# When Will The Bokeh Craze End



## smoke665 (Oct 17, 2019)

I've noticed a tendency among many in the pursuit of the ultimate creamy background, that it's becoming almost comical in effect. So I have to ask, are there others that feel like photographers are chasing after it too much for their own good? I’m not saying that bokeh is bad. When used in the right situations it can be gorgeous, and can enhance an image, but it still doesn’t mean that every single image has to be shot wide open, nor go overboard in creating excessive fake blur in PS.

Does the average person who looks at your images, and clients who book you, really care about these things. Do they care that you had to sell a body part to buy your new lens, are they impressed with how big your lens is, or what its maximum aperture is, and they certainly won’t sit there ooohhing and aawwweeing, over the background  when they’re looking at their family portraits. All they really care about is the subject, the quality of the bokeh is not important to them, unless it's so distracting that it's annoying (a point many are getting to).  

In some case I have to wonder if it's an easy cop out  (just blur the crap out of everything rather than think about your background and composition).  To me its overuse is stifling creativity rather than enhancing.


----------



## Designer (Oct 17, 2019)

We've certainly seen many on here who seem to want "bokeh" over and above anything else, but it seems the quest for the blur is letting up some.  It might have something to do with what essentially becomes a spoiled attempt, and any objective look at the poor results will convince observers that the photograph is not optimum.

After a photographer learns the reason for background (and foreground) blur, and realizes that there are degrees of blur as well as quality of the blur, the photographs seem to get better.

No, most people do not realize that the blur is something the photographer was trying to do, but the separation of subject from the background is always something that makes the product look better (and more professional).


----------



## Derrel (Oct 17, 2019)

I think your question is impossible to answer. The latest generation of sophisticated cell phones has introduced remarkably good fake bokeh effects, and it might serve to prolong the trend. It's really impossible to say.


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 17, 2019)

Bokeh has been around since the dawn of photography so I don't think its going anywhere. However, if I may expand on your initial question, what might be at issue lately is the misuse of very shallow dept of field. People believe nirvana is achieved when every photo is taken at f1.2 or f1.4 regardless of whether the subject is in focus or not, "this" for me is the issue. How many portraits have you seen when only one eye is sharp or the tip of the nose is blurred and the eyes are sharp, we are talking a few millimetres of DoF when in reality the subject deserves half a dozen centimetres or more.

As far as foreground and background isolation using a shallow DoF, it should be employed to compliment the subject rather than make it a technical feature due to the speed of the lens.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 17, 2019)

trend has been around since day one and wont go away.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 17, 2019)

Yes I realize it's been around forever, but of late it just seems to be more overdone. Like adding salt to your meal there's a point where to much ruins the meal.  The effect should be complimentary but not the first thing you notice.

On @Derrel 's comment, IMO, the advent of cell phones and all their secondary apps, has resulted in a generation of mindless gimicky snaps witb little thought to what comprises a good composition. Sadly some of that may be carrying over into photography.



JBPhotog said:


> How many portraits have you seen when only one eye is sharp or the tip of the nose is blurred and the eyes are sharp



Yup one of my pet peeves. In so many cases, the reality is, that with proper consideration the background can be a complimentary part of the composition.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 17, 2019)

Not soon enough... 

"...with proper consideration the background can be a complimentary part of the composition."  It should be. Whatever's in the frame will be in the picture and needs to be considered. (And whatever is cut off and not in the frame can't be put back later.)

I don't remember ever hearing about it til recent years online. Just another misconception of sorts on the internet... Not that there isn't something to it, but even if people shoot wide open and blur the background, it's still there. If there's something back there that's bright, red, etc. it's going to show in the scene as a bright or red blob and make for a visual distraction.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 17, 2019)

Not every image needs to have a completely smooth background.  I like to use appropriate DoF so that my subject(s) are separated from the background, but often recognizable as they can add to the image.  That said, an aperture of 1.2 or 1.4 can be a way of turning a sow's ear into a silk purse if you're forced to shoot against a less than desirable background.  Cole's Notes?  It depends!


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 17, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> If there's something back there that's bright, red, etc. it's going to show in the scene as a bright or red blob and make for a visual



Now they take it into PS apply a radial blur, and make it a mottled mess.  When it would have been so much easier to compose from the start. 



tirediron said:


> Cole's Notes? It depends



Depends brings to mind another message. LOL No argument that you need an assortment of tools in the bag to get the shot, but it's highly unlikely you'll uses the same tool on every single shot.


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 17, 2019)

Or just clone out the distracting bright blob in the background, but that isn't really the issue with bokeh.

The authentic reference to bokeh according to the interweb "is the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in the out of focus parts of an image produced by a lens." My understanding of it for the past 40+ years echoes this and some lenses produce bad bokeh, bad in the terms of jittery or harsh out of focus areas. The goal today for many fast lens makers is to produce smooth buttery out of focus areas but not all fast lenses produce pleasant bokeh, it is a characteristic of each lens design. Personally, I like smooth transitions and pick my hardware according to the creative goals of the shot.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 17, 2019)

"Fake blur" has become much better in recent years. The new Google Pixel  phone has amazingly good artificial blurry backgrounds, and in the new iPhone 11 it looks pretty good, not perfect,but pretty good. Just a few months ago Apple advertised their phones with the word bokeh, using it as a verb,in this sentence "I would never bokeh your kid."


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 17, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Apple advertised their phones with the word bokeh, using it as a verb, in this sentence "I would never bokeh your kid."



Yeah the marketing department should have understood what it meant before looking like dolts. LOL


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 17, 2019)

A mottled mess, yeah Smoke that describes it pretty well! Or jittery... JB, I don't remember ever knowing about it years ago, not that it wasn't around, but it must've passed me on by! I do think it's apparently due to lenses that aren't the best. 

An iphone will what?? lol that's an odd way to advertise it if you ask me.

And who's Cole and why should we read his notes??!


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 17, 2019)

I agree vintagsnaps, the term bokeh is relatively new although the effect isn't. According to the Wiki "The term _bokeh_ has appeared in photography books as early as 1998."

Personally, I get aggravated when people mispronounce it as in 'bouquet' but there are more serious issues in the world than that, LOL.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 17, 2019)

@Derrel I think they meant to say buy a new IPhone 11 for your kid and you'll be BROKE.

@JBPhotog I know you've likely seen what I'm talking about. There's a significant difference between the gradual transition between in focus/out of focus and the sharp edge of an overactive PS edit. One looks good the other not so much.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 17, 2019)

According to what I have read the term was introduced to the English-speaking world in the early 1990s by Mike Johnston, then the editor of Darkroom Techniques magazine. Mike is now the  owner of The Online Photographer blog.


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 17, 2019)

Derrel said:


> "Fake blur" has become much better in recent years. The new Google Pixel  phone has amazingly good artificial blurry backgrounds, and in the new iPhone 11 it looks pretty good, not perfect,but pretty good. Just a few months ago Apple advertised their phones with the word bokeh, using it as a verb,in this sentence "I would never bokeh your kid."



That commercial was funny but didn’t they pronounce it wrong?


----------



## photoflyer (Oct 18, 2019)

To me, bokeh approximates how we actually see the world.  What we are looking at in the macula of the eye is in focus and everything that is around it is a bit blurry.  This effect is less pronounced in our vision relative what we see in most photos shot with a fast lens that is wide open.

I often shoot the same image as I stop the lens down.  For me the sweet spot is the aperture that provides the minimum depth of field necessary to place the front to back of the object of the image in focus.  More than that and sometimes the background becomes a distraction.  Of course there are exceptions.   Landscapes shot with a telephoto where compression of foreground and background objects is desired comes to mind.


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 18, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Does the average person who looks at your images, and clients who book you, really care about these things. Do they care that you had to sell a body part to buy your new lens, are they impressed with how big your lens is, or what its maximum aperture is, and they certainly won’t sit there ooohhing and aawwweeing, over the background when they’re looking at their family portraits. All they really care about is the subject, the quality of the bokeh is not important to them, unless it's so distracting that it's annoying (a point many are getting to).



The average person may not understand why they like one image more than another - but they do.  They’re attracted to the qualities that these lenses bring to an image even if it’s only subconsciously.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 18, 2019)

photoflyer said:


> To me, bokeh approximates how we actually see the world



Oh I agree with you, and I can accept the effects of DOF, but when I see a portrait that's tack sharp from the tip of the nose to the ears, then suddenly everything goes blurred all at once that's not how I see the world. Somewhere along the line on the journey to more Bokeh someone brought in the crazy post blur that doesn't resemble the beauty of the real thing. Initially it was mostly the inexperienced, but of late I've seen even the more experienced falling into the trap.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Oct 18, 2019)

I'm an unapologetic bokeh fan.  

Bokeh is like wine.  Most things look better with bokeh, but too much can make you dizzy.


----------



## Original katomi (Oct 19, 2019)

Just seen some tv advert for video boken, I have to admit it’s not something I think about. As long as I get what want sharp, in the frame, and no telegraph poles sticking out of peoples heads I don’t worry too much about what effect that particular lens in use has on the background.
I want to and have people look at what I was trying to capture not the effect the lens, lighting had on the background.
But I have a rep for being out of the box and for Marmite photography
What one person sees, and likes will not appeal to another.
For me, the worst cc of one of my photos is
Technically it’s perfect,,, but
Edit.
I have read and I have looked and still don’t understand
What’s the difference between boken and out of focus.
I thought boken was the bluring effect on lights or points of light


----------



## Designer (Oct 19, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> I have read and I have looked and still don’t understand
> What’s the difference between boken and out of focus.
> I thought boken was the bluring effect on lights or points of light


The original usage of "bokeh" was to designate the quality of the blur.  A soft, even, cloud-like blur was said to be "bokeh", but so many people now simply call the blur bokeh, without judging how soft it is.  I've even read "swirly bokeh" or "cat's eye bokeh", which neither one of which would have fit the original definition.

So how do we use this?  Some lenses are known for their soft blur, and other lenses are known for undesirable blur.  

I say you should simply look at the blur and decide for yourself if it is actually bokeh or just some jarring blur that you don't want.  If you want the soft blur, get that lens,  if you don't like the blur, don't buy that lens.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 19, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> I have read and I have looked and still don’t understand
> What’s the difference between boken and out of focus.



As Designer and others have stated above actual Bokeh has to do with the quality of the blur (soft focus) imparted by the lens. Unfortunately the advent of cellphones and Ps has led to the gross distortion of the background to blur. Here's a quick example I just did of one of the techniques used in Ps to add the fake blur.  The background was a landscape that was blurred using a Field Blur layer. 




And here's an example of DOF. Obviously in the above the a different background then the original photo was used, but the same could have been done with the original,  notice the soft gradual transition along the edges vs the above example.


----------



## otherprof (Oct 19, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> I've noticed a tendency among many in the pursuit of the ultimate creamy background, that it's becoming almost comical in effect. So I have to ask, are there others that feel like photographers are chasing after it too much for their own good? I’m not saying that bokeh is bad. When used in the right situations it can be gorgeous, and can enhance an image, but it still doesn’t mean that every single image has to be shot wide open, nor go overboard in creating excessive fake blur in PS.
> 
> Does the average person who looks at your images, and clients who book you, really care about these things. Do they care that you had to sell a body part to buy your new lens, are they impressed with how big your lens is, or what its maximum aperture is, and they certainly won’t sit there ooohhing and aawwweeing, over the background  when they’re looking at their family portraits. All they really care about is the subject, the quality of the bokeh is not important to them, unless it's so distracting that it's annoying (a point many are getting to).
> 
> In some case I have to wonder if it's an easy cop out  (just blur the crap out of everything rather than think about your background and composition).  To me its overuse is stifling creativity rather than enhancing.


Time to revisit Group f64?


----------



## dennyr (Oct 19, 2019)

I thought it was called  Circle Of Confusion......... and for that  f/4.0  -  f/5.6 was always plenty for me.


