Bokeh: The Most Overrated Technique/Look/Quality... An Amateur's Crutch?

I think the, er, focus on bokeh is largely a product of gearheads--not that there's anything wrong with a gearhead. I just think that there are many factors contributing to my assessment of a photo and the quality of the background blur is, for me, so low as to not even really be a consideration.

Yea, stopping down to get large DOF in landscapes is also overused.

It still works though.

And it's not the be-all and end-all of a good landscape.

I did a google search for Steve McCurry just so I can see the type of work that he makes. While some of photos may not have the bokeh where you can't see "elements that are so out-of-focus they lose recognizable structure or context" to quote yourself, it is used.

1, to use bokeh that "elements that are so out-of-focus they lose recognizable structure or context" means your DOF is going to be so narrow that you may not get your focus bang on. But it is used where you can still see some of the form behind the person. an example of this is the "Last Roll of Kodachrome". with Robert De Niro you can still know what is behind even bokeh is used. it's enough to isolate the subject but at the same time keeping the subject tack sharp

2, bokeh and the other methods he uses are used for one thing, to isolate the subject he's photography. sometimes that's using bokeh and sometimes it's using a blank wall.

But sometimes he uses the subject and the environment that he's using to tell the story which means the biggest F stop the camera has got.

but what it really comes down too is using either shallow dof or wide dof to get the photo your after. The subject, the look or whatever it is your trying to get will determine what camera settings you use. dof is one thing that easily accessible and used by many because it's simple and just there to use. pros use it as well as amateurs.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17258883
The vast majority of famous pictures you mention are likely photojournalism, not potraits. In the film days you couldnt gamble with f2 and the concept of off camera flash for portraits didnt really exist as it now does. If you coulnt chimp you were more likely to shoot at f4 or more. Lighting was mostly on camera flash at iso 400. That meant dark backgrounds and more obvious flash. Technology has opened up all sorts of techniques that weren't easily workable before.

I would say this is probably part of it and a good explanation.

However I would add that the Sumo book is huge and the vast majority are staged photographs. I would say he probably took lots of time to plan most shots. And I'm not sure if there's a single photograph in the whole book where the background is heavily blurred.

As a Steve McCurry fan, thank you for bringing this example up. OP seems more interested in the books and their style simply because they're perceived as great without understanding why they're perceived as great works of art, as well as citing each artists' decisions without understanding why they made certain decisions.

Mark0159 wrote in post #17258888
I did a google search for Steve McCurry just so I can see the type of work that he makes. While some of photos may not have the bokeh where you can't see "elements that are so out-of-focus they lose recognizable structure or context" to quote yourself, it is used.

1, to use bokeh that "elements that are so out-of-focus they lose recognizable structure or context" means your DOF is going to be so narrow that you may not get your focus bang on. But it is used where you can still see some of the form behind the person. an example of this is the "Last Roll of Kodachrome". with Robert De Niro you can still know what is behind even bokeh is used. it's enough to isolate the subject but at the same time keeping the subject tack sharp

2, bokeh and the other methods he uses are used for one thing, to isolate the subject he's photography. sometimes that's using bokeh and sometimes it's using a blank wall.

But sometimes he uses the subject and the environment that he's using to tell the story which means the biggest F stop the camera has got.

but what it really comes down too is using either shallow dof or wide dof to get the photo your after. The subject, the look or whatever it is your trying to get will determine what camera settings you use. dof is one thing that easily accessible and used by many because it's simple and just there to use. pros use it as well as amateurs.

idkdc wrote in post #17258908
As a Steve McCurry fan, thank you for bringing this example up. OP seems more interested in the books and their style simply because they're perceived as great without understanding why they're perceived as great works of art, as well as citing each artists' decisions without understanding why they made certain decisions.

The opposite. Years ago I wouldn't have understood. Now I hope I do.

As for the example of de Niro I am familiar with the image. And I believe it proves my point. But perhaps i didn't explain my point well enough if apparently no one understands what it is I am saying.

Some jumps in logic. Usually, it's best to articulate the steps between point A and Z on how you arrive at your conclusion, not simply state your conclusion without premises again ("it proves my point," never mind how).

1. I read books by great people that I picked because they're great and other people recommended them to me. (Argumentum ad popularum, argument by popularity)
2. In the books, most examples (I like) use deep focus.
3. Corollary: in said books, few examples use shallow focus.
-
4. It follows that only amateurs use shallow focus.
5. You guys didn't get me. Maybe I didn't say what I meant clearly. Please read my mind.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17258924
The opposite. Years ago I wouldn't have understood. Now I hope I do.

