Vs: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens.. .
Yes, it is. Definitely. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 11. marraskuuta 2002 22:54 Aihe: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens.. . On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, frank theriault wrote: AFAIK, Cosina bought the rights to the name Voigtlander. All things Voigtlander are now designed and manufactured in the Mystic East. Is it too much to ask that Vivitar buys Leitz just so I can hear the collective howl of a million leicaphiles?
Vs: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens .. .
FWIIW Sigma has produced 28-70 mm lenses for Leica. So they are not the Asian Zeiss (Kyocera is) but they can do a good job if they want to. And the workmanship of the EX line (like the 105 Macro I have) is really very good indeed. And nobody knows what they have made for other brands. And I still have a suspicion that the Pentax limiteds may be made by Cosina. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 12. marraskuuta 2002 14:26 Aihe: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens .. . On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Alan Chan wrote: Perhaps you don't understand the Japanese industry too well (no ofference I barely understand my own industry at all, now I'm expected to learn world economics... Geez, you camera guys are too much... :) btw). Cosina brand products are, well... as you know. But the factory Cosina actually manufacture many great products, they just don't stamp them Cosina. All the latest Voightlanders products were made by Cosina and they I'm just baffled that Cosina, who seems to have a reputation to have all the quality control of Kiev, would also be known for turning out top of the line lenses, as well. I guess I just don't really have a good enough feeling for how lopsided a company can even be inside. For instance, Sigma, who isn't exactly highly reknowned as an Asian Zeiss also produces Quantaray lenses for Ritz. I know that Sigma isn't as widely trashed as Quantaray is, but I was never aware of just how many differing levels of quality could come from one company.
Re: Vs: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens.. .
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Raimo Korhonen wrote: And I still have a suspicion that the Pentax limiteds may be made by Cosina. Interesting. I presumed Ashahi had its own lens plant... In a situation like the above, who does what? Who designs the actual optical charactoristics of teh lens? Who builds the prototypes? The regular line? Who quality controls, and where does the coating come in? IE, is it the design and prototype would be done by Pentax, or Leitz, or whomever, then given to Cosina/Sigma/etc for mass production? Does it go back to the mother company to have coatings applied, or do Cosina have their own machines do it to the Pentax spec? -g. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Rob Studdert wrote: On 10 Nov 2002 at 12:39, gfen wrote: It should proove to be a collossal waste of time and film. :) Now don't you wish you had a DSLR :-) Not really.. I find myself wanting to use my 645 and large format rigs more than 35 just because I find them more of a pleasure to use... a DSLR will just take away from them further, because of the convieneces. Seriously I'm sure we'll learn a lot more about lenses that we don't own as soon as a DSLR becomes available. I for one would be far happier to do (more) lens testing. Troo.. I don't mind blowing the time and film and whatnot, its just I have so many other things to do, and there's such little daylight. I'd actualyl like to do the tests with my large format lenses, as well. I've also wanted to do a film comparision to each other, as well. Perhaps the time for all these things is now.. Hmm.. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Rob Studdert wrote: Cosina makes Voightlander? Sure do and they've done so since 1997 see: Is this the same hated and reviled Cosina that's muttered in the same breath as Vivitar and Phoenix? I thought the new Voightlanders were respected cameras and quality lenses? If this is the case, then why-oh-why can't all Cosina lenses be as respected? -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Vs: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .
Because they are not made the same way - Cosina lenses are cheap, Voigtländer lenses are expensive, although cheaper than Leica glass. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 11. marraskuuta 2002 16:06 Aihe: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . . snip I thought the new Voightlanders were respected cameras and quality lenses? If this is the case, then why-oh-why can't all Cosina lenses be as respected?
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .
On 11 Nov 2002 at 17:08, gfen wrote: Is it too much to ask that Vivitar buys Leitz just so I can hear the collective howl of a million leicaphiles? It's Leica Camera AG now, there was a little yelp when the French Hermes International bought a great chunk a year or so back. http://www.leica-camera.com/unternehmen/presse/data/01907/index_e.html Not for distribution in the United States of America, Canada, Australia or Japan. :-) The current boss of Cosina has apparently taken a very personal interest in the Voigtlander name and product range development and photographers feedback. He has allowed a lot of development and production to occur that a less involved boss may not have, fortunately it's all been of great benefit to the company. Great foresight, not like Pentax. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Smooth bokeh can however make a background less obtrusive when there is little other option but to include it in the shot see: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012164m.JPG True, i ment that, but didnt make myself clear :)
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
See: http://www.shinozuka-family.com/200110autumnlux2/kittyleaves4.jpg http://www.shinozuka-family.com/200110autumnlux2/tedkitleaves2.jpg Urr... I am feeling a bit dizzy... I like the 1st photo though. Its sort of nauseating :) but i'd still like to own one. There's some great shots on that site if you wade through it, i'm usually not into looking at shots of people kids, but i looked through 95% of this page.
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
I've found the bokeh of the K85/1.8 to be quite good, although i've never really pushed its limits in a difficult lighting situation. Its my favourite Pentax lense! Paul - Original Message - From: Thibault GROUAS [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax discuss pdml.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 10:56 PM Subject: Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . Hello Michael, I haven't seen BW bokeh examples yet, so here is an example of what bokeh I get with the old'85mm/1.8. It also shows how out of focus grain looks like on the BW negative (developped for high grain and acutance with rodinal) I've found that the 85 1.8 is not so big and heavy, rather discrete, but gives nice results, and is pretty nice to use. It is a candid shot took of my mother during a family dinner at her home. http://photofr.ath.cx/pentax/bokeh_and_grain/ It is a scan from the neg, I included some smaller-sized images for those with slower connection speeds, the biggest one is ...huge... but heh, you get to see the grain with this one ! ^_¨ Hope it helps, Thibault Grouas. « Michael Cross » [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : I am starting out here and looking to purchase (at least for now) one prime lens. My primary photographic interest is candids and casual portraits of my kids in both individual and small group shots. I am looking at a prime lens because I would like to do available light and shallow DOF shots and the quality (especially bokeh) is important to me. So I have narrowed it down to three Pentax lenses: 1. FA 50mm f/1.4 2. FA 77mm f/1.8 3. FA 85mm f/1.4 Which lens would you choose? Any others I should consider?
