A reasonable article in parts, however he talks a lot about 'good' and 'bad' bokeh. Since this is largely subjective and depends a great deal on the image in question this is rather down to taste or circumstance. He simplistically says, for example, that Mirror lenses 'have awful bokeh'. I have seen images where the doughnuts work beautifully with the subject, others where they destroy it.
Articles like that kind of annoy me at times, in the end isn't that really just his own personal opinion? I don't really deal in bokeh (unless it happens by accident while I'm shooting something) but still... it must differ from photo to photo and the 'good' or 'poor'ness of it will change depending on what photo it's in.
One reason I left my photo club was because of a lot of people taking it upon themselves to declare what is good or bad, when really all they are declaring is that they have an opinion... ya know?
@breigh I agree. Bokeh is dependent on how and why it is used. What does do for the whole image.
I have had the same experience at my camera club. In one evening I had submitted two flower images on the first one the judge said it would have been better to have a shallow DOF and the second one it have been better to have a greater DOF. The image were technically good, but got low scores because of how used DOF/bokeh.
@peadar Why yes, he does. I read the article he linked in his article and that guy...talk about serious!! I didn't know Bokeh was such a hot button issue! If you take out all the nonsense and read the informative stuff it is interesting from a technical standpoint.
That was written by Ken Rockwell and a lot of what he says is tongue-in-cheek to some degree or other and often quite opinionated. I actually happen to like (most of) what he says because it's amusing as well as technically correct and interesting once you've got your head round his writing style.
I think his point about good vs bad bokeh here was really from the technical standpoint of how the lens produces the out-of-focus regions of the image rather than how the photographer makes use of bokeh creatively.
@gwhit123 For me it depends on the photo. Sometimes something out of focus in the foreground can irritate the bejesus out of me because it's in the way. In other photos, it works.. it creates depth and gives a different perspective to the photo... but it's tricky. Like the Bokeh, I think it's all relative... depends largely on the photo itself.
@smalbon That's what I got out of the article. I don't mind his writing but you are right, the reader needs to keep in mind his style. I've read a few of his articles so his good vs bad bokeh I didn't find offensive. But I love his explanations of technical stuff.
@peadar But if you keep in mind his writing style I think he is effective at explaining technical aspects of the camera and lens using style and end results as illustrations of his points.
@jtrudell yes, I like his technical articles too and I've also got several of the Nikon lenses (and camera bodies) he's reviewed and I certainly agree with his assessment of the Nikkor and Tokina lenses.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Taste cannot be measured on a scale of 1 to 10.
One reason I left my photo club was because of a lot of people taking it upon themselves to declare what is good or bad, when really all they are declaring is that they have an opinion... ya know?
I have had the same experience at my camera club. In one evening I had submitted two flower images on the first one the judge said it would have been better to have a shallow DOF and the second one it have been better to have a greater DOF. The image were technically good, but got low scores because of how used DOF/bokeh.
I think his point about good vs bad bokeh here was really from the technical standpoint of how the lens produces the out-of-focus regions of the image rather than how the photographer makes use of bokeh creatively.