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 19, 2019)

Why care so much about what other photographers like and value?  If you don’t appreciate it or think it’s too trendy then save your money and be happy about it.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 19, 2019)

I don't think bokeh looks like how I actually see things, not unless I take my glasses off! I don't really get what is meant by that. Anyway I think it's like a lot of effects, it can work if done well, but it doesn't really work to try to 'fix' a picture.

If there are windows/doors etc. in the background, they'll be large out of focus squares/rectangles; if someone/something is in red it'll make for a red blurry thing back there, that's all still part of the composition. The way to 'fix' it is to see it in the viewfinder and move your feet, move around and change the vantage point, think about where you're putting things in the frame, etc.

I think some people rely on it a little too much and aren't always using it to best effect.


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 19, 2019)

Most of my glass is shot best between f/5.6 and f/8.


----------



## Original katomi (Oct 19, 2019)

Ok I see, I have been using DOF for years deciding how much or how little I wanted in focus. I have even used Cokin filters for soft focus of the background. 
Well having given it some thought I will not be joining the Boken fad.
DOF I understand, and can use.
Thanks for the replies.


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 19, 2019)

I should mention that I have a lens made by Nikon. It is a 35mm f/1.4 AIS. I have read it is an incredible lens. I have yet to get a good image from this glass but I know it is my lack of skill. The glass is weird to say the least but I bet, if I could get skillful enough, I may be able to squeeze a wonderful render with it. There was a guy that used to post in the coffee house that killed the output of this lens... I want to say his name was Steve but I haven't been in that room for a year. Anyway, IMO it is line draw is what gets the juices flowing. Line draw of a lens is what makes me purchase it, not bokeh.


----------



## Original katomi (Oct 19, 2019)

Ok stupid Q line draw... is that how well it will resolve fine drawn lines


----------



## Original katomi (Oct 19, 2019)

Thinking of what everyone has been saying.
I took this pic  in the failing light I had the choice of hi stupid hi iso or F wide open
I decided that I wanted the face in focus and minimal grain... sorry noise never really looked at the boken untill today


----------



## photoflyer (Oct 19, 2019)

@SquarePeg, maybe this could be a weekly challenge "To Bokeh or not to Bokeh.".  Take the same shot twice: wide open with lots of background blur and then again stopped down to minimize the effect.


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 19, 2019)

photoflyer said:


> @SquarePeg, maybe this could be a weekly challenge "To Bokeh or not to Bokeh.".  Take the same shot twice: wide open with lots of background blur and then again stopped down to minimize the effect.



That’s a good idea and will definitely use it.  I suspect though that it will just reinforce everyone’s already formed opinions.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 19, 2019)

photoflyer said:


> maybe this could be a weekly challenge



Yes it could, but please no fake PS blur. I'm not opposed to the use of shallow DOF, and admire the quality that a good lens can impart in a background. I'm just of the opinion that it's a tool that doesn't need to always be used, and the fake blur added post detracts rather then enhances an image.


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 19, 2019)

The term “bokeh” actually means blur, originally a Japanese term(boke). It should not be confused with the concept of only high quality or pleasing  blur, it represents all qualities of blur, good and bad.

Think of it like the word ‘food’, there’s good food and bad food, lol.


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 19, 2019)

F1.4, f1.0 and f/.95 lenses don;t provide better bokeh although they do reduce the depth of field to something that just looks bad when half of a person's' head is out of focus.  

Big aperture lenses were originally produced during the film era.  It gave SLR cameras the ability to see better in darker light because it brings in more light.  Of course, if you're using a digital eye level finder, or the LED display on back, the camera compensates with darker lenses.  You can easily see the scene  with smaller apertures.  So you don't need all that heavy and expensive extra glass which also has a tendency to distort more because of the extra glass.

Also, with film you want to use low ASA type to eliminate grain.  So you're using no more than let's say 200 ASA.  FIlm of ASA 400, 800 or 1600 is just too grainy for most common use.  So, again,  you need more glass to expose lower ASA film properly at higher shutter speeds.  However, with modern digital cameras that shoot acceptable pictures at higher ASA's, again, you don;t need so much glass to pull in all that extra light.  It's overkill.


----------



## ac12 (Oct 19, 2019)

Not soon enough.
I am personally tired of this constant talk about bokeh, as if it were the more critical thing about the lens.

I would like the lens image to be SHARP with no glaring optical issues.
I would like the lens to autofocus well and be reasonably fast.  For sport lenses, I want a FAST autofocus.
For a zoom, I would like a smooth/light zoom ring.
I don't want a HEAVY lens.
etc. etc. etc.
Bokeh is WAY down MY list of things that I look for.
BTW, I shoot a mirror lens, and I don't care about the donut shaped OOF spots.​
But to each their own.

Were I a professional portrait photographer, I might look at it different.


----------



## dennyr (Oct 19, 2019)

Yeah.....The Tate and The Smithsonian have announced they are throwing away all photos shot by Group f/64........... No Bokeh.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Oct 20, 2019)

Yes, as SquarePeg said, to each his own. Let's concentrate on the real evil: milky water or not!


----------



## petrochemist (Oct 20, 2019)

Tropicalmemories said:


> I'm an unapologetic bokeh fan.
> 
> Bokeh is like wine.  Most things look better with bokeh, but too much can make you dizzy.
> 
> ...


No, It may be that most things look better with GOOD bokeh, with bad bokeh they invariably look worse.
Bokeh does not mean shallow DOF (another current fad) which is really what you're showing here.
Your examples do have a smooth pleasing bokeh so work well, if you took the same shots with a mirror lens you'd pobably end up with multiple images in the background that would make the images very confusing.


----------



## petrochemist (Oct 20, 2019)

dennyr said:


> I thought it was called  Circle Of Confusion......... and for that  f/4.0  -  f/5.6 was always plenty for me.


Circle of confusion is the size you can distinguish two separate points at. A concept that is used in determining DOF (if your visual system cant tell two point apart then they are effectively focused even when merged).


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 20, 2019)

JBPhotog said:


> Think of it like the word ‘food’, there’s good food and bad food, lol.



Okay there's chocolate on one end (which I love) and cooked cabbage on the other (which I loathe). Fake blur added post is cabbage. Nice simple analogy.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Oct 20, 2019)

[QUOTE="petrochemist,

No, It may be that most things look better with GOOD bokeh, with bad bokeh they invariably look worse.
Bokeh does not mean shallow DOF (another current fad) which is really what you're showing here.
Your examples do have a smooth pleasing bokeh so work well, if you took the same shots with a mirror lens you'd pobably end up with multiple images in the background that would make the images very confusing.[/QUOTE]

So the wine analogy still works - "looks better with a _good_ wine .... ".

I do remember from my teenage years that Thunderbird Wine did not improve anything.  

But I do think a good, wide aperture lens has an added capability to enhance some shots - as we can't always control the background, particularly at any tourist spots in this over-populated world. 

Whereas as the typical f3.5+ kit zoom lens does not have the same added feature (unless you can specially arrange your subject and background).


----------



## Original katomi (Oct 20, 2019)

Dean G , don’t even start on milky water...... we will be here forever by the time that debate stops the water will have frozen or boiled lol


----------



## photoflyer (Oct 20, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Yes it could, but please no fake PS blur. I'm not opposed to the use of shallow DOF, and admire the quality that a good lens can impart in a background.



Agreed.  It reminds me of vinyl and tube amps.  "Analog" is always better than digital (says the guy who has not shot film in a decade).  In the audio world, the slight imperfections they impart make the experience more believable.


----------



## petrochemist (Oct 20, 2019)

Tropicalmemories said:


> But I do think a good, wide aperture lens has an added capability to enhance some shots - as we can't always control the background, particularly at any tourist spots in this over-populated world.


Indeed, very much the issue I ran into yesterday. Shooting a Saxons & Vikings event, it found most shots had a car/van in the background, or at least a crowd of  people with cameras. Quite out of keeping with the period.
The f/2.8 lens I had with me where too short to narrow down the DOF (and made the battles far too small) and even the 600mm equivalent I used extensively didn't quite blur the background enough.


----------



## Photo Lady (Oct 20, 2019)

I don't want it to go away... i think it is beautful in almost all the photos.. but it does have to look like it goes with the photo.. color blurs give you a feeling of time and place so your imagination can take it to the next level.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 20, 2019)

Around 15 years ago I guess I bought a lens which has a reputation for smooth, creamy bokeh, the Nikon 200 mm f /2 VR. Here is a portrait of my niece Caitlin, which was made in September of 2007 with the Nikon d2x


----------



## Derrel (Oct 20, 2019)

There is an interesting thing about background blur, and that is that the larger the aperture in millimeters  the higher the level of background blurring. This is why lenses such as the 300 millimeter F / 2.8 gives such a high degree of background blurring at F 2.8 in comparison to say a 50 mm lens even when it is shot wide open at say F / 1.4.

As far as the beauty of the background or out-of-focus areas, the lens design plays a big part. Some lenses have been designed so that out of focus areas are smooth and creamy, but  in other lenses out of focus areas may appear to vibrate, or to swirl. BOKEH has about four common definitions nowadays, after about 30 years or so in the American vocabulary of photography. Originally ,it was about the quality of the blur, but it has been bastardized to mean different things.

There is a pretty good article on the web , and it explains the physics underlying background blur, which is not about bokeh, but is something else entirely. The article I am speaking about shows a particularly good example of the same depth of field, but dramatically increased background blur with longer lenses. The article is one in a series extremely well-written technical explanations of various parts of photography written by, I want to say, Bob Atkins. I first read these articles over 10 years ago, and it was about 2 years ago that I took the time to revisit them. He explains some of the most contentious issues in photography in a very convincing and easy to understand manner, which is the exact opposite of what so much of Internet photography forms and websites have devolved into being.

In terms of a lens that can completely blow out the background, as we used to say, the 300 mm f / 2.8 and the 200 mm f / 2 are really good examples. Unfortunately the two lenses I mentioned each weigh 7 pounds or more in most cases, and are pretty darned expensive. Other lenses which can defocus the background quite well but for a lot less money are the 135 mm f/2 models
And Nikon's venerable 180mm F / 2.8. With the right situations a 300 m m f / 4 can do a pretty good job, as may a 70 to 200mm F / 2.8 zoom lens, and even the lowly 135 mm f / 2.8 can blow out the background quite a bit, as can an  85mm f / 1.4 lens, and Nikon has a new 105mm f/1.4 that is really good at defocusing backgrounds when shot at f/1.4 or f/ 2.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 20, 2019)

Here are a couple

 

 bokeh-centric shots in reduced-size format that I have on my phone.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 20, 2019)




----------



## photoflyer (Oct 20, 2019)

Derrel said:


> There is an interesting thing about background blur, and that is that the larger the aperture in millimeters the higher the level of background blurring. This is why lenses such as the 300 millimeter F / 2.8 gives such a high degree of background blurring at F 2.8 in comparison to say a 50 mm lens even when it is shot wide open at say F / 1.4.



That is great to know.  I'm going to experiment with that on the nifty 50 and the 70-200 f2.8 L.  Plus the 70-200 is still near perfect at 2.8 whereas the nifty is a tiny bit flawed at 1.8 in bright light if you pixel peep.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Oct 21, 2019)

Derrel said:


> View attachment 181088 View attachment 181089 View attachment 181091



Lovely images!

And how, ladies and gentlemen of the Photo Forum Jury, could anyone not appreciate such fine images?

The case for the defence rests M'Lud.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 21, 2019)

I got this new cellular phone about 3 weeks ago. I loaded up a bunch of

 

 of old photos that I had on a microSD card and here are three photos I have that shows how the long focal length and physically wide aperture of the 200 m m f / 2 VR lens completely softens backgrounds into creamy smoothness. These were newspaper sports photos that I shot for a couple of local area papers, using the old Nikon d2x, which had perhaps the worst sensor I have ever used. However, with a spectacular piece of $4,000 glass on the front, it did pretty well. These are basically unretouched images, made a full six years before I got my first copy of Lightroom, and began retouching my images.