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
What an awesome rose photo. I loved the pink rosebud, but this one totally blew me away. I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera. Now I really want one. I know this is not on the original topic, but if you wanted a print made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20? Kathy L. - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 11:20 PM Subject: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . On 9 Nov 2002 at 21:50, frank theriault wrote: Hi, Rob, Wow, I love that shot! What lens was it taken with, and (if you know), what exposure? Hi Frank, I'm sorry but it is pure evil, the work of the devil, I was captured with my Oly E-10 (I still have no film scanner). The details are embedded in the pic: Exposure time: 1/640 F-stop: 4.8 ISO speed: 80 Focal length: 36. The lens opens up to f2.4 at 36mm (~135mm equivalent) however the shutter only goes to 1/640th and I don't have NDs. The nearside fill was accomplished using a small reflector. Here is another and whist quite different it may give you an idea of the dynamic light capture range. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/P9302137m.JPG Exposure time: 1/640 F-stop: 4.8 ISO speed: 80 Focal length: 29. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On 10 Nov 2002 at 6:02, Kathy L wrote: What an awesome rose photo. I loved the pink rosebud, but this one totally blew me away. I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera. Now I really want one. I know this is not on the original topic, but if you wanted a print made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20? Hi Kathy, Well I'm glad that you liked them, I have quite a stash, I find that I'm far more productive using digital equipment. WRT quality I'd be happy to send you a full resolution pic for your viewing/printing pleasure (over 3MB), I'm sure that you'd be pretty happy with a 16x20 :-) I just put a couple more up: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA022182n.JPG http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012167m.JPG They won't be there for long though. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
What camera, please? keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: On 10 Nov 2002 at 6:02, Kathy L wrote: What an awesome rose photo. I loved the pink rosebud, but this one totally blew me away. I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera. Now I really want one. I know this is not on the original topic, but if you wanted a print made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20? Hi Kathy, Well I'm glad that you liked them, I have quite a stash, I find that I'm far more productive using digital equipment. WRT quality I'd be happy to send you a full resolution pic for your viewing/printing pleasure (over 3MB), I'm sure that you'd be pretty happy with a 16x20 :-) I just put a couple more up: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA022182n.JPG http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012167m.JPG They won't be there for long though. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] What an awesome rose photo. I loved the pink rosebud, but this one totally blew me away. I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera. Now I really want one. I know this is not on the original topic, but if you wanted a print made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20? Kathy L. Rob shoots with an Olympus E10, a 4MP camera. it depends on how sharp you want the image if you can go to 16x20. it will be a bit soft, but then again, unless you have a good lens on your enlarger, a wet print could be a bit soft too. with a 3.3 megapixel camera, i find that if i use the softness as part of the effect, i can go to 12x18 pretty easily. with a 5 megapixel camera, it's still a bit soft at 12x18 compared to a well focused film image, but again, that can be used for a positive effect. Herb...
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] What an awesome rose photo. I loved the pink rosebud, but this one totally blew me away. I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera. Now I really want one. I know this is not on the original topic, but if you wanted a print made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20? Kathy L. this is taken with my 50mm 2.8 at around f5.6 or maybe 4.0. it definitely could go to 12x18. http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/temp/01-08.jpg this is taken with my Nikon Coolpix 5000. i am not sure i would do a 12x18 because i don't like the picture that much, but if i did, the hairs on the willows would be a bit soft by comparison. http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/temp/DSCN0567.jpg Herb
Re: Vs: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Fred wrote: Bokeh exists. It ~is~ very important for some of us. Probably no photo stands or falls just because of bokeh, but it can be a very important aspect of some photographs. I have several photos that has ended up in the waste basket due to horrible bokeh. All shot with the FA645 120/4 macro; an otherwise excellent lens. Pål
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Alan wrote: I have felt the FA43/1.9 is nothing special optically as much as I like it's compactness and built quality. Mine is utterly special. Its sharpness from F:4 to F:8 isn't surpassed by anything on sale. It's bokeh and 3D rendition is damned spacial too. Images look close to stereoscopic with this lens. It only weak point is wide open performance but it isn't really worse here than almost all other Pentax lenses. Pål
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Paul Stenquist wrote: The harshness or smoothness of the bokeh -- or out of focus elements -- is dependent on much more than the lens and the way it renders things. How distant they are from the camera determines their rendering more than any other element. The lighting is critical as well. I'm going to sit down with a roll of film, a bag of lenses, and my tripod in the near future and take the same set of images over, and over, and over again with each lens just to get a feel for what does what.. I'll post to the net when I'm complete, in case its of note to anyone. I'm hoping to find a fence line so that it recedes, and I can take it at an angle and watch it fade outk, but we'll see what I can turn up. Figure on eahc lens wide open and closed up two stops (so that it uses teh aperature blades and not just the barrel of the lens), at the extremes of each lens and perhaps in the middle, as well. It should proove to be a collossal waste of time and film. :) -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .
Worry less about the word bokeh, and the endless arguments about it, and instead go as you wanted to, to a local univeristy or museum or whatever, and LOOK at the pictures... You'll see that some of them inevitably have a smoother, nicer look to their out of focus areas.. Some of them do not. This is easy enough to see, notice, and enjoy.. its not so easy to define. Is it not a big part of the picture? Perhaps to you its not, but it is to me.. its essential to me. I thrive on minimal depth of field, I crave it, and without, most of my pictures would suffer, as the way I take a picture, I like to take one single element, and stand it out against everything else. Perhaps its not important to you, it is to me. As such, bokeh, as irritatring a concept as it may be, is of prime importance. Its only now that I'm becoming aware of it as a potential shortcoming in the lenses, and unfortuantly for me (and myt wallet), I can't dismiss it so easily as you do. Different strokes for different folks. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Paul Jones wrote: Also even though a lense has good bokeh, it doesnt mean it can make a harsh background look good, shoot a lense wide open into a heavily back lit tree with light popping through and i doubt any lense will make the bokeh look really nice. -cough- And nwo the conversation has come full circle.. :) -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would this be an example of bad bokeh? Or would it be called something else? It would be, to me. Although, again, like the only example shot I've posted, this is also shot through a tree where all those spaces between the leaves are forming the highlights.. I've just been yelled at that I've got to go, so perhaps I'll take this up later, only another 200 messages to go through.. (glad to know I started this bokeh conversation, bwahaha) -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 11:39 AM, gfen wrote: On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Paul Stenquist wrote: The harshness or smoothness of the bokeh -- or out of focus elements -- is dependent on much more than the lens and the way it renders things. How distant they are from the camera determines their rendering more than any other element. The lighting is critical as well. I'm going to sit down with a roll of film, a bag of lenses, and my tripod in the near future and take the same set of images over, and over, and over again with each lens just to get a feel for what does what.. I'll post to the net when I'm complete, in case its of note to anyone. I'm hoping to find a fence line so that it recedes, and I can take it at an angle and watch it fade outk, but we'll see what I can turn up. Figure on eahc lens wide open and closed up two stops (so that it uses teh aperature blades and not just the barrel of the lens), at the extremes of each lens and perhaps in the middle, as well. It should proove to be a collossal waste of time and film. :) Belly up to the nearest chainlink fence, wedge a variety of odds and ends, shiny and flat, into it and you should be set. Dan Scott
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On 10 Nov 2002 at 12:39, gfen wrote: It should proove to be a collossal waste of time and film. :) Now don't you wish you had a DSLR :-) Seriously I'm sure we'll learn a lot more about lenses that we don't own as soon as a DSLR becomes available. I for one would be far happier to do (more) lens testing. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
- Original Message - From: Alan Chan Subject: Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . I have found the M50/1.4 has better bokeh than the FA43/1.9. Aperture are f2 f1.9 respectively. http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/43.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/50.jpg Out of curiosity, did either of those images get any sharpening applied to them? Thanks William Robb
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On 9 Nov 2002 at 23:43, Paul Jones wrote: Hi, I borrowed an A75/2.8 off a friend 12months or so ago and noted that bokeh was quite harsh, i now own the FA75/2.8 and have not noted the same problem. Also the FA75/2.8 seems significantly sharper than both the A75/2.8 and A75/2.8LS. Hey Paul, We should disregard lens Bokeh since it isn't currently quantifiable, best note that you sound like a Leica snob too. :-( Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
RE: If You had to pick one lens . . .