As for the example of de Niro I am familiar with the image. And I believe it proves my point. But perhaps i didn't explain my point well enough if apparently no one understands what it is I am saying.

Also keep in mind the resources svailable to the photographers who who take the grest photos. If vanity fair or rolling stone commissions Annie Leibowitz to shoot a celebrity she can call up pretty much any picturesque place in the area, if not world, and get access through the power of her name and the magazine's checkbook. So if I could access the gardens of a budhidst temple, or close the lawn of a french castle damn straight I would feature the background. Contrast that with a senior photo session at public oark or a family photo in grandma's back yard. In that circumstance I have no budget, no special access snd possibly having to deal with passing people. In that case background separation may well be done via shalow DOF.

idkdc wrote in post #17258960
Some jumps in logic. Usually, it's best to articulate the steps between point A and Z on how you arrive at your conclusion, not simply state your conclusion without premises again ("it proves my point," never mind how).

1. I read books by great people that I picked because they're great and other people recommended them to me. (Argumentum ad popularum, argument by popularity)
2. In the books, most examples (I like) use deep focus.
3. Corollary: in said books, few examples use shallow focus.
-
4. It follows that only amateurs use shallow focus.
5. You guys didn't get me. Maybe I didn't say what I meant clearly. Please read my mind.

1. Yes, I picked up books by famous people, curated by supposed people who know their works. Some of the books I liked. Some I didn't. But, whether I like them or not, they are recognized by the community as timeless.

2. Yes, most examples are mostly in focus. Not sure why you used "(I like)", cause I did flip through the books before posting and most, as in 99%, not just the ones I like, are in focus enough that as I said in the first post, everything in the picture is recognizable to some degree. I wouldn't say "deep focus." Just that blur wasn't heavily used.

3. Yup.

so between 3-4:

3a. Most of the famous images I have seen, whether I own copies or not, as seen on the internet or book or otherwise have the background in focus to some degree that you can recognize what it is. There are exceptions, as in the Afghan girl. So I say "most."

3b. So if you believe that the vast majority of iconic / famous images that are some type of portrait have the background clearly visible..........

...4. No, I did not say "only amateurs use shallow focus." Clearly that is not true as there are 1% or so that are the exceptions that I noted that are very famous.

5. No, I didn't say to read my mind. In fact, I said that it was my own fault for not explaining myself well enough. Not sure why you are bent on mocking people. But my intent at this point is to drop this and start a new topic said in a clearer way.

But the bottom line, again, I think I said this in various ways, and I will have to rethink how to explain if this one doesn't explain my point, however arguable (the point of posting on a forum of course) or straight up wrong it may be:

The majority of famous portraits have most elements in focus enough to be recognizable. And I am talking purely just numbers. Pick 1000 famous people photos where a single person is the subject. Count X % of them where most of the picture is not completely blurred out. If X% is small, then I think it is logical to say that to make a truly memorable picture, blur is very seldom used heavily, and thus most of the time does not help the image.

Look, I don't expect all to agree. If I did, this wouldn't be worth posting. But I want a discussion on the merits of the argument which I stated above.

Now about the De Niro shot: to be honest, I don't like this shot at all for many reasons, and to me it's not anywhere as effective as many of McCurry's great works. But just talking about it in context of this discussion, I said it proves my point because most of the image is recognizable. It's a clearly some kind of studio room whether it's the back of a theater or a viewing room (without looking up what it is). There is context. Mr De Niro is meant to be seen in the context of the room, and isn't meant to be completely isolated onto himself. You see the stars refracting on the glass. There are the remnants of the walls of the room--yes quite blurred, but enough that your mind can fill in the rest. But my point is that the whole image works together--De Niro is not just a cutout.

Now, I don't want to start clicking on people's online portfolios to make a point... but we have all seen those that are full of images of people standing somewhere amongst nature, but the background is so blurred that you just see blobs of green and maybe sunlight peeping through. Yes, pretty. I'm sure many clients love those. But what I am saying is that they will never be among the great images of our time. And that's what I want to make some day.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17258983
Also keep in mind the resources svailable to the photographers who who take the grest photos. If vanity fair or rolling stone commissions Annie Leibowitz to shoot a celebrity she can call up pretty much any picturesque place in the area, if not world, and get access through the power of her name and the magazine's checkbook. So if I could access the gardens of a budhidst temple, or close the lawn of a french castle damn straight I would feature the background. Contrast that with a senior photo session at public oark or a family photo in grandma's back yard. In that circumstance I have no budget, no special access snd possibly having to deal with passing people. In that case background separation may well be done via shalow DOF.

