How important is bokeh anyway?

Often mis-understood to represent the creamy, blurred background, how much better is 'good' bokeh?

Fstoppers posted an interesting spin on it this week. Worth the few minutes of reading.

https://fstoppers.com/education/bokeh-and-portraits-why-i-just-dont-care-71102

carguy said:

How important is bokeh anyway?

Often mis-understood to represent the creamy, blurred background, how much better is 'good' bokeh?

Fstoppers posted an interesting spin on it this week. Worth the few minutes of reading.

https://fstoppers.com/education/bokeh-and-portraits-why-i-just-dont-care-71102

Click to expand...

Depends on what I'm shooting. Now I will go read the article.

If its there rich creamy and smooth i will use it,with wild life taken as you walk round you often have to take what your given,i prefer the smooth but to me the subject is more important.

I like the "creamy" bokeh myself. I really really hate that circular harsh looking bokeh. I don't do portraits, but on my flower shots it is very important to me to have a nice tasty looking bokeh.

I agree for sure, it depends on what your end result is. For portraits, the differnce seems minimal as posted in the examples.

Here's my confusion... I have always been taught that bokeh refers NOT to an out of focus background but rather, and much more specifically, to how the lens renders small points of light that are out of focus. A blurry background, to my way of thinking is just that, a blurry background. Bokeh, is something else entirely. Let me see if I can find some pictures to illustrate what I'm talking about...
....
Okay, I found a couple example shots; neither photo is mine they're both stock photos I found online I'm using to illustrate my point.

This first shot has a blurred background and also has great bokeh:
.....

.....
.....
This shot has a blurry background but it doe NOT have any bokeh:
....

.....
.....
.....
Furthermore...
.....
.....
GOOD Bokeh:
.....

.....
.....

BAD Bokeh:
.....

.....
.....
Am I alone in this train of thought??

Same, I didn't know it was about fuzziness but assumed about the light-shapes. Some lenses produce donuts which (they) I considered bad bokeh.

Btw, I just checked Wiki and they seem to agree:

Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it is often associated with such areas.[SUP][7][/SUP] However, bokeh is not limited to highlights; blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image.

Click to expand...

Horoscope Fish said:

Here's my confusion... I have always been taught that bokeh refers NOT to an out of focus background but rather, and much more specifically, to how the lens renders small points of light that are out of focus. A blurry background, to my way of thinking is just that, a blurry background. Bokeh, is something else entirely. Let me see if I can find some pictures to illustrate what I'm talking about...
....
Okay, I found a couple example shots; neither photo is mine they're both stock photos I found online I'm using to illustrate my point.

This first shot has a blurred background and also has great bokeh:
.....
This shot has a blurry background but it doe NOT have any bokeh:
....
Am I alone in this train of thought??

Click to expand...

Bokeh - "the aesthetic quality of the blur". By that definition, as long as something is in focus (hopefully the intended subject), the rest of the out of focus section will have some quality to it, whether good or bad. IMO, both have bokeh. One is good (has a much greater aesthetic quality), one is not (far less quality).

Horoscope Fish said:

Here's my confusion... I have always been taught that bokeh refers NOT to an out of focus background but rather, and much more specifically, to how the lens renders small points of light that are out of focus. A blurry background, to my way of thinking is just that, a blurry background. Bokeh, is something else entirely. Let me see if I can find some pictures to illustrate what I'm talking about...
....
Okay, I found a couple example shots; neither photo is mine they're both stock photos I found online I'm using to illustrate my point.

This first shot has a blurred background and also has great bokeh:
.....
View attachment 159541
.....
.....
This shot has a blurry background but it doe NOT have any bokeh:
....
View attachment 159542
.....
.....
.....
Furthermore...
.....
.....
GOOD Bokeh:
.....
View attachment 159543
.....
.....

BAD Bokeh:
.....
View attachment 159544
.....
.....
Am I alone in this train of thought??

Click to expand...

Are you saying that only circular light out of focus things are considered bokeh?

FWIW, some people take great care to "shape" their bokeh... I don't think the shape itself defines good or bad, but again depends on the quality as it relates to the picture.

Can this be considered the correct answer

Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blacktop said:

Are you saying that only circular light out of focus things are considered bokeh?

Click to expand...

Essentially, yes... "Bokeh has been defined as 'the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light'".
......

for me aesthetic isnt so much an issue. what annoys me is when there are lights in the background (like fish's pic) and lens has straight aperture blades, or onion bokeh or just busy bokeh.

with anything but lights, most people wont have an objection to it being a 50mm 1.8d to the 50 ART.

this 100mm 2.8 lens by Meyer Optik Goerlitz Trioplan imo produces some horrible bokeh (some will say creative) that not only annoys my eyes but actually makes me sea sick nauseous. and its a steal at €1,400

if a lens brings attention to the OOF background and not the subject im shooting, its not doing its job. and this has nothing to do with whos shooting

rocketman122 said:

for me aesthetic isnt so much an issue. what annoys me is when there are lights in the background (like fish's pic) and lens has straight aperture blades, or onion bokeh or just busy bokeh.

with anything but lights, most people wont have an objection to it being a 50mm 1.8d to the 50 ART.

this 100mm 2.8 lens by Meyer Optik Goerlitz Trioplan imo produces some horrible bokeh (some will say creative) that not only annoys my eyes but actually makes me sea sick nauseous. and its a steal at €1,400

if a lens brings attention to the OOF background and not the subject im shooting, its not doing its job. and this has nothing to do with whos shooting

View attachment 159545

Click to expand...

I guess the reason I bring this up is because for me, a blurry background is simply a blurry background and that I don't think that, by itself, carries any significant importance. What does carry significant importance, and again I'm speaking only for myself though we seem to agree on this issue, is "onion" or "donut" bokeh versus really good, clean bokeh. Good, "creamy bokeh" I do find highly desirable.

In the shot you posted, I agree the bokeh is over the top. It's distracting and... just... wow. That being said, though,I think the lens is display *good* bokeh in that the "points" are nicely rounded, even and smooth (no onion rings); but again there's so *much* of it there the shot makes me dizzy.
.....

Horoscope Fish said:

Here's my confusion... I have always been taught that bokeh refers NOT to an out of focus background but rather, and much more specifically, to how the lens renders small points of light that are out of focus. A blurry background, to my way of thinking is just that, a blurry background. Bokeh, is something else entirely. Let me see if I can find some pictures to illustrate what I'm talking about...
....
Okay, I found a couple example shots; neither photo is mine they're both stock photos I found online I'm using to illustrate my point.

This first shot has a blurred background and also has great bokeh:
.....

.....
.....
This shot has a blurry background but it doe NOT have any bokeh:
....

.....
.....
.....
Furthermore...
.....
.....
GOOD Bokeh:
.....

.....
.....

BAD Bokeh:
.....

.....
.....
Am I alone in this train of thought??

Click to expand...

I concur 100%.

Here's one of my 300mm. It is a fantastic lens but the dot in the middle of the shapes looks crap. It's rarely visible unless I crop to 100% but even so, for 2k it could do without.