians, we all "see" differently. And different is in.

[Shen45]

I like Wollensaks' description of the Verito: "as the eyes see." And as similiarly stated about musicians, we all "see" differently. And different is in.

I have to agree with the above statement :)

As I'm getting more youth challenged I find my verito matches my unaided view of the world very well.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi all,

Uli:"Wouldn't it be worthwhile to build such a test object and to try it out? - It may well get disputes on 'bokey" a couple of steps forward."

Paul:"I seriously doubt it would advance the disputes (torwards any resolution)."

I think it would be great to have a 'standard' test pattern to check for different bokeh because they each have a different look to them by f/stop BUT I also think it would just be used to drive prices even farther up the scale :eek:, than again it could boost some unknowns and deflate some legends.:D

Could be fun, who wants to play?

[Paul Metcalf]

"because they each have a different look to them by f/stop".

Exactly.

Ok, let's start with defining the measure of performance. One MOP used in measuring lens performance is number of resolved lines or line pairs. But we're talking non-resolution here. So, is that one minus resolved pairs (1-n)? And what's the threshold for poor, average, good, or exceptional "non-resolvable" performance? Now my interest is truely keyed.

[Mark Sawyer]

"because they each have a different look to them by f/stop".

Exactly.

Ok, let's start with defining the measure of performance. One MOP used in measuring lens performance is number of resolved lines or line pairs. But we're talking non-resolution here. So, is that one minus resolved pairs (1-n)? And what's the threshold for poor, average, good, or exceptional "non-resolvable" performance? Now my interest is truely keyed.

The problem is, "bokeh" has so many manifestations. To you, it's how a lens renders out-of-focus areas, to me, it's how spherical aberration throws a halo around the highlights, to a Leica user, it's how coma throws fountains of light out of a point source, to someone else, it's the swirly edges of an over-extended Petzval...

Bokeh is a catch-all for so many completely-different-yet-oh-so-slightly-related things...

[Jim Galli]

Seems we're always trying to quantify the unquantifiable. Me, I'll amble along my merry path and just make pictures. Perhaps eventually the roads will converge, but I'll have the pleasure of the photographs I've made along the way.

I've just had a minor brainstorm....

New thread ahead. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=25483)

[Jan Pedersen]

I Like what Mark is saying, there are so many variations of bokeh but they are all just a tool that we can use in our desire to express our feelings about the subject we choose to photograph. It is however far more interesting than discussing how a Rodenstock Xyz compares to a Schneider Zyx which both are optimized by the same standards using the same tools and making the same exact photos at f64 the f stop most use to make sure everything is in focus and in the end makes photos a little bit boring.
Much can be said about bokeh but it is not boring. Thank you Jim.


jan

[Eric James]

Isn't bokeh defined as the quality of the out-of-focus area(s) of an image?

A given lens may take photos with nice bokeh, but the bokeh is in the image. (Okay, I suppose saying a lens has nice bokeh is no different than saying a lens is sharp.)

So many want to define the source of good bokeh - "it's the aperture blades"; "it's their roundness"; "it's the lens design"; "it's the glass" - but many of the determinants of pleasing bokeh have nothing at all to do with the lens! The light matters; the subject photographed matters; the distance between the in-focus and out-of-focus area(s) matters; the lens to subject distance matters.

Bokeh is in the image!

[Brian C. Miller]

Could be fun, who wants to play?

Put your right lens in
Put your right lens out
Put your right lens in and iris it all about
We're doing the hokey-bokey
And that's what its all about!

I think that an electric substation would be a good test subject. Lots of lines and such. Just don't get inside that fence!

[CP Goerz]

Bokeh is actually Japanese for bull$hit.

[Uli Mayer]

Ok, let's start with defining the measure of performance.

For this, one needs a device to record 'spatial" performance on a sound basis; the purpose of Rudolph's 'device'. IMO first comes a hypothesis about relevant parameters (however preliminary those may be), then aggreement on testing methods, and only after then the comparison and interpretation of data. Unless one tries measuring "bokeh" by using quantitative terms statements about 'three-dimensionality', 'pleasing transition' etc. will remain purely subjective. Which is okay with me.

[Eric James]

Uli, Was the intent of this device to quantify bokeh, or did it merely provide a way to demonstrate in a controlled manner a lens's ability to render OOF objects. I would quickly lose interest in defining and measuring the parameters of bokeh with the intent of putting a number to it; for me bokeh is in the realm of art, not science.

Jim Galli has started a useful trend by posting a thread dedicated to the OOF rendition of a particular lens ("Petzval Picture Post Thread"):

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=25483




Bokeh is actually Japanese for bull$hit.

I'm surprised that some seem to take offense or are somehow bothered by the discussion of bokeh.

[Ken Lee]

I think that CP Goerz is merely pointing out, with a clever turn of phrase, that the popular discussion of bokeh drives up the price of certain lenses, generates sales of photo equipment, and provides grist for the mill of publishing.