I did say in the world... Still, I would prefer the 77 on the moon, although I would accept a disposable or even at a push a Nikon if Nasa wanted to send me there! -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:wlachan;hotmail.com] Sent: 09 November 2002 02:17 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: If You had to pick one lens . . . No other lens has given me so much pleasure and there is no piece of photographic equipment in the world I would rather have(except maybe an MZ-D prototype)! Not even the Hasselblad on the Moon? The 77 is also much smaller and lighter than the 85 I believe. Much indeed. regards, Alan Chan _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Alan wrote: -- I have found the M50/1.4 has better bokeh than the FA43/1.9. Aperture are f2 f1.9 respectively. http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/43.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/50.jpg regards, Alan Chan - These sample pictures are very interesting. Good or bad lens bokeh has a lot of aspects (dependent on lens focal lenghs, shooting distance vs. background distance, highlights, separation of the foreground from the background etc.) making it difficult to quantify. I feel the 43mm lens has a better separation of the foreground from the background than the 50mm lens though the degree of unsharpness of the background is slightly lower (as it is a shorter focal lengths). Alexander http://www.arnoldstark.de/pentax.htm If or not this is important depends a lot on indivudual Therfore some __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .
'Bokeh' is still not a term, or a word, at least one could argue. When looking at out of focus areas we know (at least for now) that there is no quantifiable way of proving it or saying it is good or bad, etc. We know I don't know how to answer your question, but bad bokeh is certainly very real! R
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Pentax Guy wrote: keith whaley had written: Look at this site: http://www.clearsightusa.com/bokeh.html There's another excellent explanation here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm Here's another: http://johnlind.tripod.com/art/artdof.html These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect, I wanted published works -- books, manuals, journals (that includes art journals, which are generally not quantifiable) Number one, it's obvious you've not done sufficient reading about what bokeh is, so all your current 'arguments' are specious. It does exist, you're just not adequately educated in the subject to be able discern it by yourself. You need training. The rest of your argument is merely supported by your lack of knowledge about it, so will not considered in this discussion. To say These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect... is a head in the sand attitude and is doing nothing but hindering the possibility of your _ever_ understanding it. The online sources are not original works, you know. They most frequently draw from other hard copy sources. They're online siimply because it's a far faster and far more convenient way to access the information! Don't you (or they) understand that concept? If you had an online copy of some highly respected, scientifically accepted text, would you still come up with, Well, it's from an online source, and as such is not considered valid information. How about a bible? Any information found in the bible by way of having found it online, automatically makes it suspect? Sadly, I suspect you would. Sig. You have to start thinking for yourself, instead of parroting all the illogical, uninformed and stilted rules and regulations that come out of acadamia... Enough of my rambling... keith whaley
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Here's a paragraph from the web source Robert Soames Wetmore posted, which is: http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v17/msg11841.html Mike Johnston is speaking here: In 1997 I helped introduce a new term into the lexicon of North American photographers: bokeh, which was my own rendering of a katakana term more properly romanized as _bo-ke_ or boke (a spelling which provoked a hail of puns and jokes on a pronunciation that was totally incorrect). It's the Japanese word meaning blur, specifically the visual properties of the way a lens renders out-of-focus areas in pictures. _PHOTO Techniques_ presented three articles on the subject: What is 'Bokeh'? By John Kennerdell, an American-born photographer based in Bangkok; Notes on the Terminology of Bokeh by Oren Grad, an M.D. / Ph.D. researcher at Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA; and A Technical View of Bokeh by Harold Merklinger, who is Senior Scientist at the Canadian Defense Establishment Atlantic in Halifax, N.S. All these senior scientists' and researchers' emanations are probably suspect too, because they were found online, not so? keith Keith Whaley wrote: Pentax Guy wrote: keith whaley had written: Look at this site: http://www.clearsightusa.com/bokeh.html There's another excellent explanation here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm Here's another: http://johnlind.tripod.com/art/artdof.html These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect, I wanted published works -- books, manuals, journals (that includes art journals, which are generally not quantifiable) Number one, it's obvious you've not done sufficient reading about what bokeh is, so all your current 'arguments' are specious. It does exist, you're just not adequately educated in the subject to be able discern it by yourself. You need training. The rest of your argument is merely supported by your lack of knowledge about it, so will not considered in this discussion. To say These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect... is a head in the sand attitude and is doing nothing but hindering the possibility of your _ever_ understanding it. The online sources are not original works, you know. They most frequently draw from other hard copy sources. They're online siimply because it's a far faster and far more convenient way to access the information! Don't you (or they) understand that concept? If you had an online copy of some highly respected, scientifically accepted text, would you still come up with, Well, it's from an online source, and as such is not considered valid information. How about a bible? Any information found in the bible by way of having found it online, automatically makes it suspect? Sadly, I suspect you would. Sig. You have to start thinking for yourself, instead of parroting all the illogical, uninformed and stilted rules and regulations that come out of acadamia... Enough of my rambling... keith whaley
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
The harshness or smoothness of the bokeh -- or out of focus elements -- is dependent on much more than the lens and the way it renders things. How distant they are from the camera determines their rendering more than any other element. The lighting is critical as well. Paul Stenquist Paul Jones wrote: Hi, I borrowed an A75/2.8 off a friend 12months or so ago and noted that bokeh was quite harsh, i now own the FA75/2.8 and have not noted the same problem. Also the FA75/2.8 seems significantly sharper than both the A75/2.8 and A75/2.8LS. Regards, Paul - Original Message - From: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:02 PM Subject: Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Dan Scott wrote: Something I'm not happy wiht is the awful bokeh I've seen thus far from my 645 A75/2.8 Like what gfen? Examples, please. Perhaps I don't know good bokeh, since I'm not sure if anyone is actually capable of truly describing it, BUT... My 75/2.8 makes evyerthing look so jarring and spotty, where as most of my other lenses used (especially the 35 A50/1,4) give out such smooth, perfectly blurred backfgrounds.. I'm not happy with the 75, at all. At least, not yet. Tkane with the 645 A75/2.8.. a prime example of what I'm referring too.. this is about at minimum forcus distance, and wide open.. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1077324 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1001732 With the 35 A50/1.4, wide open at minimum focus distance. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=600414 With a Quantaray (!) 70-300/4-5.6. Its at 300, more or less minimum distance, and again, its nice and smooth out of focus areas, but not quite as extreme as the above. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 02:53 PM, Pentax Guy wrote: So, basically, as I see it, 'bokeh' does not exist. Therefore the speaking of it or writing of it is nonsense. But I still say, someone prove me wrong. Give me hard proof (again, no math required), and I will start analysing the 'bokeh' of photographic prints. Nonsense? Brad, you might as well say because I have never seen 'X', 'X' does not exist. Therefore the speaking or writing of it is nonsense. Actually, I've never seen you documented in print...hmm... ;-) Dan Scott.
