The old Brooks Camera main store in SF used to have a week long camera show every year in the store and reps from all of the camera and lens companies would work the show for them. Every day before the show opened to the public a few bus loads of Japanese would be admitted. Most did not speak English and none of us spoke Japanese. Once the doors opened they would make a beeline to the counters with a European product. They would point to specific Leicas, Rolleis or Blads and hold up wads of $100.00s. European product, new and used poured out at those sales!
Japanese artists have a dozen adjectives to describe bokeh, some subtleties are very important for some but they are irrelevant for other people...
You tie a japanese artist to a chair in front of an image with bad bokeh and he has a 95% chance to start having seizures in just 10min. Seriously, in their aesthetic subculture bokeh nature is often very important.
Thank you Rick.
Let me respond to this once more, because I think it needs addressing.
I will simply post a screenshot from a beautiful animated series called "Violet Evergarden." The OOF highlights are characterized by what some would call "bad" bokeh. This series was made by a Japanese studio (sadly, the one recently burned down in an arson attack). Opinions are varied and nuanced, when it comes to OOF rendering.
We have to consider that "bad bokeh" it is not the same than "bad aesthetics". One may want triotar soap "bad bokeh", it can be at the same time "great aesthetics" and "bad bokeh".
Bokeh is "smothness in the OOF", it is not related to the degree of defocus but in how smooth is that defocus. Bad bokeh is "bad smoothness" so it tells a harsh nature in the OOF.
I one likes smoothness or harshness in the OOF this is a YMMV, "bad bokeh" should be translated to "low smoothness" in the OOF.
Of course many portrait photographers want smoothness in the background to bring attention on the subject, as harshness in the OOF can be distracting. But one may want a "bad bokeh" for a great image, like with Aero Ektars.
This is (Tommy) Toshihiro Oshima by Urs Bernhard, I guess Urs made the kind of shot that it would please Tommy:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ursber...00377/sizes/z/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyo...n/photostream/
Tommy uses both good and bad bokeh for great images, it's not if bokeh (smoothness) is good or bad (high or low), it's the way he uses softness or harshness for a sound aesthetics. I try to learn specially from this photographer but of course also from other, me I like how some japanese photographers use defocus, I find they have a very refined sense of defocus nature.
It is also true that, in "general", japanese artists have a "general" preference for softness in the OOF, with many subtleties, but this is not a rule for all.
In particular the Heliars were/are very valued in Japan, and this is because they render a good/high smoothness in the OOF, or say good/high bokeh.
Here Ken Rockwell explains it very well what is "good" and "bad" bokeh:
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
This is "Bad Bokeh", so a harsh OOF, that can be good or bad for a photographer:
The APO Lanthar has first class good bokeh, not a better or worse lens than an AE, because good bokeh can also be bad for the image we want, YMMV.
Last edited by Pere Casals; 31-Jul-2019 at 17:12. Reason: spelling
Yes - and as your example illustrates, anyone who demands compliance with a singular type of out-of-focus rendering is pretty ignorant of photographic or cinematographic history. For that matter, it used to be the case that the flaring of certain anamorphic lenses was not seen as a positive part of their aesthetic appeal, whereas it's now seen as key feature - to the extent you can rent blue flare filters...
Interneg, of course, every lens nature can be exploited in a situation, harsh and soft OOF both have their own usage for great aesthetics. What we debate is how things are named. We name "Bad Bokeh" to harshness in the OOF and "Good Bokeh" fo softness in the OOF, if Bad/Good Bokeh is Bad/Good or Good/Bad for our image this is YMMV, isn't it.
is that naming wrong? Is Ken Rockwell wrong in that?
Bookmarks