Am I the only one that does not like Bokeh?

WRAG wrote in post #12358649
I have learned that photos with a blurred background, more DOF are considered better than photos where the entire scene is focused, at least for sports and portraits.

(I think you mean less depth of field.)

You learned wrongly. In particular, it is a meme which has established itself in this forum. Get hold of works by some of the great portrait photographers and you will see that shallow depth of field is rarely used.

For sports, it's more a matter of necessity due to the very long focal lengths and fast shutter speeds required.

Anyway, photography is an art, so you shouldn't give a flying fig what anyone else thinks of your style.

RPCrowe wrote in post #12360027
Bokeh is a Japanese term meaning the SUBJECTIVE QUALITY of the out of focus areas of an image!

Bokeh cannot be objectively measured. In fact, what one person may consider interesting or pleasing bokeh, another person may dislike. This is illustrated very well by the horrible (IMO) donut shaped highlights in the out of focus areas of an image shot with a mirror lens. Some people hate it while others think it is pretty cool.

Photo terminology is constantly evolving and perhaps, BOKEH and DEPTH OF FIELD may someday be used interchangeably. However, they do not have the same meaning at this point in time.
...............

Excellent post!! Agree completely, in fact my first response to the thread title was "how is it even possible to not like bokeh? It's like saying I don't like exposure."

It's really another tool that is great to have at your disposal. Don't like photos with a very shallow depth of field? That's ok, take photos with a deep depth of field. It's not a right or wrong scenario.

lungdoc wrote in post #12363860
Agree completely, in fact my first response to the thread title was "how is it even possible to not like bokeh? It's like saying I don't like exposure."

This is

WRAG wrote in post #12358649
I have just started to try and take more advanced photos and been researching and learning a lot over the past few weeks. I have learned that photos with a blurred background, more DOF are considered better than photos where the entire scene is focused, at least for sports and portraits. Not so much for landscapes.

Am I the only one that does not think a blurred background is pleasing, in any setting? In my sports photos, I like to see the faces of the other people in the crowd, the other kids on the field etc. I think it adds to the excitment of the game. I do not like to have the main subject in focus and everything behind him blurry so you cannot even tell what is in the background. Maybe I will come around to appreciate the better quality of blurred background as I know the majority think it is better, but I just don't get it.

Anyone else had this thought when they first got into photos and then learned to appreciate the blurred backgrounds?

I like blurry backgrounds, I never stop down lenses, wide open all the way!!

Unfortunately I don't do sports but for other subjects it works really well imo

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

My take on this is like my work shop at home. I have a table saw, radial arm saw, circular saw, jig saw, reciprocating saw, band saw, flush cut saw, hand saw, scroll saw. Not every opportunity can be completed with the same saw so if you have a tool box with plenty of options, you can find what will allow you the best option at that moment in time. The nice thing about boken is all you need is to bracket your photographs by adjusting the f-stop and delete the ones you don’t like. Just like the work shop, once you understand what you want, you just head to the right saw or lens/f-stop.

Now don’t make me explain all the screwdrivers…..

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #12358676
Blurred background is just a simulation of how our brain see things, so that's why we like it. When we look at things with our eyes, we only focus on one subject at a time,

So when you drive a car you only see the one car in front of you! but you don't see the others on the road with you eyes? I wouldn't like to be in you car when you drive

And I didn't buy my camera so I can make Bokeh backgounds I like all in focus pictures most of the time.

CanonEOS wrote in post #12364036
So when you drive a car you only see the one car in front of you! but you don't see the others on the road with you eyes? I wouldn't like to be in you car when you drive

And I didn't buy my camera so I can make Bokeh backgounds I like all in focus pictures most of the time.

So you see every detail of every car at the same time? Wow! Me I see what I am focused on and other cars are blurry. I see them but not in detail as the car that is in focus.

Playonpics.com wrote in post #12358658
then get a Point and Shoot or buy a lens and use F22

LOL +1

In fact the human eye can see more than A million Billion megagpixels in colours so why is the DSLR camera campanries holding back on the MP cameras today?