Re[2]: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Hi, Try the RGPL, look under the various spellings (it's a recently imported term, there is no standard English word for it), the Pentax brochures of yore use the phrase 'pleasing out-of-focus highlights'. I'm sure the degree of difference between various lenses is quantifiable in some way (although I don't know of any way). What is probably not quantifiable is how pleasing it is, or not. Presumably different people react in different ways. It's claimed that some lenses are designed to give good blur, and that the more aperture blades the lens has, the smoother the bokeh. This difference is clearly visible particularly if you use lenses with 10 or more aperture blades, such as some Leicas, and compare them with something that has 5 blades. Of course, the number of blades is not the only variable in such a comparison, but the difference in the quality of the out-of-focus highlights is readily apparent. Whether or not it matters is entirely a matter of individual taste, for which there is no accounting. I've found that people who wouldn't normally comment on such a thing, and who are not especially photography-minded, have made nice comments about the blurry bits on photos shot with Contax/Zeiss lenses. Regards, Bob
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Oh no, another one of these.Instead of playing by the rules, and actually proving something, another member chooses to argue and more so, put down another member, a favourite pastime here. I stopped reading after the first paragraph as I knew the rest was.. 'Bokeh' must be truly important to get such a long winded and opinionated response. For such a suble, minor, subjective thing, some of us are sure getting upset. I plan on visiting the art department at my local U, and specifically photography and see what who ever is around has to say on the subject. When I don't know, but I'll let everyone know what happened, anything from pulling out an article about it from saying 'Bokeh? What was that? I didn't understand.' From there perhaps I can look into the subject in more depth, or get a feeling from someone highly educated in the field thoughts on 'bokeh'. Amateur hobbyist photographers serious or not, cannot be of aid. Emails saying bokeh is real, I like it. Or it's meaningless lingo referring to a blotch of many colours that form no shape. Or, I found in so and so, this Are all perfectly fine. Then we all know where we stand on the issue. If someone points out something of value, not some hobbyist view or a online Shutterbug issue or a UK tabloid trash online mag. I can then verify and learn and say, ya, bokeh is something. I was wrong. All I said was I think it's nothing. No need for panty bunching...so, let's keep it civil eh? Bandwagon members are free to help defend the poor author of the email with insults and demeaning comments. We are unmoderated. And I'm a favourite target, but am hardened to such things by now. Of course, you could impress me by saying nothing...and others that don't want to see such muck slung all over and have to leave the list. Then the author and I can take this off-list for the benefit of all. Number one, it's obvious you've not done sufficient reading about what bokeh is, so all your current 'arguments' are specious. It does exist, you're just not adequately educated in the subject to be able discern it by yourself. You need training. The rest of your argument is merely supported by your lack of knowledge about it, so will not considered in this discussion. To say These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect... is a head in the sand attitude and is doing nothing but hindering the possibility of your _ever_ understanding it. The online sources are not original works, you know. They most frequently draw from other hard copy sources. They're online siimply because it's a far faster and far more convenient way to access the information! Don't you (or they) understand that concept? If you had an online copy of some highly respected, scientifically accepted text, would you still come up with, Well, it's from an online source, and as such is not considered valid information. How about a bible? Any information found in the bible by way of having found it online, automatically makes it suspect? Sadly, I suspect you would. Sig. You have to start thinking for yourself, instead of parroting all the illogical, uninformed and stilted rules and regulations that come out of acadamia... Enough of my rambling... keith whaley
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
- Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:43 PM Subject: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . Here's a paragraph from the web source Robert Soames Wetmore posted, which is: http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v17/msg11841.html Mike Johnston is speaking here: In 1997 I helped introduce a new term into the lexicon of North American photographers: bokeh, which was my own rendering of a katakana term more properly romanized as _bo-ke_ or boke (a spelling which provoked a hail of puns and jokes on a pronunciation that was totally incorrect). It's the Japanese word meaning blur, specifically the visual properties of the way a lens renders out-of-focus areas in pictures. _PHOTO Techniques_ presented three articles on the subject: What is 'Bokeh'? By John Kennerdell, an American-born photographer based in Bangkok; Notes on the Terminology of Bokeh by Oren Grad, an M.D. / Ph.D. researcher at Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA; and A Technical View of Bokeh by Harold Merklinger, who is Senior Scientist at the Canadian Defense Establishment Atlantic in Halifax, N.S. All these senior scientists' and researchers' emanations are probably suspect too, because they were found online, not so? keith Ah-Ha! Keith, you didn't read through your red haze of anger. You have produced evidence. That is what I wanted!!! I can go and pull up bios on these people, check credentials, read published material. Of course, if I look into Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA and there is no record of Oren Grad being related there or anywhere and no record of his materials, then it's a fraud, happens all the time on the Internet. I'm not saying what you just posted is. But now I can use a better method to check it's authenticity and read more about him/her and their research. And perhaps learn more about bokeh.See?