----------



## DanOstergren (Oct 21, 2019)

I think that if a photographer strives to have the creamiest bokeh because they like the look, theres nothing wrong with them obsessing over it. That obsession is one of the things that makes photography fun. Sure, one might improve as a photographer by venturing away from wide open f/stops, but it doesn't matter if they're not achieving a look that they like. It also doesn't really matter if a client or average person notices because in my opinion the "creamiest", quality bokeh isn't really for the satisfaction of a client. \_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## DanOstergren (Oct 21, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> photoflyer said:
> 
> 
> > maybe this could be a weekly challenge
> ...


Couldn't we just let people do what they like for themselves? I've seen many applications of fake blur that were done beautifully.


----------



## DanOstergren (Oct 21, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > Does the average person who looks at your images, and clients who book you, really care about these things. Do they care that you had to sell a body part to buy your new lens, are they impressed with how big your lens is, or what its maximum aperture is, and they certainly won’t sit there ooohhing and aawwweeing, over the background when they’re looking at their family portraits. All they really care about is the subject, the quality of the bokeh is not important to them, unless it's so distracting that it's annoying (a point many are getting to).
> ...


This, 100%.


----------



## photoflyer (Oct 21, 2019)

DanOstergren said:


> Couldn't we just let people do what they like for themselves? I've seen many applications of fake blur that were done beautifully.



Certainly.  For me, there is something rewarding about doing something naturally but then if I held true to that I would shoot film.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 21, 2019)

Derrel said:


> There is an interesting thing about background blur, and that is that the larger the aperture in millimeters the higher the level of background blurring. This is why lenses such as the 300 millimeter F / 2.8 gives such a high degree of background blurring at F 2.8 in comparison to say a 50 mm lens even when it is shot wide open at say F / 1.4.



Partially true. As in all things in life, there's always a "but". LOL

Background blur vs focal length, absolute aperture and relative aperture  From the referenced article: assuming an "absolute aperture" the blur circle is disproportionate to the ratios of the focal lengths. For example a 400 mm lens would blur 12 times more then the same  aperture on a 50 mm, but there's the distance from the subject required to get the same framing. The background blur circle (all else being equal) becomes _greater_ the closer you are to a subject, which would give the 50mm lens the edge. Where the background blur becomes larger on longer focal lengths is when you get into "relative apertures".  Lastly format has a bearing on the blur circle as the smaller the format the less background blur.

As a comparison to the above link I refrenced, here are some examples I've shot. In this first one 35mm @f/3.2, I don't remember the distance but I'm assuming it was close to the minimum focus distance on the lens, which is 12"






Going up to 135mm @ f/5.6, also shot at the minimum focus distance for the lens at approximately 20". Note the nice Bokeh balls.




Finally a 300mm @ f/6.7, also shot at the minimum focus distance for the lens, at just over 5'.



Three different lenses, three different apertures, and three different focal lengths, all distance adjusted to account for the minimum focus difference. The only difference really is the quality of the blur, dependent on the ability of the lens. The first two were moderately priced Pentax, and the last was a used $75 Sigma 70-300mm. Also proving you don't need to shoot at f/1.2 and add fake blur post to get a nice  background.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Oct 21, 2019)

photoflyer said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Couldn't we just let people do what they like for themselves? I've seen many applications of fake blur that were done beautifully.
> ...



Film?  Bah!  New fangled 19th Century chemistry and witchcraft.  Almost as bad as glass plates.

If you want natural, use a camera obscura.

Or oil paint and an opium and absinthe addict artiste.

There's nothing natural about silver oxide or silicon chips, so just enjoy whatever photographic style takes your fancy.

And let's be honest, beyond the wonderful characters on this Forum, and a few long suffering close relatives, who really shows any genuine interest in the images we create?

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 21, 2019)

Tropicalmemories said:


> And let's be honest, beyond the wonderful characters on this Forum, and a few long suffering close relatives, who really shows any genuine interest in the images we create?



My clients! LOL


----------



## thereyougo! (Oct 21, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I think your question is impossible to answer. The latest generation of sophisticated cell phones has introduced remarkably good fake bokeh effects, and it might serve to prolong the trend. It's really impossible to say.



I think the use of fake bokeh in phones might actually serve to kill it off because of snobbery from some.  Personally I'm nt a fan of bokehlicious shots that have no particular shot other than to demonstrate how someone has used their money to fuel their GAS.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 21, 2019)

As good as computography is getting; the fake stuff will never look as good as real expensive glass.

It's more about "background blur" and how it renders everything -- including the transition into the blurred background.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 21, 2019)

If you read the article carefully the author uses a disingenuous term. What I wrote is actually technically correct.I wrote The Wider the aperture in millimeters. He tries to equalize what would be f/1.4 on the 50 millimeter lens is about roughly let's say f4 on a 300 2.8. What I wrote is actually technically correct. I wrote The Wider the aperture in millimeters. He tries to equalize this by saying a picture with for example a 50 mm lens and aperture that is 25 mm across on a 300 millimeter lens would not be F2, as it would be on a 50 mm lens. Ergo what I wrote is actually technically correct. The author of the above article disingenuously calls this the same absolute aperture .. what  I I was referring to was actual width of the aperture measured in millimeters.Take a look at what f/4 on the 200mm f/2 VR lens looks like and then shoot the same aperture value (f/4) on a 50 mm length lens. Yes indeed there is always a"but: and in this case the" butt" is the author of the above article that you linked to who uses a very disingenuous method of referring to apertures: F 2.8 on a 300 mm telephoto is a big hole. It's the same in Reverse with diffraction: on a 180mm relatively "normal lens " using 4 by 5 inch sheet film a small aperture such as f/64 is actually a pretty good-sized hole and diffraction at f/64 is not a real problem when using a 180 mm lenes on 4x5 by inch film, and in fact the light that goes through a physically-wider aperture does not cause a loss of sharpness due to diffraction, which is one reason underline the name of the Group of f64. On a small-format camera such as a 35 mm film camera, a 50 millimeter lens has long been considered normal. If we were to use a small aperture such as F/16 on our 35 mm film camera we get quite a bit of loss of sharpness due to to diffraction.  using a much larger lens with a larger piece of film, apertures are correspondingly larger and small aperture values such as f/16 on a view camera with 4×5 inch sheet film and a 180mm normal lens causes virtually no loss of sharpness due to to diffraction. On a smaller camera with a much smaller piece of film or sensor, small aperture values like f/16 cause a serioud loss of sharpness as the light rays are forced through what is,physically, a narrow opening.

The author you linked us to  is quite clever in talking about aperture values in terms of absolute width and his mathematical graphing is correct as far as it goes, but in the real world we actually look at relative apertures, relative to the focal length of the lens that is in use and relative to the actual in- camera exposure settings. As working photographers  we refer to apertures by their F value, and not by their actual width as measured with a ruler For example if I take a 300mm  f / 2.8 lens and shoot it at f/2.8 that is a much wider physical aperture than F2.8 is on a 50 or a 24 mm lens, Ergo at f/4 a 300 mm gives me more background blur than does a 50mm  shot at at 4. The guy is basically full of b******* and is demonstrating his technical knowledge of photographic arcana, but he is doing a huge disservice to people who are trying to understand what real lenses do in the real world. For example if you want to shoot Sports in poor light and want a defocused background you'll get a more-blurred background with a 300 millimeter lens set at F 2.8 then you will with a shorter focal length if the same f-stop value. I know what the h*** I'm talking about, and the guy above is basically full of b******* and just making a very arcane and non-useful point. I have never seen a photographer measure the absolute aperture width  and say, " oh, I would like to shoot at an aperture that is 25 mm in widt." That's not how we do it.
Trust me,I spent $7,000 on a pair of lenses that would completely blow out my backgrounds. There is a reason for the existence of the 400 millimeter F / 2.8 lens, And the 300 mm F 2.8 lens, and the 200mm f/2 lens. Let us look at the 200 mm f/2..... at f/2 the physical width of the aperture is roughly one half of the length of the lens, or 100 mm across. With a 50 mm lens  f/2 is half of the length of the lens, or roughly 25 mm in width. With the 200mn f/2 VR Nikkor your backgrounds are blown out as shown by the above two sports photos that I took.Had I used the same relative aperture, f /2 and a shorter lens, the backgrounds would have had a much greater degree of recognizability; as we go to longer lenses, the same aperture, as an f/ value or put and other way "in relative terms", is greater. What I mean to say is that on a 200 millimeter lens F2 is a huge hole, 100mm across.... on a 50 mm lens f/2 is a hole that is a mere 25 mm across. Based upon calculations in the article that you referred us to, I believe that we would have roughly 20 times more defocus when shooting at f/2 with the 200 mm lens then we would have with a 35 millimeter lens and shooting at the same F value ,  f/ 2.0 Sometimes you have to pay very close attention to what is being written to understand an issue or a point of practical photography .  What I was saying is that that as focal lengths get longer,the amount of  background blur increases substantially as focal length gets longer because as I have here pointed out, with longer lenses fractional aperture values ( f / values) become hugely greater in area. For example take a look at the huge hole in the 200mmf2 at f/2, and look at the modest width of the aperture value of f/2 in a 50 mm lens.

Your appeal to Authority and quick web search goes against what hundreds of thousands of experienced Shooters understand, and that is why I so strenuously object to the way the author of the article you linked us to uses some really disingenuous ways of characterizing this issue. At f/4 let's say, a longer lens produces greater background blurring than does a shorter lens. Shoot your 35 mm prime lens at at f/4 and backgrounds are not all that blurry. Shoot your 300mm telephoto lens at at f/4 and backgrounds are fairly blurry. A quick web search can turn up all sorts of support for almost any position, but 45 years in photography has shown that the physically wider the aperture the more the background is blurred. An f/4 300 mm telephoto produces a pretty good degree of background blur and the hole width is how big? 1/4 the width of the length of the lens. With a 50 mm lens f/4 is roughly 12.5 mm across, and backgrounds are not that blurred. Your author is attempting to equalize f/values which are fractional values which take into account the length of the lens in use.... I have yet to encounter a light meter that measures light according to the measured width of the aperture opening itself, but instead we use a fractional value or an F stop reading.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 21, 2019)

I would encourage you to re-read what I actually wrote. Take a 300 mm lens and set it to f/2.8 and with even the same framing of an object at different distances go out and photograph a box that spans the width of the frame. You will see that with a 24 mm lens and at f/4 and a 50 millimeter lens at at f/4 and a 300 mm lens at at f/4, that despite the same-sized object across the width or height of the frame that in the 300 mm lens photo the background is very blurry, and in the 50 mm shot the lens produces a fairly recognizable yet still blurred background, and with the 24 millimeter lens you will have a background that is easily-recognizable  despite all three photos having roughly the same  "depth of field", your actual photographic proof will be revealed. As lenses grow longer the physical width of the aperture in f/value increases substantially. If we measure, in millimeters  the actual width of the hole, we can jigger things around and produce a really cool graph as did your author. But we're not after graphs here , we are attempting to understand how background blur actually works in the real world, using f/stops and shutter speeds and actual lenses to make actual pictures.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 21, 2019)

A really good read, including a particularly descriptive photo illustration comparing a 50 mm lens , and an 85 mm lens, and a 135 mm lens is to be found at the following article: Bokeh and  Background Blur, by the author Bob Atkins. He shows three  photos of a camera box. The box is the same size in all three photos, and the camera-to-subject distance has been changed to get the same-sized foreground object, which is a Canon 20D camera box. All three photos were taken at the same aperture value which was f/2.8.

With the 50 mm lens the physical width of the aperture was 17.8 millimeters across, with the 85 millimeter lens the aperture width was 30.4 millimeters across, and with the 135 mm lens the aperture value of f 2.8 was represented by a hole that was 48.2 mm across.

As I mentioned the foreground object is the same actual size in all three photos and what we see is a clearly-recognizable background from the 50 mm lens, and a less- recognizable background from the 85 mm lens, and a distinctly out of focus and blurry background from the 135 millimeter lens .No graphs, no technospeak, and no attempt to prove some arcane point.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 21, 2019)

Go to the Bob Atkins article that I listed and look at 3 photos of the same scene and The Identical object in the foreground. There you will see conclusive proof of the principle that as we use lenses which are longer, those lenses produce a greater degree of background blur at the same f-stop value... as a fairly experienced photographer I know from years quote literally decades that a fast long length such as a 135 mm f/2 produces photos which have tremendously blurred backgrounds, and that short lenses such as 24mm and 28mm lenses create photos that have backgrounds which are fairly recognizable. 

