Good Bokeh or Bad Bokeh and why?

[mr.photoguy]

http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/38612069.jpg

I took this image with my camera and the 50mm 1.8 II
settings
1/160s f/1.8 at 50.0mm iso200

Do you think the background bokeh is nice/smooth or bad/harsh?

Please give your opinions, and why?

Thanks

[jaypie77]

I don't like it because it makes my eyes hurt. I think that, due to the subject being the fence, my eye is drawn down the line of the fence, but it doesn't get very far before getting too blurry to follow the fence.

I would like this better if the fence was less blurred, but the background remained blurred.

[PacAce]

Try using the 50 f/1.4. It'll give you better bokeh than the 50 f/1.8 does.

[steven]

I don't think I'm qualified to say if something is good or bad bokeh.
But I would like to see the same photo done with a lens that is said to have good bokeh for a comparison

[Tom W]

It looks "choppy" - kind-of introduces a pattern rather than a smooth milky background. As others have said, it might be good to try it with another lens known for its good bokeh. Same shot, settings, and all. Just a different lens.

BTW, bokeh isn't all lens - the choice of background is as much, if not more of an influence on bokeh. If the background is distant and/or already smooth, it will produce better, creamier bokeh.

[Longwatcher]

Since the edges of the blurriness appear noticeable I would lean towards bad bokeh,
but I think if you took the picture again with a touch less depth of field so the second post is almost in focus, I think you would have a better shot.

Just my opinion, feel free to ignore it. (My girlfriend would in this case)

[Redbird_xo]

...you took the picture again with a touch less depth of field so the second post is almost in focus, I think you would have a better shot.
am i missing something here? i might be making a fool out of myself, but can someone straighten it for me...isn't it true that, in the original posted pic, a little more dof will make the second post appears to be more in focus?

i'm trying to learn. :)

[davidwegs]

am i missing something here? i might be making a fool out of myself, but can someone straighten it for me...isn't it true that, in the original posted pic, a little more dof will make the second post appears to be more in focus?

i'm trying to learn. :)

Yes is the short anwer.

If you stop down the aperture you increase the hyperfocal range (the distance sharp focus is achieved throughout). If you open the aperture you decrease the same.

As for this shot, the bokeh is a little choppy but not bad. It is created partly (as said) by the use of background and more by the # of blades in the aperture of the lens. More blades generally = better (smoother) bokeh. I think the bigger question is how much DOF should be given to a subject to get the most from whatever bokeh is there.

[mr.photoguy]

I don't like it because it makes my eyes hurt. I think that, due to the subject being the fence, my eye is drawn down the line of the fence, but it doesn't get very far before getting too blurry to follow the fence.

I would like this better if the fence was less blurred, but the background remained blurred.
no offense,
but you may want to read the Question over again.

[mr.photoguy]

Yes is the short anwer.

If you stop down the aperture you increase the hyperfocal range (the distance sharp focus is achieved throughout). If you open the aperture you decrease the same.

As for this shot, the bokeh is a little choppy but not bad. It is created partly (as said) by the use of background and more by the # of blades in the aperture of the lens. More blades generally = better (smoother) bokeh. I think the bigger question is how much DOF should be given to a subject to get the most from whatever bokeh is there.
Yes!. I really wanted to know what everyone thought about the ability of the lens to render the background unnoticeable. I am happy with the lens , yes. However, I noticed that the bokeh on my 70-200 f4 is so smooth..
That is when I realized the difference.
The purpose of this image was to see if the fence post would be really noticeable, and how others would view the background of this image.. Distracting, smooth, or not bad.

The image was taken at 1.8 on purpose though. I could have stoped down, but that wasn't what I wanted to do.

I think the bokeh in this image doesn't look to good. (that's my opinion) I understand what people were talking about when hey say you can see the sharp edges.. Like in the post in the background, I can actually see the sharp edges of it.
I may try it again with my 70-200 and see what it would look like, but then that wouldn't be the same.. it only stops to f4. Am I mistaken in thinking this?

[DocFrankenstein]

Welcome to my world. Too me 3 50/1.8 lenses to understand that I don't like the bokeh...

Now I'm either gonna keep my helios 58mm f/2 taken off zenit (very nice bokeh with 8 blades)... Or spring for canon 50/1.4

Cheers

[DocFrankenstein]

And the bokeh looks "choopy" and "patchy" as in "made of patches" or something.

Really don't like it. Cheers

[Andy_T]

I may try it again with my 70-200 and see what it would look like, but then that wouldn't be the same.. it only stops to f4. Am I mistaken in thinking this?

You are right. However, with the longer focal length, you might get a very similar picture, e.g. 200@f/4 (just with bokeh of a different quality)

Best regards,
Andy

[tommykjensen]

You are right. However, with the longer focal length, you might get a very similar picture, e.g. 200@f/4 (just with bokeh of a different quality)

Best regards,
Andy

This photo is often used as kind of reference for the bokeh this lens produce.

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photohtml.php?n=HarrisHawk1.jpg

[Longwatcher]

Let me try this explaination,
Yes the Bokeh needs work as you shot it, however, had you given it a touch more DoF then it might not have been as distracting. If you are trying to achieve that wide open short DoF, blurred background trick and get good Bokeh, you may need a different lens.

A better test would be to catch a scene where little droplets of water are being shined on. Doing that same shot at 1.8 with that would even more distinctly show the difference. This is because they should be small points of light.

One way to get a good idea of what the bokeh will be for a lens is to check the MTF chart for the lens. If the solid line and the broken line (of the same size and color) are close together you should have good bokeh, if they are far apart you will have bad bokeh (in theory). The higher the lines only means how sharp the picture will be on that part of the lens.
So for at least getting a good idea of the bokeh and sharpness of one lens verus another check out the MTF chart.

[jaypie77]

Just to clarify:

no offense,
but you may want to read the Question over again.
Do you think the background bokeh is nice/smooth or bad/harsh?
I don't like it
Please give your opinions, and why?
because it makes my eyes hurt.

To simplify: yes, the bokeh was bad/harsh.

[mr.photoguy]

ok, I tried it again with my 70-200 ..
I had to use the long end to get a somewhat near effect though .. At 70mm it wouldn't really blur out the background..

shot at f4 200mm .. 70-200 f4L ..

http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/38639730.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/38639731.jpg

[CyberDyneSystems]

The lens is not the only ingredient that goes into making a "smooth" bokeh.

Yu can acheive good results with lenses that have much smaller apertures.. to do so the composition has to be thought through.

thus.. you can get good or bad Bokeh with the 50mm f/1.8

The most important aspect of composition to aceive smooth bokeh is distance from subject to background realitive to camera from background.

Increase this and your background improves.

With the above pic.. the background is not a constant distance.. it is fading away.. thus making the bokeh inconsisant.

In short,..

NO the background is not pleasing in the above photo.. but it is not solely because of the lens.

[mwinog2777]

Bad bokeh.

Simply an out of focus part of the picture.

Your second and third are no better.

Sorry.