Re[2]: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Hi, you seem to be mixing up several separate issues. First of all, the word clearly exists, since we're all using it. The different spellings are not important since they all clearly refer to the same thing and can't be confused with something else (except perhaps a bunch of flowers, but context should make the meaning obvious). You couldn't use the word in the way you suggest (clouds, sky) because the word refers very specifically to photographic out-of-focus highlights. Other people have admonished you gently for distrusting web-based information solely on the grounds of the medium, and I agree with them. This web-page http://www.web-options.com/paradox.html lends support to their claim. People do refer to the way painters handle out-of-focus highlights, although they don't use the word bokeh because it is of very recent origin (in English at least). One painter whose work is frequently discussed in this way is Johannes Vermeer. I refer you to almost any book which discusses his technique, but in particular to Vermeer's Camera by Philip Steadman. I would post a link to Amazon, but as an online reference it must be unreliable g. So clearly 'bokeh' the word exists, however it's spelt. The referent - i.e. out of focus highlights - exists, not just in photography but also in painting, and are discussed academically in at least one hard-copy book written by an academic (Steadman is Professor of Urban and Built Form Studies at University College, London, and an authority on various art-related subjects). Differences in the quality of out-of-focus highlights are visible even to the untrained eye, and other people have provided some references which describe how to quantify the differences. All that remains, as far as I can see, is how much importance any person gives to it, and that is a matter of taste. --- Bob These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect, I wanted published works -- books, manuals, journals (that includes art journals, which are generally not quantifiable) 'Bokeh' is still not a term, or a word, at least one could argue. When looking at out of focus areas we know (at least for now) that there is no quantifiable way of proving it or saying it is good or bad, etc. We know out of focus areas look nice, or not so. Is colourful is not, is this, is that. We can do that with just about anything you can think of, 'Wow, that sky and cloud has some nice bokeh', and no one talks about or refers to 'bokeh' when looking at a painting where areas are painted in ways similar to out of focus areas on film. That I know of. That's why I'm looking for something real on 'bokeh'. Also, there is considerable debate on the spelling of the word in question. That muddies the water further. So, basically, as I see it, 'bokeh' does not exist. Therefore the speaking of it or writing of it is nonsense. But I still say, someone prove me wrong. Give me hard proof (again, no math required), and I will start analysing the 'bokeh' of photographic prints. I do think it's nonsense. But I'm also playing a Devil's Advocate role here. Next time I'm up at the library, I'm going to give it a go, I hope some others do as well. The results may be interesting, who knows?!
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Your words, not mine. ;-) Yet they sayseeing is believing g Indeed you haven't seen my documentation, but you need not go that far, however, I may not be Brad Dobo at all but Pete DeCall. Fooled ya! ;-) Nonsense? Brad, you might as well say because I have never seen 'X', 'X' does not exist. Therefore the speaking or writing of it is nonsense. Actually, I've never seen you documented in print...hmm... ;-) Dan Scott.
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Pentax Guy wrote: - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:43 PM Subject: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . Here's a paragraph from the web source Robert Soames Wetmore posted, which is: http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v17/msg11841.html Mike Johnston is speaking here: In 1997 I helped introduce a new term into the lexicon of North American photographers: bokeh, which was my own rendering of a katakana term more properly romanized as _bo-ke_ or boke (a spelling which provoked a hail of puns and jokes on a pronunciation that was totally incorrect). It's the Japanese word meaning blur, specifically the visual properties of the way a lens renders out-of-focus areas in pictures. _PHOTO Techniques_ presented three articles on the subject: What is 'Bokeh'? By John Kennerdell, an American-born photographer based in Bangkok; Notes on the Terminology of Bokeh by Oren Grad, an M.D. / Ph.D. researcher at Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA; and A Technical View of Bokeh by Harold Merklinger, who is Senior Scientist at the Canadian Defense Establishment Atlantic in Halifax, N.S. All these senior scientists' and researchers' emanations are probably suspect too, because they were found online, not so? Ah-Ha! Keith, you didn't read through your red haze of anger. You assume I'm angry. Not so. Sometimes exasperated, but... You have produced evidence. That is what I wanted!!! Of course it is! That's what I DO when I argue. Produce evidence, and let the protagonist wallow around in new, exciting information! ;^) I can go and pull up bios on these people, check credentials, read published material. Exactly so! Sighhh. Don't you see, that was what I was HOPING you'd do? Of course, if I look into Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA and there is no record of Oren Grad being related there or anywhere and no record of his materials, then it's a fraud, happens all the time on the Internet. I'm not saying what you just posted is. But now I can use a better method to check it's authenticity and read more about him/her and their research. And perhaps learn more about bokeh.See? Of course! Do you? How wonderful! Thanks! keith
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On 9 Nov 2002 at 17:12, Paul Stenquist wrote: The harshness or smoothness of the bokeh -- or out of focus elements -- is dependent on much more than the lens and the way it renders things. How distant they are from the camera determines their rendering more than any other element. The lighting is critical as well. I have found that the most obvious examples of good/bad bokeh occur in the back ground of images where the subject is in the near to middle ground and there are specular highlights in the background such as reflections of the sun off water or glimpses of sunlight through tree foliage. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re:OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On 9 Nov 2002 at 15:53, Pentax Guy wrote: These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect, I wanted published works -- books, manuals, journals (that includes art journals, which are generally not quantifiable) A well constructed article on bokeh: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf A Technical View of Bokeh by Harold M. Merklinger as published in Photo Techniques, May/June 1997. Some credential references for Harold M. Merklinger http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ Technical Books on Photography by Harold M. Merklinger Enjoy, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 05:06 PM, Brad Dobo wrote: Your words, not mine. ;-) Yet they sayseeing is believing g Indeed you haven't seen my documentation, but you need not go that far, however, I may not be Brad Dobo at all but Pete DeCall. Fooled ya! ;-) Please, I've seen through you all along. Your real identity is Mojo Dobo, whose hero is Mojo Jojo, chief villain and fav punching bag on the Power Puff Girls series on Cartoon Network. Unable to get your own show in primetime, you've decided to work your way up in the sticks of the PDML. Yep, Mojo Dobo, you're busted. Dan Scott (I know that remote is around here somewhere...)