Three photos made at the same location, the same subject, with each of the photos containing The Identical foreground ground subject, rendered at exactly the same size in all three photos, with lenses of three different focal lengths, but all at the same f/stop value, and not three different photographs made with three different lenses at varying f stops. It's really quite amazing, but you can easily be mislead by someone who is throwing numbers and graphs at you fast and loose, and who is out to prove some point that has almost no relevance in the real world.

I would challenge you to begin measuring your actual,measured aperture width when you are shooting flash photos, and you willingly disregard the focal length of the lens in use. Imagine if we were to try to determine the correct flash exposure for a 12- millimeter wide aperture with lenses between 300 mm and 18 mm in length. That's why we use the f/stop system when we try to take actual photos.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 21, 2019)

@Darrell I didn't disagree nor intentionally try to disrespect you in the first comment, merely tried to point out that there were other considerations besides focal length. I did disagree with the last long post on the basis of the aggressive attitude of the response, and not whether I question your knowledge. In any case it's late and I've no desire to debate anything this close to my bedtime. I have a busy day tomorrow, but I will attempt to review your comments and reference article with a clearer head.


----------



## DanOstergren (Oct 21, 2019)

photoflyer said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Couldn't we just let people do what they like for themselves? I've seen many applications of fake blur that were done beautifully.
> ...


I'm sure it's very similar to the very rewarding experience that I feel after finishing a great retouch on a portrait. Often even those who complain about other photographers using artificial blur techniques in a photograph will take their own photos into a post production software and apply "artificial" edits to their photos, and 9 times out of 10 they can't even do a decent job in doing so. The point I'm getting at is that most people edit their photos and apply artificial changes to them. We could all perhaps be less forceful of our own preferences on other people's work.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 21, 2019)

Why do you think I spent $4,000 on the 200 mm F/2 and $2,900 on a used 300 mm F / 2.8?  So that I could shoot newspaper sports photos with extremely blown-out, blurry backgrounds when using a Nikon D2x and a 1.5 x crop sensor. I'm sorry that you are trying to prove a point that is not in accordance with what I have been trying to say, and I applaud you for shedding some light on the discussion, even if it is from some mathematics geek who seems to want to try to prove a point that is basically pointless in actual photography. We pick an f/stop such as a 2.8 or 4 or 5.6.



If you go to the Bob Atkins article mentioned above by name, and look at the three photos all taken of the same object it's the same sized foreground object in the frame, and by necessity, the three photographs  we're all made at three different camera to subject distances. Mr. Atkins used a 50 mm lens, and an 85 mm, and a 135mm lens. All three lenses were set to the f/value of 2.8. The actual aperture widths were 17.8 millimeters, 30.4 mm, and 48.2 millimeters.

The photos show the same-sized forground object, and three different degrees of background blurring. In the photo made with the 135 mm lens the background is most decidedly much blurrier than in the photos made with the 50 ml lens or with the 85 millimeter lens.

The 135mm focal length I have been shooting since 1980, and I'm pretty familiar with how a 135mm blows backgrounds out of focus.  The 180 mm f / 2.8 I have been shooting since 1986, and it is a good lens length when you wish to blow backgrounds pretty well out of focus at f/2.8 or f/4 and to have a fairly-highly-defocused background at f/5.6. 

 have owned two 300 mm F 2.8 lenses since 1998, and in actual picture taking, the 300 f/2.8  is  quite good at creating extremely- defocused backgrounds, and so is the Nikon 200mm F2 . When used at F / 2, the 200 VR creates a beautiful color wash when you shoot portraits, while at longer distances it is razor sharp and there is plenty of depth of field.


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 21, 2019)

Not to throw a wrench into this rather microscopic discussion but, diffraction is an issue with large format cameras. The optimum f-stop for 4x5 film is F22 to F32 as referenced by my Sinar P with the employment of the scheimpflug principle. The main reason F64 was the “go to” f-stop was due to the lack of technical accuracy in lens and film plane central pivoting to achieve perfect scheimpflug angles. Sinar recognized this limitation and developed asymmetrical tilts and swings of the  lens and film standards including a depth of field dial. There was and is a difference in sharpness at F22 compared to F64 or F45 for many 4x5 lenses.

I owned at one time both a Sinar F and P and shot thousands of sheets of film for ad agencies over the years and they were a joy to use.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 22, 2019)

@Derrel as mentioned earlier, I have a busy day and time is limited. I did have a chance to scan the article by Mr. Atkins. I want to go back and reread it more slowly but one thing I caught is the similarity of statements in both the article I referenced and the one by Mr. Atkins. Both talk about the effect of distance to the subject and the effect on background blur. From the Atkins article where he talks about the 50mm close to the suject "This also means that the background close to subject will be blurred more by the faster lens. In this case the 50mm lens at f1.4 gives slightly greater blurring for objects up to about 1m behind the subject in focus. However as you go further back, the lens with the largest physical aperture starts to show the most blur" . From the article I  referenced "In other words, as the background gets further away (independently of the subject), "longer lens means more background blur" becomes more true."  Clicking on the link  to Mr Atkins calculator page he again confirmed " Based on this you can see why a 600/4 lens wide open (physical aperture = 150mm) will blur the far distant background far more than a wide open 50/1.4 lens (physical aperture = 35.7mm). In fact it will blur it 4.2x more. However if shooting the same subject at the same magnification (let's say 0.01x, which would by typical for a full body shot of a person), the depth of field of the 50/1.4 will be about 1/3 of that of the 600/4 and so will blur close in objects more."

I don't have the time right now but I will, as well as do some experimenting on my own, to compare the two articles. I suspect that on closer review, and taking the articles in their entirety rather then snippets, that  both reach at least the same general conclusions. I did find this statement from Mr Atkins insightful "There's no really simple "rule of thumb" that will tell you whether relative aperture (f-stop) or absolute aperture (size of the aperture in mm) will be most important in determining the degree of blurring at a given distance behind (or in front of) a particular focus point. " I may be reading to much between the lines on this but I take this to mean that blanket statements on focal length and aperture do not apply to "all" circumstances.


----------



## The Barbarian (Oct 26, 2019)

I'm not all that interested in bokeh, but when I found this old 50mm f2.0 SMC Pentax-M...





I have to admit, it has its uses.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 27, 2019)

The Barbarian said:


> I'm not all that interested in bokeh, but when I found this old 50mm f2.0 SMC Pentax-M



The natural rendering of a good lens can be a beautiful addition. Where I mainly have a problem is the fake addition post. I love my FA 50mm f1.4, but a thrift store find of an old manual 135mm f2.5, puts it to shame. Posted some recently in another thread. Softly In The Sunlight


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 27, 2019)

Not all blur is nice bokeh. I love the dreamy bokeh of my Fuji 60mm macro.  The slowest hunting lens I own but would never give it up.  While a nice blur can be achieved in Post with certain skills, some qualities of bokeh can’t be faked.   




Fine feathers by SharonCat..., on Flickr


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 27, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> The natural rendering of a good lens can be a beautiful addition. Where I mainly have a problem is the fake addition post. I love my FA 50mm f1.4, but a thrift store find of an old manual 135mm f2.5, puts it to shame. Posted some recently in another thread. Softly In The Sunlight



Directed at your above thread, the lack of decent focusing screens in the modern day digital body is the reason I replaced my 1978 Nikkor 105mm f2.5 AIS with the latest version the 105mm F1.4E. I just had a bear of a time focusing it manually even with all the “in focus” indicators, for portraits it was just a pain. Of course my eyes aren’t what they used to be either 

Nice find for $30 BTW. The only issues you may have are flare and ghosting as the coatings have gotten so much better over the past 40 years or so.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 27, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> While a nice blur can be achieved in Post with certain skills, some qualities of bokeh can’t be faked.



It's possible to obtain passable blur, and even add Bokeh balls post that won't be discernable to anyone but the pixel peepers, but the majority of those doing it today are so sloppy that it's comical in their attempts.

@JBPhotog yeah I miss the split prism. You can still have one installed, but the cost and time might be prohibitive. If I can use a tripod the rear screen is helpful as I can enlarge the image to drill down on the exact focal point. 

On occasion flare and ghosting catches me off guard, but as long as I pay attention, it isn't a problem.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 27, 2019)

It has more to do than BG blur and even bokeh balls.  it's the quality of ANY oof portion of the image.

I love the bokeh of my 85mm and 58mm lenses.






this is from my 85mm 1.8g.  a ~$350 used lens.  Her face is the focal point which at 100% is tack sharp. The foreground blur is pleasant and the transition of focus to blur throughout the background is smooth and blends into a creamy bg.


again, on my 58mm:




DSC_7275 by Braineack, on Flickr

look how nicely they pop from the bg, even the pole behind her head isn't distracting.   the foreground blur of the deck is very smooth.   You can still tell they are shot on a dock off a lake in front of trees, but the overall bokeh quality is top-notch.


----------



## smoke665 (Oct 27, 2019)

Braineack said:


> the transition of focus to blur throughout the background is smooth and blends into a creamy bg



That's the difference "the transition", so much of the fake stuff has no transition.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 27, 2019)

exactly. and blurs fly-away hairs


----------



## pocketshaver (Oct 29, 2019)

its hell on people with vision problems. People with vision problems spend lots of money NOT to see things in that manner.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 4, 2019)

Designer said:


> We've certainly seen many on here who seem to want "bokeh" over and above anything else, but it seems the quest for the blur is letting up some.  It might have something to do with what essentially becomes a spoiled attempt, and any objective look at the poor results will convince observers that the photograph is not optimum.
> 
> After a photographer learns the reason for background (and foreground) blur, and realizes that there are degrees of blur as well as quality of the blur, the photographs seem to get better.
> 
> No, most people do not realize that the blur is something the photographer was trying to do, but the separation of subject from the background is always something that makes the product look better (and more professional).



I just read your post, not being on here much, but I will say you are definitely being quite liberal with you opinions!! LoL
I hope you’re not basing it on that useless article that I saw here and other places about six months ago?
First, unless you have personally talk to every photographer that has posted bokeh, that they, “want bokeh over and above anything else”?
Because it might NOT be your cup of tea does not mean they are “spoiled attempts”!
“Optimum”, for who, high level award winning photographers, you, me or maybe the person that created the image? What IS optimum bokeh?
How do you know those photographers don’t know that the separation of foreground/background blur and it’s uses is not important?
Bokeh is not new! It first appeared in Japanese wood cuts about 1000 years ago, long before photography even came into existence!
Some might call it a fad, maybe it will end tomorrow, but I doubt it!!! LoL 
SS


----------



## Designer (Dec 4, 2019)

Sharpshooterr said:


> How do you know those photographers don’t know that the separation of foreground/background blur and it’s uses is not important?


They have written so.

They are newbies asking how to get "bokeh", and they don't know the basics.  

That's how I know.


----------



## SquarePeg (Dec 4, 2019)

Designer this is not directed at you in particular just something that your post brought to mind as I've seen it here and on other forums.  I've never really understood the annoyance? condescension? disdain? toward "newbies" who are trying to create a certain look.  They don't know what they don't know...until they ask.  Most of us started out there.  

Look at the ads for these cameras.  The photos they use to sell the gear are not shot on Auto,during mid day, at the widest setting with no background separation - but a newbie has no way of knowing that.  They see the photos and think "Me likee" so they buy the kit and think they can easily get those results and then when they don't they start asking questions.  Nothing wrong with that.  They either end up on the long learning curve toward improvement or going back to their iphones.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 4, 2019)

Designer said:


> Sharpshooterr said:
> 
> 
> > How do you know those photographers don’t know that the separation of foreground/background blur and it’s uses is not important?
> ...