That is true. And heck, she and others get to shoot uber pretty people. That helps too.

Again, if that De Niro shot was not of De Niro, would it be worth a look at all? (That's one reason I don't like it.)

Your intended argument is now slightly clearer, but much different from your title and your original posts. You should have titled it, "Depth of field in iconic imagery? An analysis in artistic taste." Instead you titled it in potboiler fashion, and I quote:

Now I get what you're saying, and I agree with some the revised conclusion on subjective taste (it still could use some work, your point is that historic pieces of art statistically don't get rid of context through blur; I think this is an argument of taste and selected sample size, which is era-limited, and doesn't take into account types of art styles and eras of art, such as impressionism/cubism/m​odern vs. realism; in essence, you don't incorporate a greater artistic historical context of the images; hence I would argue that these are great examples of more context through deeper focus for realism/fashion/photoj​ournalism, and yet, still acknowledge this is a conversation on taste), but not the exact way it was argued (statistical approach is still argumentium ad populum). I'd be careful on your wording next time. It started out as derogatory, accusatory and blanketing ("crutch for amateurs") when you may have intended it as an honest question. Your intent is not what we see however (we only see your action, your words in this case), hence the very appropriate comment on how we can't "read your mind" in response to your exasperation.

TLDR: Good taste, but not cogent nor valid. We are essentially left with argumentium ad populum applied to a greater generalization (beginning amateur vs professional shouldn't use shallow depth of field) before you revised your point to "this is my opinion." You should have started there.

If you left it at "using excessive blur amount is often a mistake for beginners," I would agree with you. However, you stretched it by saying "blur quality is overrated and a crutch for ...[wait for it] amateurs" a word you are using in a derogatory sense. You, good sir, are also an amateur by definition. You are a lover of the art who doesn't make money off of it professionally. Read Caryolyn Dinshaw's piece, "How Soon Is Now?: Medieval Texts, Amateur Readers, and the Queerness of Time" to get a good sense of the word and the topic "amateurism" (it talks about Tolkien as an amateur author vs a professional historian and linguist).

Edit: Oh, and Liebowitz and McCurry? They're professionals. They get paid so they can spend all of their time perfecting their craft. If you want to get to their level, you will need a job in photojournalism or magazine photography where you can take critiques from older, seasoned veterans who have the taste to help you hone yours. Shooting HONY-style work on your own with no guidance will not get you there. You can hope and wish, but hard work gets you to your dreams, not expectations. If you have unlimited funds, but no connections or opportunities, it's still a hard and unlikely path. To get to their level of work also involves a lot of communication with people, regardless of the stature they currently hold in society. Humility helps with that communication.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17258991
But the bottom line, again, I think I said this in various ways, and I will have to rethink how to explain if this one doesn't explain my point, however arguable (the point of posting on a forum of course) or straight up wrong it may be:

The majority of famous portraits have most elements in focus enough to be recognizable. And I am talking purely just numbers. Pick 1000 famous people photos where a single person is the subject. Count X % of them where most of the picture is not completely blurred out. If X% is small, then I think it is logical to say that to make a truly memorable picture, blur is very seldom used heavily, and thus most of the time does not help the image.

You can't look at a number of shots taken by photographer's x y z and say well this type of photography is only used a number of times and then think that not what's the pros uses. a pro (aka a good photographer in this argument) will use what ever means there are to get the viewer to focus on the subject. Sometimes that will be bluing of the background and sometimes it will be showing the subject within it's surroundings.

We understand what you are saying, but you have to look at it another way to get what we are talking about. The idea of blurring the background for a portrait is a technique that's just for the amateur isn't so. like any technique it can be used by anyone regardless of skill level. In photography there is no such thing as a separation between techniques for pros and amateurs. Just techniques for capturing an image. all techniques are used by everyone.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17258991
Look, I don't expect all to agree. If I did, this wouldn't be worth posting. But I want a discussion on the merits of the argument which I stated above.

Now about the De Niro shot: to be honest, I don't like this shot at all for many reasons, and to me it's not anywhere as effective as many of McCurry's great works. But just talking about it in context of this discussion, I said it proves my point because most of the image is recognizable. It's a clearly some kind of studio room whether it's the back of a theater or a viewing room (without looking up what it is). There is context. Mr De Niro is meant to be seen in the context of the room, and isn't meant to be completely isolated onto himself. You see the stars refracting on the glass. There are the remnants of the walls of the room--yes quite blurred, but enough that your mind can fill in the rest. But my point is that the whole image works together--De Niro is not just a cutout.

