Good bokeh? Bad bokeh?

I'm confused.

I read this:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...-Takumar-55mm-
F1.8.html

And take this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream

The bokeh seems harsh to me.

Am I doing something wrong?

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php

On 2012-07-08 08:38:10 -0700, Pablo said:

I'm confused.

I read this:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...-Takumar-55mm-
F1.8.html

And take this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream

The bokeh seems harsh to me.

Am I doing something wrong?

Looking at the EXIF data for that image, you shot using manual exposure
at f/5.6, ISO 100, @ 1/499.

If you are looking for softer bokeh, you might consider opening up
some, to say f/3.5, and making the appropriate upward shutter speed
adjustment.

Examine result and adjust to taste.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck escribió:

On 2012-07-08 08:38:10 -0700, Pablo said:

I'm confused.

I read this:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...-C-Super-Auto-
Takumar-55mm-
F1.8.html

And take this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream

The bokeh seems harsh to me.

Am I doing something wrong?

Looking at the EXIF data for that image, you shot using manual exposure
at f/5.6, ISO 100, @ 1/499.

If you are looking for softer bokeh, you might consider opening up
some, to say f/3.5, and making the appropriate upward shutter speed
adjustment.

Examine result and adjust to taste.


I wanted enough DoF to include the various textures of the tree. Do you
think I would have achieved that at 3.5?

I wasn't *looking* for nice bokeh, but I expected a bit better than I got.

I don't get another go. I drove 70km for that. Well, just went for a drive
really and chucked the camera bag in the boot.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php

On 2012-07-08 09:44:14 -0700, Pablo said:

Savageduck escribió:

On 2012-07-08 08:38:10 -0700, Pablo said:

I'm confused.

I read this:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...-C-Super-Auto-
Takumar-55mm-
F1.8.html

And take this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream

The bokeh seems harsh to me.

Am I doing something wrong?

Looking at the EXIF data for that image, you shot using manual exposure
at f/5.6, ISO 100, @ 1/499.

If you are looking for softer bokeh, you might consider opening up
some, to say f/3.5, and making the appropriate upward shutter speed
adjustment.

Examine result and adjust to taste.


I wanted enough DoF to include the various textures of the tree. Do you
think I would have achieved that at 3.5?

Probably not.


I wasn't *looking* for nice bokeh, but I expected a bit better than I got.

Why would you expect better bokeh than you got at f/5.6?
You seem to have achieved results typical of the settings you dialed in.

Sometimes the legendary reputation of a lens is just that, legendary.
However, it did well enough to achieve most of your prime intent,
having the textures of the tree within the DOF.

....and then there are always other ways of playing with the image to
get somewhat different results.
http://db.tt/WHaJgcbn

The interesting thing here is you can see that whereas you have
succeeded to show the texture detail of the tree, the mid part of the
upper right of "Y" formed by the tree is a bit OOF. This could be an
interesting project to get just right.


I don't get another go. I drove 70km for that. Well, just went for a drive
really and chucked the camera bag in the boot.

Unfortunate, but irrelevant to your question. That said, the tree is
still where you shot it, and you know the location. 70km is not all
that far. I would consider another drive and visit to take more shots
at a variety of settings , if it is that important to you.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-07-08 12:15:08 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:38:10 +0200, Pablo wrote:

I'm confused.

I read this:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...-Takumar-55mm-
F1.8.html

And take this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream

The bokeh seems harsh to me.

Am I doing something wrong?

"Bokeh" is just what is in the background that is out-of-focus. Your
background is out-of-focus. Just what you want.

Pablo wants the shallow DOF, but not so shallow that the entire texture
of the tree is not captured in detail. As a result his exposure
settings are a compromise. The cost of that compromise is, the
background is not as OOF as he anticipated.

The ugliness of the background is the mottled purplish color. The
green's fine, but there's something in the background that is blue or
purple that looks kinda ugly here. It's the color, not the bokeh,
that is the problem.

I could be wrong, but I suspect the background is a vineyard, and what
you ID as "mottled purplish color" is soil and part of the vine trellis
work.

That same shot, with the same settings, but with a different foliage
in the background would be what you wanted to achieve.

I have a feeling that is easier said than done. Perhaps at a different
time of year?

There's some things you can do if you have Photoshop, but I'm not
going to spend time explaining how if you don't have Photoshop. Any
version, including Elements 9 or 10, with Replace Color or Match Color
and Layer Masking will work.

Yup!


--
Regards,

Savageduck

tony cooper escribió:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:38:10 +0200, Pablo wrote:

I'm confused.

I read this:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...-C-Super-Auto-
Takumar-55mm-
F1.8.html

And take this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream

The bokeh seems harsh to me.

Am I doing something wrong?

"Bokeh" is just what is in the background that is out-of-focus. Your
background is out-of-focus. Just what you want.

The ugliness of the background is the mottled purplish color. The
green's fine, but there's something in the background that is blue or
purple that looks kinda ugly here. It's the color, not the bokeh,
that is the problem.

Thanks for the input.

That same shot, with the same settings, but with a different foliage
in the background would be what you wanted to achieve.

Actually, it's not foliage, rather a forest. Just pine trees and orangey
ground. At the other side of a small valley.

36º49'83"N 4º21'51.8"W

https://sites.google.com/site/montes...istoria/lagar-
de-torrijos-ecomuseo

There's some things you can do if you have Photoshop, but I'm not
going to spend time explaining how if you don't have Photoshop. Any
version, including Elements 9 or 10, with Replace Color or Match Color
and Layer Masking will work.