It sounds to me like you have a bit of disdain for those poor noobies. 
I can understand that they may not know how to create purposeful blur. My guess is they know the importance of it or they wouldn’t want to be creating it. 
Many noobs probably don’t yet own the glass to create a more perfect blur. 
Maybe that’s why they ask. 
Seems like they want to be able to put it into their quiver of techniques like the rest of us. 
It obviously makes you angry enough to complain about it. I hope you at least explained the technique and how and when to use it. 
The average photographer that just because they started with film 50 years ago that thinks their any good isn’t very good either but it’s no reason to criticize what they do or don’t know!
Maybe if I go back and read all 7 pages, Ill be angry TOO!! LoL 
SS


----------



## Derrel (Dec 4, 2019)

I think the inclusion of background blur in the new iPhone and in the new Google pixel phone will ensure that the bokeh effect lives for quite some time.

About a year ago there was an Apple commercial for the new iPhone in which the word word bokeh was used as a verb. One mother says to another something like , "How dare you bokeh my kid!" And the accused mother says," I would never bokeh your kid".

Knowing Apple, I would guess that that ad reached 40 to 50 million people.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 4, 2019)

Sharpshooterr said:


> It sounds to me like you have a bit of disdain for those poor noobies.
> I can understand that they may not know how to create purposeful blur. My guess is they know the importance of it or they wouldn’t want to be creating it.



Back in my original post I stated "_I've noticed a tendency among many in the pursuit of the ultimate creamy background, that it's becoming almost comical in effect. So I have to ask, are there others that feel like photographers are chasing after it too much for their own good? I’m not saying that bokeh is bad. When used in the right situations it can be gorgeous, and can enhance an image, but it still doesn’t mean that every single image has to be shot wide open, nor go overboard in creating excessive fake blur in PS".  _My biggest issue is with those that try to create the effect in Ps, when they don't understand what constituents attractive blur. They end up with a sharp edge object floating in a sea of blur with no transition. To me at least, it's like the screech of chalk on a blackboard.


----------



## SquarePeg (Dec 4, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I think the inclusion of background blur in the new iPhone and in the new Google pixel phone will ensure that the bokeh effect lives for quite some time.
> 
> About a year ago there was an Apple commercial for the new iPhone in which the word word bokeh was used as a verb. One mother says to another something like , "How dare you bokeh my kid!" And the accused mother says," I would never bokeh your kid".
> 
> Knowing Apple, I would guess that that ad reached 40 to 50 million people.



I had always thought it was pronounced bokay but the pronounced it bokah.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Dec 4, 2019)

I haven't been on in several days and thought maybe by now it would've ended! But noooo...

I thought it was bo-kuuuhhh... 

Smoke that's what I think, it's a thing that people seem to have seen online and try to copy it and seem to not even have basic skills to get decent photos. I've seen it done to the point that the people in a picture look like cardboard cutouts. 

It just seems like with a lot of things, you need to learn basic skills, know how to use the proper tools/equipment, and PRACTICE. Then experiment with some techniques. Or like years ago, just get a p&s or today, just use the phone and take photos of friends and family and holidays and vacations and leave it at that. 

What gets to me is that it seems like a lot of people are deluding themselves that they're photographers when they don't seem to want to learn about photography, and haven't developed necessary skills. Many don't seem to want to put in the time to learn and get good at it. Or learn about composition. Or how to frame shots. Or how to see a good potential photo. Or... I don't know what else! lol 

When will it end? Not anytime soon since now apparently the phone manufacturers have figured out it's a thing, and they can promote their phones as being able to blur backgrounds and make bokeh. Doesn't matter if the peeps in the photos have no feet or things are on a lean...


----------



## Derrel (Dec 4, 2019)




----------



## Derrel (Dec 4, 2019)




----------



## dennyr (Dec 5, 2019)

I thought it was circles of confusion 

Another fad that cannot go way fast enough is photographers psychotic obsession with the word "Sharp"...... or worse (vomit)  "Tack Sharp".
Photography would improve 9x if nobody ever worried about "that" again..... Ever.!


----------



## pocketshaver (Dec 5, 2019)

dennyr said:


> I thought it was circles of confusion
> 
> Another fad that cannot go way fast enough is photographers psychotic obsession with the word "Sharp"...... or worse (vomit)  "Tack Sharp".
> Photography would improve 9x if nobody ever worried about "that" again..... Ever.!




Don't forget 90% of photography is teen agers trying to be trendy hipsters by posting 50 pictures of their lunch on instagram every day.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 5, 2019)

Sorry Snaps, it was dead until I got involved!! LoL 
I think that before anybody starts to talk something down, or “vomit” at the sound of it, you’d better at least be damn good at it!
So go ahead everyone, don’t be shy, SHOW us. 
I don’t mean your OOF areas or blur....., I mean your BOKEH!!!!
SS


----------



## SquarePeg (Dec 5, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> dennyr said:
> 
> 
> > I thought it was circles of confusion
> ...



You definitely don’t have a teenager.   They are over Instagram.  The adults and advertisers took it over.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 5, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> Smoke that's what I think, it's a thing that people seem to have seen online and try to copy it and seem to not even have basic skills to get decent photos. I've seen it done to the point that the people in a picture look like cardboard cutouts.



Yup. Between cell phones, and clueless Ps wannabes, they've bastardized a creative element, to the point that it no longer resembles the beauty that it can add in a composition.



Sharpshooterr said:


> So go ahead everyone, don’t be shy, SHOW us.
> I don’t mean your OOF areas or blur....., I mean your BOKEH!!!!



Okay Fig Of The Rising Sun
Or maybe another example with vintage glass. Softly In The Sunlight As I said earlier it has its place.


----------



## Designer (Dec 5, 2019)

Sharpshooterr said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > Sharpshooterr said:
> ...


If you had read this thread from the beginning, and if you had read anything I have written on the topic, then at least you would not be so ignorant.  

Unfortunately, stupidity cannot be fixed.


----------



## Designer (Dec 5, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> Designer this is not directed at you in particular ..


Oh, good!  I'm so glad!

You have been on this forum long enough to know that I always help the newbies, so I don't know how you and "Sharps" can be so darned wrong.  I do my level best at explaining whatever is in question, and when have I ever spoken with disdain toward any newbie?


----------



## zombiesniper (Dec 5, 2019)

Sharpshooterr said:


> So go ahead everyone, don’t be shy, SHOW us.
> I don’t mean your OOF areas or blur....., I mean your BOKEH!!!!
> SS



 The quality or aesthetics of an out of focus area of an image is bokeh. 
“Bokeh balls” is just an aesthetic quality of an out of focus area of an image that happens to have highlights. 

Based on this a third of my entire flickr gallery has bokeh. Was that the intent?  No however I shoot wildlife and it’s a hell of a lot harder at f20. 

Now when will bokeh fall out of fashion is anyone’s guess. Be thankful the masses haven’t figured out if you cut a baby yoda silhouette out of paper and place it on your lens you could have baby Yoda bokeh balls and break the internet. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## waday (Dec 5, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> advertisers took it over


Oh how true. Every fifth post is a sponsored ad (ETA: meaning, I scroll past 4 photos and the fifth is an ad...I'm not making this up), and even actual accounts that I follow are now turning into sponsors. It'll either be extremely blatant that it's an ad or they'll quietly hide #ad in their list of hashtags. I stopped using Facebook because of the ads, and I think I'm going to do the same with Instagram soon. Their algorithm for showing posts annoys me, and certain accounts now pay to have their picture shoved in my face. If I don't like one of those posts, it shows me it over and over and over. Sorry... I'll stop ranting about IG.

As for bokeh, my wife (and thus I, as well) have taken up watching the yearly Hallmark holiday/Christmas movies. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed how ridiculous the filming has been? I feel like every movie has several scenes where they do a close up of each person separately and have the background completely blurred. In one movie we just watched, bokeh balls were everywhere and it almost looked like they tried to make them into snowflakes (or they just had a super dirty sensor on the camera). In another movie, I think the background was altered and fake blurred, because it nearly made me sick watching the scenes. The background moved oddly compared to the actors when panning--it was weird.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 5, 2019)

zombiesniper said:


> Be thankful the masses haven’t figured out if you cut a baby yoda silhouette out of paper and place it on your lens you could have baby Yoda bokeh balls and break the internet. Lol



To late............How to make your own DIY magic bokeh balls with your printer - DIY Photography Just so you know I'm man enough to admit, I've done this. LOL


----------



## vintagesnaps (Dec 5, 2019)

The best (or worst) part of that Smoke is that the photos that are the examples are terrible! lol 

Go ahead and rant Wade, we're with ya! lol I first looked at Instagram, read the Terms, and decided - forget it! Then more recently I set up an account to be able to view someone's Instagram (related to cross stitch/embrodery), but I recently closed it out, I'd had enough of email notifications etc. even though I'd unchecked every box possible!! lol I think you kind of start to realize, who needs it? do you miss it when you stop using it? So far I haven't.


----------



## SquarePeg (Dec 5, 2019)

waday said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> > advertisers took it over
> ...



The Hallmark Christmas movie Christmas light bokeh balls are eclipsed only by the Hallmark Christmas movie fake snow.  And let us not forget the Hallmark Christmas movie street scenes where even the alleys and dumpsters are decorated.   

as you may have guessed, I’ve seen enough of these to last a Lifetime movie dramatic pause.


----------



## SquarePeg (Dec 5, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> The best (or worst) part of that Smoke is that the photos that are the examples are terrible! lol
> 
> Go ahead and rant Wade, we're with ya! lol I first looked at Instagram, read the Terms, and decided - forget it! Then more recently I set up an account to be able to view someone's Instagram (related to cross stitch/embrodery), but I recently closed it out, I'd had enough of email notifications etc. even though I'd unchecked every box possible!! lol I think you kind of start to realize, who needs it? do you miss it when you stop using it? So far I haven't.



I’ve never received an email notification from Instagram.   That being said, if you can’t turn them off, just mark the sender as junk and you won’t see them anymore.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 5, 2019)

Instagram has really changed. It has morphed into quite an advertising vehicle. At first all images posted to Instagram were in a square format ,but now both horizontal and vertical pictures are seen, as well as video clips. Over the past year the ads,or as they call it, sponsored content, has become a real impediment to enjoying feeds of various people. Instagram has now become a corporate advertising vehicle with all types of healthcare and travel and insurance companies forcing their crap upon users.


----------



## Designer (Dec 5, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> ..last a Lifetime ..


I see what you did there.

I noticed my wife was watching a movie on Lifetime (A Christmas Gift), so I said; "I thought you didn't watch Lifetime anymore."  She said she was burned out by the Hallmark Chanel.


----------



## DanOstergren (Dec 5, 2019)

Derrel said:


> "How dare you bokeh my kid!" And the accused mother says," I would never bokeh your kid".


I thoroughly enjoy this dialogue.


----------



## waday (Dec 6, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> Go ahead and rant Wade, we're with ya! lol I first looked at Instagram, read the Terms, and decided - forget it! Then more recently I set up an account to be able to view someone's Instagram (related to cross stitch/embrodery), but I recently closed it out, I'd had enough of email notifications etc. even though I'd unchecked every box possible!! lol I think you kind of start to realize, who needs it? do you miss it when you stop using it? So far I haven't.


Don't give me free rein to rant! 



SquarePeg said:


> The Hallmark Christmas movie Christmas light bokeh balls are eclipsed only by the Hallmark Christmas movie fake snow.  And let us not forget the Hallmark Christmas movie street scenes where even the alleys and dumpsters are decorated.
> 
> as you may have guessed, I’ve seen enough of these to last a Lifetime movie dramatic pause.


LOL! Yes! And the fact that they change the white balance to blue or even desaturate portions of the video to make it look like it's cold and snowy outside. You can't get rid of leaves on trees!


----------



## Kiron Kid (Dec 10, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> pocketshaver said:
> 
> 
> > dennyr said:
> ...




Not soon enough.