Now, I don't want to start clicking on people's online portfolios to make a point... but we have all seen those that are full of images of people standing somewhere amongst nature, but the background is so blurred that you just see blobs of green and maybe sunlight peeping through. Yes, pretty. I'm sure many clients love those. But what I am saying is that they will never be among the great images of our time. And that's what I want to make some day.

Yes now that you know what the background is, get a 50mm f1.4 lens take a series of photos from 1.4/f2/f2.8/f4/f5.6/f8​/f11/f16/f32 and you will see not only a change of dof but you will see that the at 1.4 the dof is so narrow that even if the eye is in focus the noise and the ears may not be. You may more than likely find that McCurry wanted more than just the eye in focus as he more than likely wanted the whole face in focus. To do that he had to shoot at say f5.6 or f8 and because of that the background has more detail. For him getting more of De Niro in focus is more important than what happens in the background.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17259010
That is true. And heck, she and others get to shoot uber pretty people. That helps too.

Again, if that De Niro shot was not of De Niro, would it be worth a look at all? (That's one reason I don't like it.)

that photo of De Niro would was taken with the last roll of kodachrome, even if the photo was a total no body McCurry would have still included the photo because of the work he was doing at the time. I had selected the photo because of what you perceive to be a technique not used by the likes of McCurry and others. Where as really that's the technique he used to isolate the subject from the background. regardless of who the subject is.

idkdc wrote in post #17259022
Your intended argument is now slightly clearer, but much different from your title and your original posts. You should have titled it, "Depth of field in iconic imagery? An analysis in artistic taste." Instead you titled it in potboiler fashion, and I quote:


Now I get what you're saying, and I agree with some the revised conclusion on subjective taste (it still could use some work, your point is that historic pieces of art statistically don't get rid of context through blur; I think this is an argument of taste, which is opinion, and doesn't take into account types of art styles and eras of art, such as impressionism/cubism/m​odern vs. realism; in essence, you don't incorporate a greater artistic historical context of the images; hence I would argue that these are great examples of more context through deeper focus for realism/fashion/photoj​ournalism, and yet, still acknowledge this is a conversation on taste), but not the exact way it was argued (statistical approach is still argumentium ad populum). I'd be careful on your wording next time. It started out as derogatory, accusatory and blanketing ("crutch for amateurs") when you may have intended it as an honest question. Your intent is not what we see however (we only see your action, your words in this case), hence the very appropriate comment on how we can't "read your mind" in response to your exasperation.

TLDR: Good taste, but not cogent nor valid. We are essentially left with argumentium ad populum.

Yes, I started out a little blunt--I tried to speak my mind, maybe in a abrasive manner. But this post wasn't meant to be nice to people. It was meant to be accusational to some degree. I am indeed saying that some people "don't get it"--mostly due to how so many threads about lenses are about generating blur (... though they use the word "bokeh") and that based on what I said in this thread, massive blur most of the time does not get you the most meaningful pictures (apparently arguable.)

So then, ... you mentioned some other "art" (I'm not sure if you meant photographs?). But I would appreciate very much if someone did prove me wrong by showing a genre of photography where the images are famous enough that a significant population on this forum will recognize them, where non-subject areas are heavily blurred on a regular basis.

Now, I have a huge book of Leibowitz's pictures and the are several near the end that are blurred, but completely, and probably by a combination of hand shake and being out of focus. That's not really what I meant because that's a very small subset of her work. I just call it her filler. (They're meaningless pictures to me.) I mean where blur is a major component of a genre.

I think if such a genre can be identified, then there could be a good discussion to be had.

Mark0159 wrote in post #17259033
Yes now that you know what the background is, get a 50mm f1.4 lens take a series of photos from 1.4/f2/f2.8/f4/f5.6/f8​/f11/f16/f32 and you will see not only a change of dof but you will see that the at 1.4 the dof is so narrow that even if the eye is in focus the noise and the ears may not be. You may more than likely find that McCurry wanted more than just the eye in focus as he more than likely wanted the whole face in focus. To do that he had to shoot at say f5.6 or f8 and because of that the background has more detail. For him getting more of De Niro in focus is more important than what happens in the background.

Mark, I'd have to say again, "this proves my point." My original complaint was about people shooting wide-open, nuking the background, removing all context. Again, we are citing a picture which now has historical significance, and is not shot wide-open. To argue against my point is to bring up a shot like the Afghan girl which does indeed have the background nuked beyond recognition.

I originally was accusing the people buying say the 200mm f2, a crazy expensive $5k lens, for portrait photography of using DOF as a crutch. That was part of what prompted me to start this thread. Perhaps that was not clear?

K, well, good night guys. Hope to see some pics and examples tomorrow!