Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Photographing your Bokeh

W

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
Hi everyone:

I've got pictures in a couple of threads to show this and have got some good response - so I've started this thread where similar images can be posted.

A few ideas on the rules might be:
Pictures of bokeh only - no in focus image (but some might object to that)
The objective is to see as many nuances that the design and construction of the lens can bring to the table. It's obvious to do it on this forum because M4/3 lets you use most lenses ever made.
As these images are mostly abstract in nature, I think post processing should be allowed to go wild, with out changing the original structure of the bokeh. Severe cropping helps, so does lots of noise.

Here are a couple to get things going.

Keith


 
V

Vivek

Guest
Keith, You can only have "Bokeh" when there is something in the frame in focus. Fuz in their own right (very rarely) makes an image IMO.

Like this fuzzy one (which does not do much)..:ROTFL:



SOM-Berthiot 25/0.95 wide open.

(note: the "double line" bokeh is absent)

This one (pardon the focused part) is from Type M2 Angenieux 25/0.95.



The OOF background isn't very distracting.
 
Last edited:
R

Ranger 9

Guest
...however, fuzz in its own right can make pretty good "wallpaper." Viewed strictly as abstract patterns, I liked Keith's examples. The contrast between sharp-edged and soft-edged elements and the different areas of color and texture give them some structure.

However, even pure abstraction has to have a sense of intentionality to be more than momentarily interesting. It might be an intriguing challenge for somebody to start with this technique and find a way to add intellectual content to it.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
The contrast between sharp-edged and soft-edged elements and the different areas of color and texture give them some structure.
Click to expand...
Correct. That would certainly contradict the Keith's own guidelines!:)
 
W

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
Ranger 9 said:
...however, fuzz in its own right can make pretty good "wallpaper." Viewed strictly as abstract patterns, I liked Keith's examples. The contrast between sharp-edged and soft-edged elements and the different areas of color and texture give them some structure.
However, even pure abstraction has to have a sense of intentionality to be more than momentarily interesting. It might be an intriguing challenge for somebody to start with this technique and find a way to add intellectual content to it.
Click to expand...
Pure abstraction in art has yielded more than just wallpaper over the years. These works are being sold for visual content, but also their intellectual content (the viewers interpretation could have no relation to the one the artist intended)
The intention could be color and shape juxtaposition to make an eye pleasing picture.
This idea started with me because I started to see some weird imagary in the OOF of these lenses. So I processed them to make that clearer. For instance, Vivek's picture of the dandelion heads has been processed to make those in-focus areas clear and visible, because Vivek wants the viewer to see that first. If he processes with the idea of making the viewer see the OOF stuff first, he will get a totally different image.
I like Jackson Pollak's stuff but I could not guess (well, maybe I could, but would likely be wrong) what his intentions were.

Keith
 
W

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
OK - another comment.
I said this is about photographing your bokeh. I was trying to be a bit funny with that. If you think about it, it precludes photographing an image in front of your bokeh (because then, you are blocking your bokeh).
I love cameras and lenses, have an awful lot of them, But Holgas have given me as much fun as RD-1s, G-1s, or whatever.
I'm very much with Winogrand on this - the camera/lens is the tool - just go out and do something with it - the rules of the technology are something you must deal with it. A picture can be technically perfect or non-perfect, as long it is pleasing to the photographer.

Keith
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
I see these "bokegraphs" (you'll never get traction in the blogosphere if your art movement doesn't have a catchy name) as an interesting new branch on the tree of art techniques whose intellectual hook is the idea of producing a photograph that doesn't depict an explicit subject. Check out the "camera toss" and "light movement" groups on Flickr to see some others that already are well-established.

I think there's a lot of potential in the idea of selecting or constructing scenes to be photographed specifically to look interesting when they're completely defocused.

The trick is going to be to figure out a structure for giving them intentionality: a way to make sure the viewer can tell the difference between a deliberate "fuzzograph" and what happens when you press the shutter release accidentally.

When I used to write art criticism, I'd refer to this as "passing the vacant-lot test": If you found the thing lying in a vacant lot, would you recognize it as a valuable work o' art, or would you just think it was an interesting-looking piece of random junk?

(Of course there were art movements, such as Dadaism, that made a practice of putting actual junk into art galleries to force viewers to confront their internal definitions of art -- but that confrontation in itself demonstrated the Dadaists' intentionality. On the other hand, I once witnessed an amusing demonstration of NON-intentionality when I attended a museum show of "industrial sculptures" that lit up, spun, moved, etc. I noticed one very intricate one, mounted on the wall, that seemed to be drawing an interested crowd; after taking a look, I didn't have the heart to tell them that it was one of the pen recorders installed throughout the museum to track the humidity level!)
 
W

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
These are from the Canon FD 50/1.4
Not such a bokeh lens as the Takumar, but interesting (depending on whether this type of bokeh is good or bad)

I've put titles on them to try connect them to real imagery (but I really don't want to do that)

Keith

Pending storms(piece of a garden fence)

Lost Jewels (Bits of old flowerpots)

Lost in the woods (a six inch square of my garden soil)
 
W

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
Ranger 9 said:
I think there's a lot of potential in the idea of selecting or constructing scenes to be photographed specifically to look interesting when they're completely defocused.
Click to expand...
I agree with you mostly, Ranger. But, if you look at my pink image at the beginning of this thread, the circles don't seem to be out of focus?
That is why the lens rendering is so interesting, it varies all over the place, depending on subject, lighting and whatever.

Keith
 
V

Vivek

Guest
But, if you look at my pink image at the beginning of this thread, the circles don't seem to be out of focus?
Click to expand...
No, Keith. The edges of the circles are sharp.:)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Keith, The edges are sharp.

FWIW, they are out of focus highlights rather than any blurred (real) objects.
 
L

Leica 77

New member
G1 + Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50mm F1,5. ISO 100. Aperture @ F1,5. My small contribution to the "Bokehgraphy".



The equipment used.

 
L

Leica 77

New member
woodmancy said:
Hey, Leica 77, you have found your groove - well done,

Keith
Click to expand...
Hi, I owe it to you, my friend, Keith! I followed your helpful and insightful instructions. Later in the near future, I will post some more images. Your critique will be much appreciated. All the best! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top