----------



## idle (Dec 10, 2019)

I'd like to murder whoever invented this word (I'm not gonna use it: I'll use "Out Of Focus Areas" instead OOFA!). I never heard it back 'in the day' and only heard of it around 2010 or later (maybe I'd heard it but didn't pay attention). Yes, some lenses and techniques produce nicer out of focus than others and it seems that mostly that's due to the number of aperture blades a lens has. 
I have lots of old cameras and most of the old ones have 8/10/12 aperture blades. Shooting them, I note that even my 1950's Super Paxette produces smoother OOFA than my lenses from the 80's and 90's. It seems that manufacturers reduced the number of blades, probably to reduce cost, and some even had systems to create smoother OOFA. 
My Minolta A7 film camera for instance, has a special mode, STF or “smooth trans focus”. I used to have the actual STF lens but didn't use it much. The camera achieves this '“smooth trans focus” by taking seven exposures on a single frame at varying apertures creating a 'nicer' OOFA. 
Perhaps this indicates the evolution of the word I won't use. The A7 was one of the last high end 35mm camera designs before digital took over. 
Many people looking at the camera would think it IS digital with its big rear screen (for setting controls etc). 
Anyway, I've improved the quality of my lenses over the years, trading cheap lenses for better glass (from alt brands to Minolta and Zeiss). I use OOFA constantly to isolate the subject from the background and it's the isolation that grabs me, not the shape of the OOFA. Yes, some of my lenses make bubbles, one makes doughnuts, others just make smooth OOFA. I don't usually choose my lens for the OOFA though, I choose it to suit the shot. 
About the only time I deliberately choose a lens for it's OOFA is when I'm shooting sports with a long lens. My 500mm Minolta f8 mirror lens is handy but on bright days, it's OOFA is the unusual looking doughnut shape. That can be distracting so, in those cases, I'll sacrifice 100mm and use my Minolta 100-400mm zoom which has a wider aperture as a bonus. 
Outside of 35mm, most systems don't offer lenses with different OOFA I love my Fujica G690 and have 4 lenses for it: 50mm, 65mm, 100mm and 180mm. Fuji only made one other lens for it, the 150mm, and no alt brand ever made a lens for it. However, that doesn't matter; it creates stunning images if and when my brain creates them first. 
I'd never pay OTT prices for an OOFA aperture unless the glass and build itself were the reason for my purchase (ie. Zeiss from Sony digital fits my A7 and I have two). So for the finale: I shoot great images sometimes but they are not great images because of the OOFA, they are great images because my mind saw something I could 'exploit' by composing and exposing the shot in a creative way.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 10, 2019)

The word bokeh was introduced to English language speakers in some articles in the early 1990s , published by Mike Johnston, who was then the editor-in-chief of Darkroom Techniques magazine. Boke is a Japanese word , and he added the h at the end to avoid mispronunciation, so as to avoid people saying boke that rhymes with poke... that's not the way to pronounce the word. It does not rhyme with poke. So yes, the word is relatively new to us in the West, and it was not heard back in the day.

Johnston currently publishes The Online Photographer blog, and a few years ago he did about 10 days' worth of discussion of the term bokeh and where it comes from and what it is, ETC.


----------



## Designer (Dec 10, 2019)

I think considering the aesthetics of the blur is a worthwhile action, and if you start to analyze the image with any objectivity, you might see that some blur is smooth and peaceful, while other blur is jarring and distracting.

Your choice, but I prefer smooth.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 10, 2019)

The bokeh craze that smoke665 was referring to is not, in my opinion, a real appreciation of the true meaning of bokeh.


----------



## Bollygum (Dec 11, 2019)

I think bokeh is just fine.  Some people know how to use it well and others don't.  Some people are good photographers and some are not.  In my experience it takes a good lens to get good bokeh.  By good that usually means expensive.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 11, 2019)

Derrel said:


> So yes, the word is relatively new to us in the West, and it was not heard back in the day.
> 
> Johnston currently publishes The Online Photographer blog, and a few years ago he did about 10 days' worth of discussion of the term bokeh and where it comes from and what it is, ETC.



No, the word was not known back in the day but Bokeh has been, being used since cameras where invented, and in Japan a 1000 years before that in woodcuts.
But back in the day the f64 gang was quite aware of it, for the very reason they were using f64!
And I believe it's Johnston or one of his colleagues that keeps a pretty good list of lenses that have very favorable Bokeh characteristics.
John


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 11, 2019)

Derrel said:


> The bokeh craze that smoke665 was referring to is not, in my opinion, a real appreciation of the true meaning of bokeh.



Bingo! Most of which is created post and ends up looking like a sharp edge cutout slapped in the middle of a puddle of mush.



Bollygum said:


> . In my experience it takes a good lens to get good bokeh. By good that usually means expensive.



Sometimes but not always the case. One of the best lenses I have for soft creamy OOF and beautiful round Bokeh Balls is an old thrift store find that I paid $30 for.


----------



## SquarePeg (Dec 11, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > The bokeh craze that smoke665 was referring to is not, in my opinion, a real appreciation of the true meaning of bokeh.
> ...



I’m curious where you’re seeing all this fake blur that you’ve mentioned a few times?  I follow a lot of photographers that I like on Instagram and Flickr and I am in several Facebook photo groups and I don’t see a lot of that.  Maybe you need to unfollow the hacks and up your feed quality.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 11, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> I’m curious where you’re seeing all this fake blur that you’ve mentioned a few times? I follow a lot of photographers that I like on Instagram and Flickr and I am in several Facebook photo groups and I don’t see a lot of that. Maybe you need to unfollow the hacks and up your feed quality.



I see it come up on various sites from FB pages, to other forums, to actual prints. We seem to have an abundance of wanna be photographers doing cut rate work in our area.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 11, 2019)

I have not really seen all that much objectionable fake background blur. There have been developed some very well understood techniques to make it look quite believable within the last few years. Even Kirk Tuck,well- known Austin,Texas commercial people photographer and videographer has begun doing it with his micro four-thirds camera systems


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 11, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> > I’m curious where you’re seeing all this fake blur that you’ve mentioned a few times? I follow a lot of photographers that I like on Instagram and Flickr and I am in several Facebook photo groups and I don’t see a lot of that. Maybe you need to unfollow the hacks and up your feed quality.
> ...



So what if people want to use fake blur???
I’m sure a lot of the fake blur is BETTER than the real blur we see created by cheap cameras with CHEAP lenses and photographers that don’t know how to use them. 
Photography became almost entirely fake with the advent of Photoshop and few are complaining. In fact photographers are encouraged to doctor up their crappy snap shots in PS, to make them good!
If those wanna-be cut-raters are taking your work, time to re-evaluate just how viable photography is as a profession. Time to move into a genre where the cut-raters are not! An area so DIFFICULT and too knowledge or equipment heavy to be filled with cut-raters!!!
John


----------



## Lonnie1212 (Dec 11, 2019)

I think Bokeh may matter more to those interested in portraits or photographing people in general. It never really appealed to me. There is a soft background setting on my Nikon D3200.  It does perfectly well for my bokeh curiosity.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 12, 2019)

@Sharpshooterr after 11 pages and over 3600 views apparently it's an issue with strong opinions for and against. I would disagree that "bad" blur created post is no worse then anything created in a cheap camera or lens. Theres is no natural transition and to me it's like the screech of chalk on a chalkboard but hey, to each his own.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 13, 2019)

Lonnie1212 said:


> I think Bokeh may matter more to those interested in portraits or photographing people in general. It never really appealed to me. There is a soft background setting on my Nikon D3200.  It does perfectly well for my bokeh curiosity.


Lonnie, you think?
Maybe it’s just your inexperience coming through!?
I’ll just speak for myself but I use bokeh/OOF all the time when shooting sports. I use it when shooting nature all the time too. I use it when shooting street and very selectively when I shoot landscaps, especially micro landscapes. 
I also shoot a lot of people. Both studio and location. In fact often more people than anything else and for people is when I use it the least!!! I love an extremely crisp, sharp portrait, front to back. 
I’m pretty darned sure I’m not alone here on FM on this but like you I’m new here so don’t want to generalize. 
In fact experienced shooters, especially pros use bokeh/OOF anytime they deem it will improve an image or just to get a certain look!
But it should be a conscious choice not a serendipitous accident! 
John


----------



## star camera company (Dec 14, 2019)

Bokeh, from a Holmes Booth and Haydens half plate petzval lens, full open f 3.6.   Collodion negative contact print 1/2  Plate.   This is that “swirl” everyone chases.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 14, 2019)

My first ever" good camera" was a Russian-made SLR, the Cosmorex SE, which was a rebadged of the Zenit B.

It had a 58 mm F / 2 Auto Cosmogon, which had Fairly swirly bokeh. The lens was a russian-made copy of a lens design that is well known for its swirly bokeh. At the time I was using the camera and lens I was unaware of background rendering, since I was 12 or 13 years old, and the term bokeh was about 20 years or so in the future.

The lens is in m42 thread mount oh, so I suppose I could use it on one of my older Canon digital single-lens reflexes...


----------



## Lonnie1212 (Dec 18, 2019)

Sharpshooterr said:


> Lonnie1212 said:
> 
> 
> > I think Bokeh may matter more to those interested in portraits or photographing people in general. It never really appealed to me. There is a soft background setting on my Nikon D3200.  It does perfectly well for my bokeh curiosity.
> ...



The bokeh issue has it's place in photography.  And certainly there are those with more knowledge and experience than I have.  There are times when I look to have bokeh.  But I am not looking to have better bokeh and pursuing the issue.  Will continue to read about the opinions and experiences of others.  There may come a time when I really want it.


----------



## SquarePeg (Dec 18, 2019)

Of all my lenses, and at this point I’m overstocked, the 60mm has the “best” bokeh.  It’s dreamy and I love it.  Even though the 60 is difficult to auto focus in low light/low contrast, and slower to auto focus in good conditions than all of my other lenses, I would never give it up. 

If you’re a technical shooter who is looking to be very by the book, you may not care about bokeh or more accurately the quality of the bokeh, but I’d you’re interested in artsy photos, it’s important.


----------



## star camera company (Dec 18, 2019)

When I was experimenting with various Leitz lenses in my UR Leica,  I got a 50mm Leitz Milar f 4.5.  It fit the camera but Yikes the images floored me with just how awful they were!  King of Buukaay?  Nah... no need for Any images like these!   The 42 mm Summar was found to make perfect images


----------



## limr (Dec 18, 2019)

star camera company said:


> View attachment 183675 Bokeh, from a Holmes Booth and Haydens half plate petzval lens, full open f 3.6.   Collodion negative contact print 1/2  Plate.   This is that “swirl” everyone chases.


 
I do love me some swirly Petzval bokeh


----------



## TWX (Dec 22, 2019)

For me, the control of depth-of-field is predominately about making my subject clear to the observer.  The aesthetic quality of bokeh isn't unimportant, but it is definitely secondary to the subject of the picture, even for artsy-fartsy pictures like when I go out in the rose garden to play with light and shadow in the late afternoon.

I bought the camera for taking pictures of my family, and most of my pictures are candids or semi-candid snaps of people.  Proper depth of field is the difference between a busy photo that is glossed-over in an old photo book and a great picture that I want to go back and look at again and again, especially in real-world settings where the surrounding view is busy or otherwise congested.

Consider the Mona Lisa.  Ms. Lisa is what we're looking at, not the background around her.  I think it's predominately oranges and browns but I couldn't even tell you.  To me, that's what bokeh is, it's job is to not distract from the subject, it's simply necessary, and it takes pretty bad bokeh to make it really detract.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 22, 2019)

Lonnie1212 said:


> Sharpshooterr said:
> 
> 
> > Lonnie1212 said:
> ...



Yes, I agree, bokeh definitely has a place in photography. My issue was only that you suggested it was important mostly to portrait or people photography. My point was that it can be a very valuable tool both aesthetically and purposely in every genre of photography, and equally.
For someone to ask when the bokeh craze will end, that person is either very naive about photography or they were just trolling!
But many of us DO know when the bokeh craze will end....., it will end when this photography craze ends!!! LoL
SS


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 23, 2019)

@sharpshooter I very much resent your comments, as I can assure you, that I am neither naive or trolling in my OP. Your egotistical and arrogant  attitude on my comments and others shows a lack of tolerance and unwiilingness to understand other viewpoints. My experience dates back 50 years, covering newspaper, forensics, legal, individuals and business, so this isnt my first rodeo.