As long as bokeh remains an elusive quality, it will be good for business. The cosmetics industry knows all about magic and mystery - they are classic elements of beauty.

To the degree that LF photographers move in the pursuit of beauty, we will always encounter people experimenting with one approach or another, just as one might try out a new style of dress or hair.

It goes with the territory.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Bokeh is actually Japanese for bull$hit.

I also heard that Karaoke is Japanese for "tone deaf."

I cannot prove that either of the above statements are true, but I like to think they are.
:)

[Uli Mayer]

Was the intent of this device to quantify bokeh, or did it merely provide a way to demonstrate in a controlled manner a lens's ability to render OOF objects

Eric, this is a tricky question. But I think it's about the second part of the sentence, with "merely" being deleted. At first one should get sets of data about lens performance for objects that are placed on different planes. Fixing tags like "bokeh" to a particular lens behavior, then can be left at discretion for later discussions.

As far as I understand it, this test object by Rudolph provides a way to measure resolution, contrast, distortion ( and probably some other parameters, too) on five planes, not just for one. If - rather simplified - a "9" means maximum, and a "1" the minimum for any or each parameter, and if the lens is focused on the middle plane, one might get different patterns that could be used for characterizing and comparing lenses in a new, but objective way. A lens that - on resolution and distortion - shows steep slopes like this 12921 may be best for process photography, whereas more even courses that do not hit the "9" and look more like 56765 might indicate a lens better suited for pictorial photography in its broadest sense. By taking together all parameters (and perhaps adding some new ones as well) one hopefully should be able to say: According to this or that data set and combination of parameters "lens X" shows high "three-dimensionality", "lens Y" has acceptable "bokeh", and "lens Z" should better be left for mapping.

[wfwhitaker]

...What I am wondering is whether this subject (under this name or another) was something of such apparent interest, say, ten years ago. I honestly don't know the answer. If it wasn't, then why has it become so important to so many people now?

The original question sometimes gets lost.

[RDKirk]

Well, when mirror lenses enjoyed their period of popularity for still photography, we got a taste of "really bad bokeh" and eventually rejected it rather than become accustomed to it.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Kevin Crisp
...What I am wondering is whether this subject (under this name or another) was something of such apparent interest, say, ten years ago. I honestly don't know the answer. If it wasn't, then why has it become so important to so many people now?

It was rather important a century ago when most of these lenses were designed to have different signature 'bokeh', portrait studios were the mainstay of commercial photography, the lens makes the picture.

10 years ago, without the influence of ebay and the internet, it was very interesting but rarely mentioned in magazines. 'Buy-and-try' gets to be very expensive very quickly, most of the best are unknown and most of the legends fall short of expectation, hunting for 'magic bullets'.

Posting photos with enough tech info can only be a good thing so people can see the results. This is Verito, that is Heliar, this is Dogmar, that is Petzval, this is Tessar, that is Pinkham-Smith, ect... Most of this knowledge has been lost or hidden away as trade secrets. Check the prices for these 'soft-focus' portrait lenses from 10-15 years ago, they have NOT gone up though apparent interest has. They have always been special lenses which is why you can still find 100 year old lenses in perfect shape.

Just a thought.

[Gene McCluney]

It was rather important a century ago when most of these lenses were designed to have different signature 'bokeh', portrait studios were the mainstay of commercial photography, the lens makes the picture.




A century ago "most" lenses were used with smaller plates, just using their central "sweet spot". Just look at all the century old photos on sale at flea markets and antique shops. You can't judge reportage photos such as the work of the Brady studio, or Timothy O'Sullivan in the same criteria as they were often tasked with getting photos outside the parameters of what their lenses normally would be used for.

But, in general, commercial studio use of photographic lenses in the 19th century was such that the outer edges of the lens circle of illumination was either 1. not used, or 2. hidden behind a die-cut mat.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Gene,

"But, in general, commercial studio use of photographic lenses in the 19th century was such that the outer edges of the lens circle of illumination was either 1. not used, or 2. hidden behind a die-cut mat."

Exactly! The Tessar, Heliar, Dogmar, Verito, Unar, ect.. were all designed in the 20th century to overcome the limits of Petzval and RR/Aplant lenses. They each have a differents 'look' to them. Back then this was a high tech, major money market and the companies could spend as much on R&D as they liked, excepting a return and BRAGGING RIGHTS.

Why did Cooke buy-up P&S lenses? Did they think there was a market for them?

[Gene McCluney]

Gene,

"But, in general, commercial studio use of photographic lenses in the 19th century was such that the outer edges of the lens circle of illumination was either 1. not used, or 2. hidden behind a die-cut mat."

Exactly! The Tessar, Heliar, Dogmar, Verito, Unar, ect.. were all designed in the 20th century to overcome the limits of Petzval and RR/Aplant lenses. They each have a differents 'look' to them. Back then this was a high tech, major money market and the companies could spend as much on R&D as they liked, excepting a return and BRAGGING RIGHTS.