Our eyes can see 0fps, 24fps, 1200fps, 600fps or 1,000,000fps, but we are made to use only 30fps? in vdeo?.

The human brain is the most complex thing in existence (so far). It can make 100 trillion calculations per second,

The eye can see in practice, objects 0.04mm wide also human eye see about a a 160 degree wide

So you are telling me when you walk or drive your eyes only see one subject? No camera is better then a human eye.

D1G1T4L wrote in post #12364500
So you see every detail of every car at the same time? Wow! Me I see what I am focused on and other cars are blurry. I see them but not in detail as the car that is in focus.

CanonEOS wrote in post #12365056
In fact the human eye can see more than A million Billion megagpixels in colours so why is the DSLR camera campanries holding back on the MP cameras today?

Our eyes can see 0fps, 24fps, 1200fps, 600fps or 1,000,000fps, but we are made to use only 30fps? in vdeo?.

The human brain is the most complex thing in existence (so far). It can make 100 trillion calculations per second,

The eye can see in practice, objects 0.04mm wide also human eye see about a a 160 degree wide

So you are telling me when you walk or drive your eyes only see one subject? No camera is better then a human eye.

We are talking about seeing things in focus and things out of focus. Maybe that is the confusion here. If you focus on one car sure you see what is around you but it isn't in focus.

No I am not confused just making a point, so you are telling me your eye don't focus?

D1G1T4L wrote in post #12365130
We are talking about seeing things in focus and things out of focus. Maybe that is the confusion here. If you focus on one car sure you see what is around you but it isn't in focus.

CanonEOS wrote in post #12365144
No I am not confused just making a point, so you are telling me your eye don't focus?

Look carefully at ONE WORD on the screen in front of you. Stare at it while thinking about the surrounding words. Without moving your point of vision (keep staring at the one word), you may see a few surrounding words with enough clarity to make out what the words are but for sure the whole page full of words will be so far out of focus that all you see is that there is a page full of words except for a small area around what you are staring at.

Our brain manages to assemble what the eye scans over and it appears that the whole scene is visible, but there is really very little at one moment in time that is in focus to us.

True statement. Anybody that thinks they are able to focus on all subjects in the field of view, with the human eye, needs to do a little reading on how the human eye and vision works.

To the OP, if you like everything in your photo to be in focus, then by all means, go for it. Art is totally subjective, and as long as you are shooting only for yourself, you can do it any way you like. My suggestion would be that one of the first things you will need is a good tripod, so that you can hold your rig still, while you use slow shutter speeds and low ISO.
Using a tripod is good too, because it effectively forces you to consider the composition of your shots a little longer.

As for the idea of OOF background, and subject isolation, we could likely argue that the ultimate in subject isolation is for instance, when we shoot a person on a totally solid BG ( white, black, or any color for that matter ). There are some really nice photos done this way, I suspect you will agree. Then as we step into the idea of shooting a subject with normal things in the BG, we can then play with this idea of isolation ( shallow DOF ) or not ( deep DOF ).

If you are, by chance fairly new to all this, I would suggest you go out and have a good time practicing on lots of different subjects, shot in many different ways. Then look, and I mean really look at your results, and decide what you like best. It's also very useful to ask other folks to look and ask them for honest open critique. Eventually, you may in fact develop your own preferred style.

It's all fun, challenging, and honestly, it's an ongoing learning process even for those who are expert and have been shooting for a long time.

Edit: I'm one of those who often shoots for a totally blurred out BG. Some may like it, others not. Here's a sample of one I liked how it came out.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

tkadrum wrote in post #12362276
I have here a photo that I cropped for viewing.
I didn't want the surrounding to be in focus, because I was trying to capture the people in the center.
What do you think of this?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I think the blur in this picture looks fake. There's a circle right in the middle of the photo that is in focus and that's it. The top of that building in the back is the same distance from you as the bottom, but its really blurred at the top and 100% in focus at the bottom. Are you sure this wasn't done in photoshop?