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Eccellent, Rob. I was thinking about digging up Harold, but thought I'd let Pentaxguy do it himself. He's the grad student, not me! I'm done with my structured learning from Universities! g keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: On 9 Nov 2002 at 15:53, Pentax Guy wrote: These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect, I wanted published works -- books, manuals, journals (that includes art journals, which are generally not quantifiable) A well constructed article on bokeh: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf A Technical View of Bokeh by Harold M. Merklinger as published in Photo Techniques, May/June 1997. Some credential references for Harold M. Merklinger http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ Technical Books on Photography by Harold M. Merklinger Enjoy, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Hey Paul, We should disregard lens Bokeh since it isn't currently quantifiable, best note that you sound like a Leica snob too. :-( Hi Rob, I logged on this morning to check the pdml and for a second though i'd made a mistake and was reading the LUG with all the Bokeh emails! Me a leica snob, never! :) Actualy i had a generation 2 35mm Summicron and the bokeh was quite bad, it seemed to always get double images! Regards, Paul
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
For me as a photographer i find bokeh to be a factor to consider when buying or desciding to use a lense, because bad bokeh really bothers me! i also like shooting portraits quite wide open. Nice smooth bokeh can add a whole other element to a portrait, where as harsh bokeh can totally detract! Also even though a lense has good bokeh, it doesnt mean it can make a harsh background look good, shoot a lense wide open into a heavily back lit tree with light popping through and i doubt any lense will make the bokeh look really nice. If i was shooting landscapes at F8 or smaller then i really wouldn't care, like for my 645 45/2.8 i have no idea what the bokehs like and dont really care, because the chances of me using it in a situation where it was distract from the shot are about nil. heres a bokeh shot, wether its good or bad is up to the viewer, from a CV 75mm lense on a Leica. http://www.nrg666.com/bokeh.jpg Regards, Paul - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:11 PM Subject: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . Eccellent, Rob. I was thinking about digging up Harold, but thought I'd let Pentaxguy do it himself. He's the grad student, not me! I'm done with my structured learning from Universities! g keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: On 9 Nov 2002 at 15:53, Pentax Guy wrote: These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect, I wanted published works -- books, manuals, journals (that includes art journals, which are generally not quantifiable) A well constructed article on bokeh: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf A Technical View of Bokeh by Harold M. Merklinger as published in Photo Techniques, May/June 1997. Some credential references for Harold M. Merklinger http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ Technical Books on Photography by Harold M. Merklinger Enjoy, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
RE:Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens
About 3-4 years ago Camera and darkroom magazine (may have changed its name to Photographic techniques by then) had a full article on the subject of Bokeh. So yes, it has been covered in legitimate publications. The problem with Bokeh is that it is a subjective quality, not unlike what kind of photography styles do you like. For instance, I like to do candid portraits with a long lens (200mm) because I like the exaggerated compression effect. This doesn't mean that street photography or landscape photography etc are any less valid, just things I might not shoot often. Since Bokeh is most prevalent in certain lighting/ shooting situations it may, or may not be a big concern to me.It is another of those no one can win subjects. (that we love on the list so much) BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Excellent comparison! Do you have a similar test of branches or stems open wide and close in? Do you see a difference between specular highlights? My time spent with the M50/1.4 was limited because it was returned to the seller. However, I have some photos taken by FA43/1.9. http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still1.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still2.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still3.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still5.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still9.jpg regards, Alan Chan _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Would this be an example of bad bokeh? Or would it be called something else? That circular swirling motion/pattern in the background around the subject. It happens everytime I use my cheap Vivitar 80-200 zoom set at 200mm. I haven't noticed it at 80mm and I haven't really tested it at other focal lengths. http://members.aol.com/doepage2/pigeon.jpg I find it distinctly weird and I don't like it. But maybe it's called something else. Doe aka Marnie Parker ;-)
RE: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
This is the second time in as many days that I've seen CV here. Once it had to do with a stupid thief and now it's a lens. I must have missed something in my life because I don't know what a CV is. Please, someone, enlighten me. Len --- heres a bokeh shot, wether its good or bad is up to the viewer, from a CV 75mm lense on a Leica. http://www.nrg666.com/bokeh.jpg Regards, Paul
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Out of curiosity, did either of those images get any sharpening applied to them? Yes, so I prepare an unaltered scan at 2820dpi. http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/43vs50.jpg regards, Alan Chan _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Hi, Len, Cosina-Voigtlander. Or Curriculum Vitae. But since this is usually a photography related forum, I'm guessing the former. vbg -frank Len Paris wrote: This is the second time in as many days that I've seen CV here. Once it had to do with a stupid thief and now it's a lens. I must have missed something in my life because I don't know what a CV is. Please, someone, enlighten me. Len --- heres a bokeh shot, wether its good or bad is up to the viewer, from a CV 75mm lense on a Leica. http://www.nrg666.com/bokeh.jpg Regards, Paul -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Hi, Rob, Wow, I love that shot! What lens was it taken with, and (if you know), what exposure? thanks, frank Rob Studdert wrote: On 10 Nov 2002 at 11:52, Paul Jones wrote: Also even though a lense has good bokeh, it doesnt mean it can make a harsh background look good, shoot a lense wide open into a heavily back lit tree with light popping through and i doubt any lense will make the bokeh look really nice. Smooth bokeh can however make a background less obtrusive when there is little other option but to include it in the shot see: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012164m.JPG Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 09:30 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: T'was me, the images were captured with a Leica-M Noctilux 50/1 and from what I have read the distortion is mainly a function of spherical distortions. See: http://www.shinozuka-family.com/200110autumnlux2/kittyleaves4.jpg http://www.shinozuka-family.com/200110autumnlux2/tedkitleaves2.jpg Cheers, Rob Studdert Those are the very photos. Like I said, Rod Studdert posted a link...g Dan Scott
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Smooth bokeh can however make a background less obtrusive when there is little other option but to include it in the shot see: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012164m.JPG What was the lens used for that photo, Rob? Fred
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On 9 Nov 2002 at 21:50, frank theriault wrote: Hi, Rob, Wow, I love that shot! What lens was it taken with, and (if you know), what exposure? Hi Frank, I'm sorry but it is pure evil, the work of the devil, I was captured with my Oly E-10 (I still have no film scanner). The details are embedded in the pic: Exposure time: 1/640 F-stop: 4.8 ISO speed: 80 Focal length: 36. The lens opens up to f2.4 at 36mm (~135mm equivalent) however the shutter only goes to 1/640th and I don't have NDs. The nearside fill was accomplished using a small reflector. Here is another and whist quite different it may give you an idea of the dynamic light capture range. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/P9302137m.JPG Exposure time: 1/640 F-stop: 4.8 ISO speed: 80 Focal length: 29. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On 9 Nov 2002 at 22:00, Fred wrote: Smooth bokeh can however make a background less obtrusive when there is little other option but to include it in the shot see: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012164m.JPG What was the lens used for that photo, Rob? Hi Fred, You'll probably see my answer to Frank before this but I'll just add that I believe that Bokeh was a criterion in the design of the Oly E-10 zoom (which is what it was shot with), its barrel distortion and chromatic aberrations aren't great though. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Yep, I had a Vivitar 70-210/4.5 that did the same thing at the longer focal lengths. It was my first experience with bokeh, though the term was unknown 15 years agoIn fact, I didn't really understand the specifics at the time, but that was the beginning of when I would choose lenses based on how the total image looked, including the out of focus areas. William in Utah. 11/9/2002 6:01:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would this be an example of bad bokeh? Or would it be called something else? That circular swirling motion/pattern in the background around the subject. It happens everytime I use my cheap Vivitar 80-200 zoom set at 200mm. I haven't noticed it at 80mm and I haven't really tested it at other focal lengths. http://members.aol.com/doepage2/pigeon.jpg I find it distinctly weird and I don't like it. But maybe it's called something else. Doe aka Marnie Parker ;-)
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