Maybe if you'd have actually read some of my posts in the previous pages, instead of being so quick to insert your pompous opinions, you would have realized that I'm not against the use of Bokeh as a creative element. Did you actually read the OP, here's a quote from it " When used in the right situations it can be gorgeous, and can enhance an image", and in case you missed an earlier statement I still say fake blur added post by an inexperienced person looks like crap. Usually when that happens its because the photographer was either to "naieve" or "inexperienced" to take the time to be aware of their  surroundings, and to consider all elements of the composition before they snapped the shutter.

Maybe you should actually read through the comments by others before posting, otherwise you come off looking like the troll.


----------



## SquarePeg (Dec 23, 2019)

Name calling and personal attacks will not be tolerated    on this forum.  Please keep all comments on topic.  This is directed to all members.  

People can disagree with someone without making it personal or taking it personally.  

Any additional posts that contain personal attacks or are meant to poke others into attacking will be deleted.


----------



## Original katomi (Dec 23, 2019)

Post deleted, in case peeps thought i was being personal.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 23, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> Post deleted, in case peeps thought i was being personal.



I don't think she was referring to you. LOL

@SquarePeg Sorry, I agree with you, and was following your advice till certain comments were directed at me. I've said my peace and will let it go. Thanks for intervening.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 23, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> Name calling and personal attacks will not be tolerated    on this forum.  Please keep all comments on topic.  This is directed to all members.
> 
> People can disagree with someone without making it personal or taking it personally.
> 
> Any additional posts that contain personal attacks or are meant to poke others into attacking will be deleted.



Down boy, down! And such a cute doggy too!!
I think the man thought he’d been attacked and was merely defending himself. No worries. 
I assure you, the windmill did not even throw him of his mount!!!
I’ll go back and try to smooth things over. 
Thanks
SS


----------



## Derrel (Dec 23, 2019)

Are obscure references to Don Quixote allowed here?


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Dec 23, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Are obscure references to Don Quixote allowed here?



Only if the windmill is in the background ...... and out of focus.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 23, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Are obscure references to Don Quixote allowed here?



Apparently only if thinly veiled, to which I respond to the attempted humor of the post of reference, with a quote from Nick Bottom....."What do you see".


----------



## Derrel (Dec 23, 2019)

I think a better title might have been,"When will the fake bokeh craze end?" Still this has been an entertaining and long-lived thread.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Dec 23, 2019)

D'ya mean it hasn't ended yet??!

And does anyone think the background isn't significant in the Mona Lisa?? try taking art history! lol (in school a long time ago!). Here's from the website of the Louvre -

"The nature of the landscape also plays a role."
"The middle distance..." "...represents the transition between the space of the sitter and the far distance..." "...which Leonardo has cleverly drawn at the level of the sitter's eyes..." etc.

The background matters as part of the composition. But it isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all. When I've done submissions to juried exhibits, nobody's talking about bokeh, various aspects of the composition are being considered when your work's being evaluated.

Narrow depth of field, or the quality of the bokeh created by a particular lens, or out of focus portions of an image, may all impact the overall composition and can work or not. But I don't think it works to blur a background and think that alone makes for a good image. Even out of focus parts of an image can create bright or colorful areas and be visual distractions if not taken into consideration when framing a shot, adjusting vantage point, etc.


----------



## compur (Dec 23, 2019)

"_I prefer my café mocha with swirly bokeh and that's no jokeh._"
  - Imogene Coca


----------



## Derrel (Dec 23, 2019)

The Manual Focus Forum has some pretty good articles about various classic legacy 35 mm system lenses and about the bokeh produced by these lenses.

Some seven or eight years ago I referred users here to one particularly good article which had some very illustrative photographs of lens drawing, which is a somewhat different subject from bokeh.

The subject of how a lens "draws its scenes" it's something that only a few people are aware of. it's like wine tasting, or appreciating cigars, or gourmet food. The vast majority of people do not understand the finer nuances of many things. If you do a Google search for "how to create bokeh", you will likely find a couple of Pinterest articles and a YouTube video (or two, or ten) that shows you how to cut out little hearts or stars and then take photos of your Christmas tree in order to create star- or heart-shaped out of focus specular highlights. But bokeh is actually much more involved than how a lens renders specular highlights.

There is quite a bit of misunderstanding of what bokeh originally meant, and the internet age has served to create much confusion.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 23, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> @sharpshooter I very much resent your comments, as I can assure you, that I am neither naive or trolling in my OP. Your egotistical and arrogant  attitude on my comments and others shows a lack of tolerance and unwiilingness to understand other viewpoints. My experience dates back 50 years, covering newspaper, forensics, legal, individuals and business, so this isnt my first rodeo.
> 
> Maybe if you'd have actually read some of my posts in the previous pages, instead of being so quick to insert your pompous opinions, you would have realized that I'm not against the use of Bokeh as a creative element. Did you actually read the OP, here's a quote from it " When used in the right situations it can be gorgeous, and can enhance an image", and in case you missed an earlier statement I still say fake blur added post by an inexperienced person looks like crap. Usually when that happens its because the photographer was either to "naieve" or "inexperienced" to take the time to be aware of their  surroundings, and to consider all elements of the composition before they snapped the shutter.
> 
> Maybe you should actually read through the comments by others before posting, otherwise you come off looking like the troll.



Smoke, I apologize if you took this personally, no personal intent was meant. I had no idea who the OP even was nor did it matter. The word I used was “anyone”, not “you”.  And yes I’ve read every post in this thread, so I’m quite aware of what you and others had said. In fact this thread was 2 months DEAD and I brought it back to life, at least it’s gotten lively!! LoL
You called the use of Bokeh a “Craze”, I simply said it wasn’t and to think it was, was a gross generalization. What isn’t a craze...., focus staking, film, nudes?? As I said, the craze is photography. When the photography craze dies, so will bokeh!!!
SS


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 24, 2019)

@sharpshooter apology accepted. As Derrel mentioned above the title of the OP likely belies the intent of my post. Rather then craze, a better choice of words might have been enthusiasm or exaggerated use. 

I think Vintagesnaps in her comments a page over, gets where I'm coming from when she says, "does anyone think the background isn't significant in the Mona Lisa??" and "The background matters as part of the composition. But it isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all" .  

Sometimes you need to show background as in an environmental composition, sometimes you need to adjust your angle rather then bluring a background with objects that could still detract from the image, and sometimes you need to consider that the location of the shot is an important element of the composition. There's a wedding photographer that posts some of his work here occasionally that is a master of finding spectacular locations. Locations that blend and intertwine with the subjects to create a unified beautiful composition.

As I've said repeatedly I'm not opposed to using blur in a composition, but it should be done as a consideration of the composition as a whole, is not a requirement of every single image you take, and if you're having to add it post, you likely didn't consider your composition before you clicked the shutter.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Dec 31, 2019)

Tropicalmemories said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Are obscure references to Don Quixote allowed here?
> ...


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 31, 2019)

Kiron Kid said:


> View attachment 184486
> 
> 
> Tropicalmemories said:
> ...



Man, that elk didn’t stand a chance against THAT windmill and that windmill even has tiny little short arms!!!


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Dec 31, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> @sharpshooter apology accepted. As Derrel mentioned above the title of the OP likely belies the intent of my post. Rather then craze, a better choice of words might have been enthusiasm or exaggerated use.
> 
> I think Vintagesnaps in her comments a page over, gets where I'm coming from when she says, "does anyone think the background isn't significant in the Mona Lisa??" and "The background matters as part of the composition. But it isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all" .
> 
> ...



Smoke, thanks for letting us bury the hatchet! What a way to start the new year! LoL 
OK,  maybe you had a less than ideal choice of words but even so, I think the real take-away here is that the background can be just as important as the subject, assuming the background isn’t the subject!
I don’t know that bokeh/blur isn’t overused anymore that having an image sharp from front to back! If anything is being overused it’s that! With probably more than 90% of images we see today being produced by phones that until recently didn’t have the ability to blur a background or but it in artificially, we are being bombarded by sharp images. 
As photographers, and I even hate to use the term, “real photographers” with “real cameras”, we have the abilities to pick and chose our backgrounds. And what we pick is an individual choice. 
In many situations there ISN’T a lot of choice. For example in sports where action is involved and fast lenses can’t be avoided because we need the large apertures to get the speed high enough to avoid motion blur, those pics are gonna have a blurred background just by the circumstances of the genre being shot. 
We’re acting a bit like elitist to proclaim any certain style is overused or as not really appropriate!
We went through the age of realism with the f64 club, where sharpness was in vogue. I take shots like that too but I also take shots where the foreground is all blur and the background is the subject and sharp. Or where the subject is in blur and the foreground is sharp etc. 
When I have blur it’s pretty deliberate. When I don’t it’s also deliberate!
Everybody’s ability level is different. That’s why not everybody produces award winning photography consistently but some do and others never will. That does not mean that less experienced photographers don’t enjoy producing blur and sharpness as they see fit on their journeys to becoming masters of their trade, if they ever do. 
I for one won’t tire of blur any more than I’ll tire of sharpness.


----------



## The Barbarian (Jan 1, 2020)

smoke665 said:


> FA 50mm



I have the


smoke665 said:


> but a thrift store find of an old manual 135mm f2.5, puts it to shame.



I'm very impressed with the 135 f2.5


----------



## flyingPhoto (Jul 4, 2021)

no one seems to realize that the automatic exposure is designed to create max bokeh no matter what


----------



## Dave Maciak (Jul 4, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> I've noticed a tendency among many in the pursuit of the ultimate creamy background, that it's becoming almost comical in effect. So I have to ask, are there others that feel like photographers are chasing after it too much for their own good? I’m not saying that bokeh is bad. When used in the right situations it can be gorgeous, and can enhance an image, but it still doesn’t mean that every single image has to be shot wide open, nor go overboard in creating excessive fake blur in PS.
> 
> Does the average person who looks at your images, and clients who book you, really care about these things. Do they care that you had to sell a body part to buy your new lens, are they impressed with how big your lens is, or what its maximum aperture is, and they certainly won’t sit there ooohhing and aawwweeing, over the background  when they’re looking at their family portraits. All they really care about is the subject, the quality of the bokeh is not important to them, unless it's so distracting that it's annoying (a point many are getting to).
> 
> In some case I have to wonder if it's an easy cop out  (just blur the crap out of everything rather than think about your background and composition).  To me its overuse is stifling creativity rather than enhancing.


Could not agree more!  Like I said in a previous post: "Bokeh Schmokeh"  An otherwise unimaginative, mundane, 
"snapshot" won't be saved by a bokeh rich background.


----------



## Dave Maciak (Jul 4, 2021)

vintagesnaps said:


> A mottled mess, yeah Smoke that describes it pretty well! Or jittery... JB, I don't remember ever knowing about it years ago, not that it wasn't around, but it must've passed me on by! I do think it's apparently due to lenses that aren't the best.
> 
> An iphone will what?? lol that's an odd way to advertise it if you ask me.
> 
> And who's Cole and why should we read his notes??!


Ditto


----------



## Dave Maciak (Jul 4, 2021)

SquarePeg said:


> That’s a good idea and will definitely use it.  I suspect though that it will just reinforce everyone’s already formed opinions.


You tell me---compare.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jul 4, 2021)

Dave Maciak said:


> You tell me---compare.


The first one looks like fake blur was added.  The second has way too much dof and detail in the background for my taste.  This isn’t really a straight one on one comparison of the same photo taken both wide open and stopped down.  Too many other differences in wb and clarity.


----------



## Dave Maciak (Jul 4, 2021)

SquarePeg said:


> The first one looks like fake blur was added.  The second has way too much dof and detail in the background for my taste.  This isn’t really a straight one on one comparison of the same photo taken both wide open and stopped down.  Too many other differences in wb and clarity.


Thanks for the reply----difficult to control WB with Tri-X.  Yes, blur was added , but I agree, it's over done.


----------



## Dikkie (Jul 9, 2021)

Depends on what type of picture you want. 
What do you want to show to the people?
If you have an interesting composition, or a nature/city landscape, you sometimes want to get everything sharp to enable us to see everything you want to show us.

