bokeh vs. dof.. what's the difference?

[mamabravo]

is there a difference???

i see this word bokeh around the fourm but is it the same as dof?

[In2Photos]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=315222

[mamabravo]

is this a good example of bokeh?

f/2.8 300mm

[DrPablo]

Bokeh isn't a thing. It's a quality used to characterize areas that are out of focus. In your image the DOF is shallow, so the background is out of focus. While bokeh quality is somewhat subjective, most people would find the bokeh in this picture to be somewhat poor, because the out of focus highlights have that 'donut' look to them.

Bokeh quality is primarily a function of spherical aberrations in the lens elements. There are many types of lens aberrations (or flaws), which for the most part lens engineers try to correct. With spherical aberrations, 100% perfect correction will create optimum sharpness in the plane of focus, but can actually create ugly out of focus highlights. So the premier lenses out there (especially by Leica and Zeiss) are engineered to slightly undercorrect spherical aberrations -- this creates a more smooth and Gaussian distribution of light across the out of focus image circles, and what we think of as good bokeh.

Of course there are many other factors that can contribute to bokeh quality, most importantly the absolute depth of field and how out of focus the OOF areas really are. People bring up aperture blades a lot, but frankly this is a fairly insignificant contributor to bokeh. They can alter the overall shape of the out of focus image circles, but they don't alter the uniformity of light. I own three Zeiss lenses for my Hasselblad, which have only 5 aperture blades, but these lenses have some of the best bokeh of any lens in history.

[mamabravo]

so i guess there is no way to correct this with my regular canon lens/

or photoshop?

i understand what bokeh means now and i understand that the photo i was showing dof feild wasn't good

to most people they would like it, but to the most advanced photographers would see the differents

thanks for explaing this!!!!

i have learned so much on this fourm!!!!

[DrPablo]

DOF is something that I wouldn't really describe as good or bad, it's just a variable, and it's sort of an integral part of photographic composition. The DOF is perfect in your photo -- the little girl is in focus, the background is out of focus, so you've isolated your subject -- and yet left the background sharp enough to be recognizable.

The bokeh can't really be improved much in Photoshop, though you can try various blur effects -- but when you see the diference it's really not the same.

If I were you, I wouldn't think too much about bokeh. Work on composition, exposure, getting your subject sharp, things like that. Use DOF to create good compositions, and don't worry about the bokeh until you feel like you have some mastery of DOF.

[Mark_Cohran]

If I were you, I wouldn't think too much about bokeh. Work on composition, exposure, getting your subject sharp, things like that. Use DOF to create good compositions, and don't worry about the bokeh until you feel like you have some mastery of DOF.

This is some of the best advice I've seen around here! :)

Mark

[Jamdiver]

...... People bring up aperture blades a lot, but frankly this is a fairly insignificant contributor to bokeh. They can alter the overall shape of the out of focus image circles, but they don't alter the uniformity of light. I own three Zeiss lenses for my Hasselblad, which have only 5 aperture blades, but these lenses have some of the best bokeh of any lens in history.

Any thoughts on the Canon lenses with the best Bokeh?
I ask because i've been quite impressed with the bokeh from my Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens so far :).

I'm wondering if there is or can be better out there :D :D.

[Tom W]

Any thoughts on the Canon lenses with the best Bokeh?
I ask because i've been quite impressed with the bokeh from my Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens so far :).

I'm wondering if there is or can be better out there :D :D.

Well, the 85 f/1.2L stands out has having excellent bokeh. 135 f/2 also. Both have a strong reputation. Can't say how they compare with the competition from Zeiss and Leica, but they are great performers.

I've also enjoyed what my old 300 f/4L IS could do in terms of bokeh. The 50/1.4 isn't bad, though the new 50/1.2 is better (though some seem to think that there is a focus problem with that lens). There's quite a few good choices out there with the Canon label.

[DrPablo]

Mundane though it sounds, my 70-200 f/4L has stunning bokeh, even better than my 85 f/1.8 (which I've since sold).