O, Rob, You are indeed Satan himself, aren't you? g Well, whatever, they are both lovely shots. I can't deny it, they rock! So tell me, did you do this on purpose? Post some digital captures, and wait for us dyed-in-the-wool film guys to drool? If so, it worked! vbg Seriously, good work. cheers, frank Rob Studdert wrote: Hi Frank, I'm sorry but it is pure evil, the work of the devil, I was captured with my Oly E-10 (I still have no film scanner). The details are embedded in the pic: Exposure time: 1/640 F-stop: 4.8 ISO speed: 80 Focal length: 36. The lens opens up to f2.4 at 36mm (~135mm equivalent) however the shutter only goes to 1/640th and I don't have NDs. The nearside fill was accomplished using a small reflector. Here is another and whist quite different it may give you an idea of the dynamic light capture range. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/P9302137m.JPG Exposure time: 1/640 F-stop: 4.8 ISO speed: 80 Focal length: 29. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
I don't know if it's me, but I find the backgrounds very distracting. Is that considered a bad bokeh? Jeff. - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 8:08 PM Subject: Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . Excellent comparison! Do you have a similar test of branches or stems open wide and close in? Do you see a difference between specular highlights? My time spent with the M50/1.4 was limited because it was returned to the seller. However, I have some photos taken by FA43/1.9. http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still1.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still2.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still3.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still5.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still9.jpg regards, Alan Chan _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
M50/1.4 is much nicer. Jeff. - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 8:19 PM Subject: Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . Out of curiosity, did either of those images get any sharpening applied to them? Yes, so I prepare an unaltered scan at 2820dpi. http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/43vs50.jpg regards, Alan Chan _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 09:33 PM, frank theriault wrote: O, Rob, You are indeed Satan himself, aren't you? g Well, whatever, they are both lovely shots. I can't deny it, they rock! So tell me, did you do this on purpose? Post some digital captures, and wait for us dyed-in-the-wool film guys to drool? If so, it worked! vbg Seriously, good work. cheers, frank Frank, don't ask to see his 'beaters'. You'll cry. Dan Scott
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 08:52 PM, Dan Scott wrote: Those are the very photos. Like I said, Rod Studdert posted a link...g Dan Scott Crap! Sorry Rob. Dan Scott
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 07:08 PM, Alan Chan wrote: Excellent comparison! Do you have a similar test of branches or stems open wide and close in? Do you see a difference between specular highlights? My time spent with the M50/1.4 was limited because it was returned to the seller. However, I have some photos taken by FA43/1.9. http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still1.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still2.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still3.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still5.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/still9.jpg regards, Alan Chan Thanks Alan. Double jittery lines on the park bench are definitely unsettling. Do you think this is attributable to sample variance or is this typical of the 43/1.9s as a whole? Still 9 is nice from what I can see. Dan Scott
If You had to pick one lens . . .
I am starting out here and looking to purchase (at least for now) one prime lens. My primary photographic interest is candids and casual portraits of my kids in both individual and small group shots. I am looking at a prime lens because I would like to do available light and shallow DOF shots and the quality (especially bokeh) is important to me. So I have narrowed it down to three Pentax lenses: 1. FA 50mm f/1.4 2. FA 77mm f/1.8 3. FA 85mm f/1.4 Which lens would you choose? Any others I should consider? Thanks, Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Michael Cross wrote: I am starting out here and looking to purchase (at least for now) one prime lens. My primary photographic interest is candids and casual portraits of my kids in both individual and small group shots. I am looking at a prime lens because I would like to do available light and shallow DOF shots and the quality (especially bokeh) is important to me. I can only speak for teh A50/1.4, which (as I've made clear ala a broken record the last few days), I love. I like the length because its ideal to do enviromental portraits which is easier for me than head-and-shoulders style pictures. However, teh other two on your list, the 77/1.8 and the 85/1.4 are also fine lenses, but all accounts. I'd be happy to own either, and could easily see either in a carry kit of mine, if I had that kind of money. Chances are I'd have the 85/1.4, because I'm still fixated on specs, and that extra stop is very appealing to me. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
If your going to consider the 77 and the 50 you have to consider the 43. - Original Message - From: Michael Cross Subject: If You had to pick one lens . . . I am starting out here and looking to purchase (at least for now) one prime lens. My primary photographic interest is candids and casual portraits of my kids in both individual and small group shots. I am looking at a prime lens because I would like to do available light and shallow DOF shots and the quality (especially bokeh) is important to me. So I have narrowed it down to three Pentax lenses: 1. FA 50mm f/1.4 2. FA 77mm f/1.8 3. FA 85mm f/1.4 Which lens would you choose? Any others I should consider? Thanks, Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: If You had to pick one lens . . .
I would also consider the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. Excellent bokeh, RAZOR sharp, great DOF control. Even though the focal length may be a little long, it will come in handy for the candid and individual shots. + the lens is built like a tank - you definitely get your moneys worth, the AF is also amazingly quick and the MF has a great feel. Jason -Original Message- From: Evan Hanson [mailto:buddha;myrealbox.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . If your going to consider the 77 and the 50 you have to consider the 43. - Original Message - From: Michael Cross Subject: If You had to pick one lens . . . I am starting out here and looking to purchase (at least for now) one prime lens. My primary photographic interest is candids and casual portraits of my kids in both individual and small group shots. I am looking at a prime lens because I would like to do available light and shallow DOF shots and the quality (especially bokeh) is important to me. So I have narrowed it down to three Pentax lenses: 1. FA 50mm f/1.4 2. FA 77mm f/1.8 3. FA 85mm f/1.4 Which lens would you choose? Any others I should consider? Thanks, Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Michael, If I had a choice of these three, I would purchase the FA 77mm f/1.8. I have not used one, but I have read that it performs beautifully (sharpness, bokeh, etc..); especially for portraits/candids. It is also compact and exceptionally built (Limited). I use a K 85mm f/1.8 and really like the images this lens produces, but it is rare and only available used. Regards, Jose R. Rodriguez From: Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2002/11/08 Fri PM 02:39:09 CST To: Pentax Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: If You had to pick one lens . . . I am starting out here and looking to purchase (at least for now) one prime lens. My primary photographic interest is candids and casual portraits of my kids in both individual and small group shots. I am looking at a prime lens because I would like to do available light and shallow DOF shots and the quality (especially bokeh) is important to me. So I have narrowed it down to three Pentax lenses: 1. FA 50mm f/1.4 2. FA 77mm f/1.8 3. FA 85mm f/1.4 Which lens would you choose? Any others I should consider? Thanks, Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Vick, Jason wrote: I would also consider the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. This pleases me, after adding an FA28/2.8, the 100/2.8 macro will be the third lens I add to complete a decent walking kit. I don't have the cash to start researching, but I'm happy to know its well regarded with a smooth bokeh. Something I'm not happy wiht is the awful bokeh I've seen thus far from my 645 A75/2.8 -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Pray tell, what IS SMCT 2x - 3x mm glass? What does x stand for? keith whaley Otis Wright, Jr. wrote: Have you considered a wider lens. Everyone has different needs, but for 30 years of casual family and travel photography, I used SMCT 2x - 3x mm glass 80 to 90 percent of the time. Just one amateurs thoughts. Otis Michael Cross wrote: I am starting out here and looking to purchase (at least for now) one prime lens. My primary photographic interest is candids and casual portraits of my kids in both individual and small group shots. I am looking at a prime lens because I would like to do available light and shallow DOF shots and the quality (especially bokeh) is important to me. So I have narrowed it down to three Pentax lenses: 1. FA 50mm f/1.4 2. FA 77mm f/1.8 3. FA 85mm f/1.4 Which lens would you choose? Any others I should consider? Thanks, Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
I would opt for a K85/1.8. In many ways it's the equal of the FA 85/1.4 or the 77/1.8. However it's not autofocus and is consequently much less expensive. If your eyes are good, you're better off without autofocus. The 50 is too short for portraits, and will provide too much DOF even at medium stops. Paul Stenquist Michael Cross wrote: I am starting out here and looking to purchase (at least for now) one prime lens. My primary photographic interest is candids and casual portraits of my kids in both individual and small group shots. I am looking at a prime lens because I would like to do available light and shallow DOF shots and the quality (especially bokeh) is important to me. So I have narrowed it down to three Pentax lenses: 1. FA 50mm f/1.4 2. FA 77mm f/1.8 3. FA 85mm f/1.4 Which lens would you choose? Any others I should consider? Thanks, Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: If You had to pick one lens . . .