I love bokeh, but it needs to be used by purpose to add some value to the picture, and certainly not all the time, occasionally.
When I shoot with shallow dof, I want to have quality in the bokeh, not 'just' bokeh to have bokeh..... If the bokeh isn't beautiful enough, I sometimes prefer to have it fully sharp than having to deal with a bad bokeh.


----------



## mrca (Jul 27, 2021)

Smoke, I think the word "craze" is appropriate.  In the early 2000's we saw novices pushing the saturation slider then discovered HDR and over saturated it.  It faded away but seems to have enjoyed a come back.  Tilting, rail road tracks, jumping on railroad tracks came and went.   Bokeh is the quality of the out of focus background.  How does that old adage go, when you have a hammer, everything is a nail.  Same for folks with their first fast glass after kit lenses.  Oof bg is appropriate for certain things, eliminate a busy bg, to emphasize the  subject and harsh bokeh can be disturbing.  One new nikon lens photo actually had the bokeh make me nauseous.  But it should be used when appropriate.  For example, my environmental portrait lens is a 35 mm 2.0  but I am usually 5.6 or above to keep the bg sharp so it gives context.  Next shot I might want to isolate the subject against a creamy bg and reach for a 135 2.0 dc,  with a bokeh control ring.   But I think smoke has a point, every shot shot wide open with blurry bg gets trite real fast.   I think that is called a one trick pony.


----------



## RAZKY (Jul 29, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> I've noticed a tendency among many in the pursuit of the ultimate creamy background, that it's becoming almost comical in effect. So I have to ask, are there others that feel like photographers are chasing after it too much for their own good? I’m not saying that bokeh is bad. When used in the right situations it can be gorgeous, and can enhance an image, but it still doesn’t mean that every single image has to be shot wide open, nor go overboard in creating excessive fake blur in PS.
> 
> Does the average person who looks at your images, and clients who book you, really care about these things. Do they care that you had to sell a body part to buy your new lens, are they impressed with how big your lens is, or what its maximum aperture is, and they certainly won’t sit there ooohhing and aawwweeing, over the background  when they’re looking at their family portraits. All they really care about is the subject, the quality of the bokeh is not important to them, unless it's so distracting that it's annoying (a point many are getting to).
> 
> In some case I have to wonder if it's an easy cop out  (just blur the crap out of everything rather than think about your background and composition).  To me its overuse is stifling creativity rather than enhancing.


I wouldn't call it a craze - selective focus has long been effectively employed to isolate the primary subject from distracting environs. The craziest thing to me is the persistent misuse of the B-word itself.


----------



## ac12 (Jul 29, 2021)

RAZKY said:


> I wouldn't call it a craze - selective focus has long been effectively employed to isolate the primary subject from distracting environs. The craziest thing to me is the persistent misuse of the B-word itself.



Selective focus indeed has been around for a LONG time.
But, I cannot remember this all consuming "craze" for shallow DoF, and the "look" of the OOF image.


----------



## RAZKY (Jul 29, 2021)

ac12 said:


> Selective focus indeed has been around for a LONG time.
> But, I cannot remember this all consuming "craze" for shallow DoF, and the "look" of the OOF image.


No doubt I am conceited and self centered, too concerned with my own stuff to fret over what others do.
I do have an upcoming project - close-ups and near macro with my 500 f/5.0 and 800 f/8.0 mirror lenses. Everyone will be free to call the out of focus areas whatever they wish.


----------



## mrca (Jul 30, 2021)

Razky, I will refer to them as oof.   Haven't seen mirror lens oof in a while so will look forward to it.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 30, 2021)

RAZKY said:


> I wouldn't call it a craze - selective focus has long been effectively employed to isolate the primary subject from distracting environs. The craziest thing to me is the persistent misuse of the B-word itself.



If you'll  reread the original post the "craze" I refer to has little to do with with the Bokeh, selective focus, OOF or any other qualities imparted by the glass. Instead many are using the Radial or Gaussian blur filter post to obliviate anything that might have been in the background, leaving a disconnected body floating in a cloud. Or they reach for anything with the widest aperture they can find so their DOF becomes so thin that they're lucky if they catch the eye in focus.

Yes the Bokeh imparted in the OOF areas by some glass can be beautiful, some glass not so much. Yes selective focus is a way to isolate the subject in a frame, but moving or changing your angle can also minimize distracting backgrounds. In an environmental shot the background is a part of the composition so why would you want to eliminate it. 

Where the craze or maybe crazy comes in is where the photographer automatically shoots wide open or goes straight to PS rather than considering the best choices for the subject at hand.


----------



## mrca (Jul 30, 2021)

Smoke,   I think it is often a function of  a missing fundamental of photography, knowing  why the shot is being taken then using the camera/lens controls, etc to maximize the message.    Also, it is easier to compose a photo if there are fewer elements and blurring the background reduces it to subject only and drives the viewers eye there, rather than having the skills or taking the time to eliminate extraneous elements in the frame and composing a strong composition.   It's why the most difficult lenses in my bag are a 24 and 8 mm circular fisheye that makes it difficult to keep my  FEET out of the shot.   But the last time I nailed it, it got me a magazine cover.   As for the computer generated oof, I have yet to see one that is pleasing.


----------



## RAZKY (Jul 31, 2021)

smoke665 said:


> If you'll  reread the original post the "craze" I refer to has little to do with with the Bokeh, selective focus, OOF or any other qualities imparted by the glass. Instead many are using the Radial or Gaussian blur filter post to obliviate anything that might have been in the background, leaving a disconnected body floating in a cloud. Or they reach for anything with the widest aperture they can find so their DOF becomes so thin that they're lucky if they catch the eye in focus.
> 
> Yes the Bokeh imparted in the OOF areas by some glass can be beautiful, some glass not so much. Yes selective focus is a way to isolate the subject in a frame, but moving or changing your angle can also minimize distracting backgrounds. In an environmental shot the background is a part of the composition so why would you want to eliminate it.
> 
> Where the craze or maybe crazy comes in is where the photographer automatically shoots wide open or goes straight to PS rather than considering the best choices for the subject at hand.


Looks the same now as when I first read it.


----------



## mrca (Jul 31, 2021)

Smoke in his original post said "Do they care that you had to sell a body part to buy your new lens, are they impressed with how big your lens is, or what its maximum aperture is."   Oof background, whether created by the  lens or in post should be employed for a reason, not just every shot. Of course, if that is someones style, then go for it.   I would view that as a one trick pony.  But knowing when to use it and using it appropriately is part of mastering the craft.   Personally, I don't care what others are doing, but when I am judging professional competitions, I expect that concept to be understood.   And Smoke is right, it is a crutch to avoid having to compose multiple elements in the frame.  If the subject is the only sharp element in the frame, that's easy, but if the shot is trying to show context for the subject then  compostional skills become important and you don't get those swiping a credit card for a lens.  I have seen folks do the same with burning virtually to pure black around the subject to eliminate distracting elements they didn't eliminate or compose before clicking the shutter.   Sure, when you can't place subject, change position or don't have time, eliminating bg with wide aperture or completely with vignette is understandable.   But I believe the point of this thread is folks just using shallow dof just because they can.  As I said, when you have a hammer, everything is a nail.


----------



## flyingPhoto (Aug 20, 2021)

Its a basic defect in cameras. 

The default for auto exposure is to drop lens aperture to the largest opening the lens can do. No matter what..

Im starting to think its also a defective combination with how some cameras use an IR lamp on the side of the lens to help the auto focus, well focus in on something.


----------



## LWW (Sep 26, 2021)

The bokeh craze will officially end on 30 February, 3223 AD at 14:14 hours.

Mark your calendar.


----------



## Space Face (Sep 26, 2021)

LWW said:


> The bokeh craze will officially end on 30 February, 3223 AD at 14:14 hours.
> 
> Mark your calendar.


----------



## snowbear (Sep 26, 2021)

Selective  color/de-saturation (AKA grey baby), added vignette, over-processed tone mapping, sepia conversion, underexposed “dreamy” look, cropped off top of head, fake digital grain, border to look like Poloroid, duck lips, bokeh …

Whatever makes them happy, I guess.


----------



## Space Face (Sep 26, 2021)

snowbear said:


> Selective  color/de-saturation (AKA grey baby), added vignette, over-processed tone mapping, sepia conversion, underexposed “dreamy” look, cropped off top of head, fake digital grain, border to look like Poloroid, duck lips, bokeh …
> 
> Whatever makes them happy, I guess.


Pretty much photography in general then😀


----------



## mrca (Sep 26, 2021)

Snowbear,  you are absolutely right over doing those things can be seen.  But most have a valid reason for use when appropriate.  Cutting of top of head can hide a bald dome or emphasize what conveys emotion in an image, lips, eyes and eyebrows.  Vignette can be done so subtly, it is difficult if not impossible to detect and corals the viewers eye in the photo. De sat or conversion to b&w is helpful when terrible light color or distracting colored elements or to show line, shape and contrast.  Digital grain can be used not to imitate real grain, it doesn't have varying amounts of grain in shadows and highlights, but is useful to imperceptively soften an image.  I shot polaroid for work in the 70's, thought it was crap look then and do now.  For nostalgia,  they can knock themselves out.  Bokeh is a useful tool for emphasis or elimination of distraction.  But ALL of these, done in excess or without a reason, become a cliche.  You left out tilting.  Or brides on railroad tracks especially jumping.   I would add over saturation because that is often the first thing a newby learns that makes the photo look different so thinks that makes it art.  Done for a reason when called for, all are valid, but I think what  some folks are pointing out, it is the excessive application or use of these techniques.   But as much as they may be annoying to people who take photography seriously here, I would add Bambi Cantrell's quote when it comes to selling work, beauty lies in the eye of the checkbook holder.  They often want that crap.  Ever see someone taking a selfie with the cell phone 2 feet over their head and 2 feet from their face?   Why so high and do they like huge noses?  We have to remember many folks are learning and perhaps pass on what will improve their work.  I treasure the instruction I have gotten over the years that has shaped my work and when I use those techniques, I think of the person who passed it on, many of which have passed away but live in my work.


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 27, 2021)

Wow 12 pages. Little did I know my rant back 2yrs ago would live on so long. Seems it struck a nerve with many.

@MRCDont get me started on the Dutch Tilt, it's coming back recently.


----------



## Michael_G (Sep 27, 2021)

What a fascinating thread. Taken as a whole it is almost a pseudo essay on what really is photography? 
 As long as there is a technique to manipulate a photograph, it will be done, and it will not go away, it will always be a "craze" in one form or another. Our creativity and individuality will see to that. That individuality goes hand in hand with our likes and dislikes also. I have known many photographers that have spent their lives close to penniless shooting some of the most majestic, in my opinion, art I have ever seen. By the same token, I know others who have made small fortunes, again my opinion, shooting run of the mill junk. Bokeh though? That is just another by product of picking up a camera.
  I added the photo below because it is one that is a bit divisive. A lot of people truly despise this shot, and others truly love it. The reason for both groups views are usually the same. "The blurry background", or "bokeh", if they watch ads or know anything about photography. The question would be, was the bokeh necessary for the shot? For this shot I would say yes. In the background there was another coffee maker, three foaming cups, coffee canisters, flamingo solo cup and more that would have made the espresso machine lost in the shot. The other question would be, was the shot necessary? I would say probably not. On the whole, I still personally like it, even if I can shred it on a critique. Oh, Leica CL(Digital) W/Voigtlander f1.4.
  So no, no craze is going away, photography is about following the rules, getting the perfect shot and making it look just the way you want. Photography is also about breaking those same rules, looking for those unique, unusual shots and just capturing whats really there. Photography is also about so much more.
  Photography is as unique as everyone that picks up a camera, no matter if it as a cheap disposable from the drug store or a bank busting medium format and everything in between. Phones, pinhole, APC, 4/3, whatever you shoot with, I have seen amazing work from all of these. Just keep shooting and let it all come together for whatever you like, and don't worry about the peanut gallery.


----------