I have the Gimp, but I don't see the blue/purple to be able to remove it.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php

On 2012-07-08 15:31:38 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 12:42:40 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-07-08 12:15:08 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:38:10 +0200, Pablo wrote:

I'm confused.

I read this:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...-Takumar-55mm-
F1.8.html

And take this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream

The bokeh seems harsh to me.

Am I doing something wrong?

"Bokeh" is just what is in the background that is out-of-focus. Your
background is out-of-focus. Just what you want.

Pablo wants the shallow DOF, but not so shallow that the entire texture
of the tree is not captured in detail. As a result his exposure
settings are a compromise. The cost of that compromise is, the
background is not as OOF as he anticipated.

It's sufficiently OOF, but still looks bad with blobs of disparate
color. Even more OOF and you'd still have the blobs.

If the background is OOF, some people think that this means that the
background is just one hazy blur. Not so. An OOF background blurs
the detail and objects, but doesn't remove color masses. It just
makes the edges less distinct.

In this case, the problem really isn't "bokeh". Bokeh is how points
of light appear when out of focus. This image is about how color mass
appears.

Agreed. This is not a particularly good image to demonstrate bokeh,
shallow DOF with OOF background maybe, but not true bokeh. However I
understand what Pablo is trying to do with the image, and there are all
sorts of ways of lessening the distraction of the background to
emphasize the tree.

OOF+shallow DOF â‰* bokeh


Wiki's piece on bokeh shows this. Look at the small image of the girl
with foliage in the background. The points of light are blurred, but
you still see distinct areas of color: yellow and greens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

I have always understood that one of the major elements in producing
"pleasing bokeh" is the manner the iris blade elements impose their
shape onto the OOF light sources and intersperse the same soft edge
shape to the OOF background objects. There are certainly lenses which
are able to do this better than others.

So "pleasing bokeh" is not just a case of OOF background due to shallow
DOF. Specific lenses will produce bokeh of different quality, but even
a lens with a reputation for producing this effect desired by some,
will fail if it is not set in a way to achieve the result.

A soft, blurred, OOF background is not necessarily bokeh.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 7/8/2012 3:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-07-08 12:15:08 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:38:10 +0200, Pablo wrote:

I'm confused.

I read this:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...-Takumar-55mm-

F1.8.html

And take this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream

The bokeh seems harsh to me.

Am I doing something wrong?

"Bokeh" is just what is in the background that is out-of-focus. Your
background is out-of-focus. Just what you want.

Pablo wants the shallow DOF, but not so shallow that the entire texture
of the tree is not captured in detail. As a result his exposure settings
are a compromise. The cost of that compromise is, the background is not
as OOF as he anticipated.

The ugliness of the background is the mottled purplish color. The
green's fine, but there's something in the background that is blue or
purple that looks kinda ugly here. It's the color, not the bokeh,
that is the problem.

I could be wrong, but I suspect the background is a vineyard, and what
you ID as "mottled purplish color" is soil and part of the vine trellis
work.

That same shot, with the same settings, but with a different foliage
in the background would be what you wanted to achieve.

I have a feeling that is easier said than done. Perhaps at a different
time of year?

There's some things you can do if you have Photoshop, but I'm not
going to spend time explaining how if you don't have Photoshop. Any
version, including Elements 9 or 10, with Replace Color or Match Color
and Layer Masking will work.

Yup!



He can also make a rough selection, invert and feather it. then apply
either a Gaussian, or surface blur to taste.

--
Peter

On 7/8/2012 7:47 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 7/8/2012 3:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-07-08 12:15:08 -0700, tony cooper
said:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:38:10 +0200, Pablo wrote:

I'm confused.

I read this:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...-Takumar-55mm-


F1.8.html

And take this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7527964766/in/photostream

The bokeh seems harsh to me.

Am I doing something wrong?

"Bokeh" is just what is in the background that is out-of-focus. Your
background is out-of-focus. Just what you want.

Pablo wants the shallow DOF, but not so shallow that the entire texture
of the tree is not captured in detail. As a result his exposure settings
are a compromise. The cost of that compromise is, the background is not
as OOF as he anticipated.

The ugliness of the background is the mottled purplish color. The
green's fine, but there's something in the background that is blue or
purple that looks kinda ugly here. It's the color, not the bokeh,
that is the problem.

I could be wrong, but I suspect the background is a vineyard, and what
you ID as "mottled purplish color" is soil and part of the vine trellis
work.

That same shot, with the same settings, but with a different foliage
in the background would be what you wanted to achieve.

I have a feeling that is easier said than done. Perhaps at a different
time of year?

There's some things you can do if you have Photoshop, but I'm not
going to spend time explaining how if you don't have Photoshop. Any
version, including Elements 9 or 10, with Replace Color or Match Color
and Layer Masking will work.

Yup!



He can also make a rough selection, invert and feather it. then apply
either a Gaussian, or surface blur to taste.

What on earth is "bokeh"? A definition please since I can't find it
anywhere else but this ng.C

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

On 2012-07-08 16:54:03 -0700, James Silverton said:

Le Snip

What on earth is "bokeh"? A definition please since I can't find it
anywhere else but this ng.C

Then you haven't been looking very hard, next time try Google.
If you had been following this thread you would have found Tony
Cooper's contribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh


--
Regards,

Savageduck