Am I the only one that does not like Bokeh?

"Bokeh" doesn't mean "blur".
The blur is nice as it highlights the subject especially if the frame is busy with other things.
Our brain does not blur anything unless the object is very close to our eyes.

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?

Personally, I think this photo:

tkadrum wrote in post #12358686
I can give you an example of Bokeh.
Unfortunately, he uses Alien Skin Bokeh 2 software to recreate the effect.
But as you can see the diff. from the two. I personally like the Bokeh effect (imo)
http://rod.inception-imaging.com …wc6/0/XL/i-4T3wwc6-XL.jpg

nice example tho..

i love it when the background adds nothing or takes away from the subject...but if the background is part of the story obviously you'd want it shown.

i do portraits so for me it's great.

Personally I think 'bokeh' is overrated, overused word.

Really, I mean you see conversations about " pleasing bokeh ".

What's so pleasing about something being " out of focus ".

When I look at an image, I am looking for a story .... the story is what's in focus.

If the entire image is in focus, it should be a landscape or the object of the story should be in the center of the image. Otherwise the story gets lost.

That's just my opinion.

^ Couldn't have said it better myself. A skilled photographer will decide beforehand what goal he or she has for the shot. If there's any cardinal rule about anything in life, it's that slavish adherence to a concept, like bokeh, limits one's horizons. The only reason for learning the "rules" in order to know when to break them. There are many ways to isolate a subject besides bokeh. And, as others have said, sometimes you choose not to, for example, if you want to establish a sense of place.

When I hear somebody get all glowy about bokeh, I have in my mind the same thought that I get when someone tells me that a movie had great special effects. It generally means that there's little else remarkable about it.

a hint of something can often be much more visually pleasing tho for some...its just one of many ways a photographer can choose to affect the feeling of the image.

DOF controll is just another tool in the box. Whether you need to use that tool is another matter.

harcosparky wrote in post #12361177
Personally I think 'bokeh' is overrated, overused word.

Really, I mean you see conversations about " pleasing bokeh ".

What's so pleasing about something being " out of focus ".

When I look at an image, I am looking for a story .... the story is what's in focus.

If the entire image is in focus, it should be a landscape or the object of the story should be in the center of the image. Otherwise the story gets lost.

That's just my opinion.

It's certainly one of the least understood words for many photographers. Here' a good link to learn about bokeh.
You can have two lenses of the same focal length set to the same aperture and take a picture from a fixed spot with shallow DoF : the same areas will be out of focus in both images but they will look different - the quality of the OOF areas can be described as pleasing or neutral or harsh etc. It's a subjective evaluation of how the blur is rendered not a description of the amount that is out of focus or how much it is out of focus. Liking or disliking images that have some parts out of focus is a completely separate issue!

joedlh wrote in post #12361186
^ Couldn't have said it better myself. A skilled photographer will decide beforehand what goal he or she has for the shot. If there's any cardinal rule about anything in life, it's that slavish adherence to a concept, like bokeh, limits one's horizons. The only reason for learning the "rules" in order to know when to break them. There are many ways to isolate a subject besides bokeh. And, as others have said, sometimes you choose not to, for example, if you want to establish a sense of place.

When I hear somebody get all glowy about bokeh, I have in my mind the same thought that I get when someone tells me that a movie had great special effects. It generally means that there's little else remarkable about it.

...but what if the photographer's goal is slavish adherence to a concept (bokeh)? Does that limit one's horizons? lol jk

oyster_photos wrote in post #12362068
...but what if the photographer's goal is slavish adherence to a concept (bokeh)? Does that limit one's horizons? lol jk

But if some of the image is out of focus, wouldn't you want that part to be pleasing and not distracting from the "subject" (aka the part that is in focus)?. Ugly OOF areas can be distracting. Wanting the bokeh to be nice is not the same as not/wanting to have stuff out of focus.

Always wanting to have something out of focus, or to have a narrow depth of field, is not the same concept as "wanting bokeh" all the time.

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?

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

That's a great shot, tkadrum! Beautiful example of excellent DOF for a desirable effect! It appears you got the focus beginning at the people in the center and carried to the background. Well done!

There are pictures that benefit from the amount or lack of DOF. It's the mindset that it's required that upsets me.

RE: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1013930

I almost but 'IMHO', but decided against it. As an average person who admires photography, my opinion is valid and will therefore no longer be defended except on the before mentioned grounds.

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?

The image needs to be leveled and, in this case, the first "frame" needs to be centered in the frame horizontally. That still will leave a "flaw" since you weren't standing directly in the center of the "frame".

Well, you asked

This DOF is like B&W to me, it's really just a creative option. And a very powerful one. You know there are some artists who shoot B&W exclusively. And do we say, "Darn, he'd be much better if he tried a new thing called color!"....perhaps we do. I'd argue that it's healthy to overdo a good thing sometimes. Haven't we all? (Chocolate, sleeping, hugs)

bohdank wrote in post #12362347
The image needs to be leveled and, in this case, the first "frame" needs to be centered in the frame horizontally.

Well, you asked

Yes I did, and you are right about the horizontal.