Why did Cooke buy-up P&S lenses? Did they think there was a market for them?

The modern use of 19th century and early 20th century lenses still uses more of the image circle than was considered prudent when the lenses were new. This gives more "under-correction" of the edges of the image than would have been considered acceptable to photographers "way-back-when".

[Gene McCluney]

The "patent" portrait lens industry of the early 20th century (Verito, Dogmar, etc.) as I see it, attempted to give a look-across the entire image area-a soft pleasing plastic quality flattering to the human face, and of course it worked, these lenses were successful in that field. But....what some people are characterizing as Bokeh is in actuality undercorrection outside the boundaries of definition where the early lenses would have been used. So you have the overall look of a certain lens, then you have the "edges" which originally would not have been used, but are being used today within the frame of the final image.

[Ole Tjugen]

They weren't always so careful with the coverage...
http://www.ub.uib.no/knudsenbilder/sok/vis_stort_bilde.asp?ID=32856

Knut Knudsen, before 1869.

[Gene McCluney]

They weren't always so careful with the coverage...
http://www.ub.uib.no/knudsenbilder/sok/vis_stort_bilde.asp?ID=32856

Knut Knudsen, before 1869.

Yes, this illustrates my point. The photographer needed to get a shot outside the range for which his lens was designed for. He probably intended to put an overmat on it, though. Early photographers did not have (nor could they afford) a wide variety of lenses, rather "making do" with what they had, even if the situation really called for another lens.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi
On my Flickr account you can see different lenses and how they get the OOF handling and the 3 D look etc.
I will ad more and more lenes to the list!
http://www.flickr.com

and lock for lakewooder.john

Hope it helps, Armin

[Remigius]

Armin, why don't you send a more precise link?

[Larry Kalajainen]

Don't take this question the wrong way; I am not trying to make a point by just asking it. (I am not trying to make a point at all, this is a question.) This truly is something I am curious about. Here goes: It seems to me that during the time I have used this forum and its predecessor that the subject of "bokeh" has gone from an occasionally (rarely) mentioned comment/subject to something of extraordinary interest and importance to many people. The first time I saw the word I had no idea what people were discussing. I've been seriously interested in photography and darkroom work since about 1970 and the only time I had ever heard the subject mentioned before this forum (and it wasn't by that name) was when someone told me he thought his Leica rendered out of focus parts of the negative in a pleasant way.

It seems like the frequency of its current discussion puts it up there in interest with the availability of sheet film. I'm not saying Bokeh particulars are unimportant or non existent, so those of you who were already mentally forming your responses can take a deep breath. What I am wondering is whether this subject (under this name or another) was something of such apparent interest, say, ten years ago. I honestly don't know the answer. If it wasn't, then why has it become so important to so many people now?

I've learned a lot from this discussion. Mostly what I've learned is that there was something "different" about those Leica lenses I used to shoot with 25-30 years ago in my 35mm days. Call it a "Leica glow" or whatever, there was a subjectively perceivable difference between portraits I shot with my 90mm Summicron and the 105 Nikkor or the 85mm Zuiko from my SLR's. Not objectively better, certainly not in resolution, but subjectively with a certain "something." If that's what bokeh is all about, then OK.

But, it's been a long time since I shot with those Leicas. When I'm shooting my Mamiya 7 or 4X5 Wista with Scheiders or Fujinons, I really don't pay too much attention to the "out of focus" parts of my neg, since I'm usually shooting at smaller apertures in order to get as much within the plane of focus as possible. And given my limited budget for gear, I would probably never purchase a lens based on its "bokeh." I'd look for the best deal I could get on a lens in the desired focal length that was in the best condition I could find or afford. Whether it is a Schneider or a Fujinon or a Rodenstock would be an important, but secondary consideration. But budgetary considerations might well trump other considerations in lenses of approximately equal quality (resolution).

I don't think I've ever looked at a finished print (mine or someone else's) and said, "What crappy bokeh!" Photographers, like oenophiles and other affcionados, like to have something to talk about. "A great little wine--lots of mushrooms and gravel, with a hint of thyme in the finish," yada, yada, yada. Whatever makes you happy.

Larry

[Ken Lee]

I can't find them on Flickr, even using the search criteria.

[Ole Tjugen]

I can't find them on Flickr, even using the search criteria.
Try a "People search". It's under "Contacts".

[Mike Boden]

I shot this on Saturday with an Aero Ektar 7" lens and a Speed Graphic on Polaroid 79. This is really the first shot that I've done of this style and with this particular lens. I sure had a lot of fun and look forward to playing around a little more.

http://www.zoeticlight.com/images/Wilma_Web3.jpg

[Eric James]

Very nice Mike - that's the most creamy bokeh I've seen. Thanks for sharing.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Remigius

Here is the better link for my examples.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8158135@N04/

Have fun Armin