No other lens has given me so much pleasure and there is no piece of photographic equipment in the world I would rather have(except maybe an MZ-D prototype)! Not even the Hasselblad on the Moon? The 77 is also much smaller and lighter than the 85 I believe. Much indeed. regards, Alan Chan _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 02:39 PM, Michael Cross wrote: I am starting out here and looking to purchase (at least for now) one prime lens. My primary photographic interest is candids and casual portraits of my kids in both individual and small group shots. I am looking at a prime lens because I would like to do available light and shallow DOF shots and the quality (especially bokeh) is important to me. So I have narrowed it down to three Pentax lenses: 1. FA 50mm f/1.4 2. FA 77mm f/1.8 3. FA 85mm f/1.4 Any of them, depending on how far away you will generally be from them while you are doing your candids. If you live in small rooms, you might back into a wall or piece of furniture before you get far enough back to get everyone in the frame. My favorite for these type of things is the FA 35/2, but you do end up getting close in, which can take away some of the spontaneity if your kids are camera shy. Dan Scott
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 04:19 PM, gfen wrote: This pleases me, after adding an FA28/2.8, the 100/2.8 macro will be the third lens I add to complete a decent walking kit. I don't have the cash to start researching, but I'm happy to know its well regarded with a smooth bokeh. Something I'm not happy wiht is the awful bokeh I've seen thus far from my 645 A75/2.8 Like what gfen? Examples, please. Dan Scott
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
x marks the spot --always.. Otis Wright Keith Whaley wrote: Pray tell, what IS SMCT 2x - 3x mm glass? What does x stand for? keith whaley Otis Wright, Jr. wrote: Have you considered a wider lens. Everyone has different needs, but for 30 years of casual family and travel photography, I used SMCT 2x - 3x mm glass 80 to 90 percent of the time. Just one amateurs thoughts. Otis Michael Cross wrote: I am starting out here and looking to purchase (at least for now) one prime lens. My primary photographic interest is candids and casual portraits of my kids in both individual and small group shots. I am looking at a prime lens because I would like to do available light and shallow DOF shots and the quality (especially bokeh) is important to me. So I have narrowed it down to three Pentax lenses: 1. FA 50mm f/1.4 2. FA 77mm f/1.8 3. FA 85mm f/1.4 Which lens would you choose? Any others I should consider? Thanks, Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
The FA 50mm f/1.4. Why, because I own it and not the other so am biased :) Also, it's a normal lens that's sharp and fast, good for general usage, the Limited have the different look, and are getting a little long for my tastes if I had to choose one. Plus they are far more expensive than they should be. Brad - Original Message - From: Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:39 PM Subject: If You had to pick one lens . . . I am starting out here and looking to purchase (at least for now) one prime lens. My primary photographic interest is candids and casual portraits of my kids in both individual and small group shots. I am looking at a prime lens because I would like to do available light and shallow DOF shots and the quality (especially bokeh) is important to me. So I have narrowed it down to three Pentax lenses: 1. FA 50mm f/1.4 2. FA 77mm f/1.8 3. FA 85mm f/1.4 Which lens would you choose? Any others I should consider? Thanks, Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Poor Mike he asked about 3 lenses he had narrowed it down to and we're blowing them wide open again. Valid arguments for the 43mm, valid for the 100 2.8 macro (I have it and love it to pieces, but can't because it's a tough SOB) You're talking so much more money here. I still say, since you don't have one? get the 50mm f/1.4, for the price you can't beat it. Brad - Original Message - From: Vick, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 4:31 PM Subject: RE: If You had to pick one lens . . . I would also consider the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. Excellent bokeh, RAZOR sharp, great DOF control. Even though the focal length may be a little long, it will come in handy for the candid and individual shots. + the lens is built like a tank - you definitely get your moneys worth, the AF is also amazingly quick and the MF has a great feel. Jason -Original Message- From: Evan Hanson [mailto:buddha;myrealbox.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . If your going to consider the 77 and the 50 you have to consider the 43. - Original Message - From: Michael Cross Subject: If You had to pick one lens . . . I am starting out here and looking to purchase (at least for now) one prime lens. My primary photographic interest is candids and casual portraits of my kids in both individual and small group shots. I am looking at a prime lens because I would like to do available light and shallow DOF shots and the quality (especially bokeh) is important to me. So I have narrowed it down to three Pentax lenses: 1. FA 50mm f/1.4 2. FA 77mm f/1.8 3. FA 85mm f/1.4 Which lens would you choose? Any others I should consider? Thanks, Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Dan Scott wrote: Something I'm not happy wiht is the awful bokeh I've seen thus far from my 645 A75/2.8 Like what gfen? Examples, please. Perhaps I don't know good bokeh, since I'm not sure if anyone is actually capable of truly describing it, BUT... My 75/2.8 makes evyerthing look so jarring and spotty, where as most of my other lenses used (especially the 35 A50/1,4) give out such smooth, perfectly blurred backfgrounds.. I'm not happy with the 75, at all. At least, not yet. Tkane with the 645 A75/2.8.. a prime example of what I'm referring too.. this is about at minimum forcus distance, and wide open.. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1077324 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1001732 With the 35 A50/1.4, wide open at minimum focus distance. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=600414 With a Quantaray (!) 70-300/4-5.6. Its at 300, more or less minimum distance, and again, its nice and smooth out of focus areas, but not quite as extreme as the above. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
