Does digital do as well as film with bokeh?

[Ilovemycam]

I noticed on some dig shots that the bokeh of flowers looked like color blobs. No details in them just a mass of color. I don't have any film shots to compare this to. But did film do better with certain bokeh compared to digital?

 

[tirediron]

The recording medium (film/digital) has virtually nothing to do with the way the background, other than depth of field increasing as the sensor/film becomes smaller. "Bokeh" or the way in which the out-of-focus elements of the image are rendered depends almost exclusively on the lens, and relates to focal-length, the aperture used, the design & number of aperture blades, etc. So, in short, it really makes almost no difference whether film or digital.

 

[Patrice]

Not really. The rendering of out of focus objects and highlights is more a function of the lens than of the recording medium: lens aperture, focal length, distance and form of the aperture blades.



Edit: Tirediron got to it just before I did. Did not mean to parrot, sorry.

 

[TCampbell]

The only real impact that the camera body can have on bokeh is that it's easier to create when the size of the film or sensor are larger. It's hard to create bokeh on small sensor cameras. It's pretty much pointless to try to create it with a tiny sensor cameras -- e.g. a lot of point & shoots can't do it at all.

Apart from that, bokeh is all based on attributes of the lens. The aperture diameter, the shape of the aperture blades (the roundness of the aperture opening), and the focal length of the lens. Large aperture long focal length lenses with a very round opening will create the best bokeh.

A 135mm f/2 lens can generate so much cream it'll give you diabetes.

 

[KmH]

Many interchange/confuse the term 'bokeh' with depth-of-field (DoF). Particularly when a shallow DoF is being discussed.

Bokeh is not directly adjustable, like DoF is adjustable. Bokeh is a word made up by Mike Johnson in 1997 when he was the editor of Photo Techniques magazine.
He americanised the Japanese word 'boke' which has many meanings, including blur, haze, a mental haze or senility. Bokeh refers to the 'blur quality', not the amount of blur.

Image sensor/film size, lens focal length, image sensor/film distance from the point of focus, and distance from the point of focus to the background - all determine how out-of-focus the background will be.

Lens construction, number/shape of aperture blades, and optics quality determine the visual quality (bokeh) of a blurred background.
There are two types of bokeh - Cream Cheese bokeh and Hollywood bokeh.

The best Hollywood bokeh has perfectly round specular background highlights. A lens that has 5, straight aperture blades produces 5 sided hollywood bokeh instead of nice perfectly round bokeh.
One can use the aperture shape bokeh limitation in creative ways - DIY - Create Your Own Bokeh | DIYPhotography.net

 

[Big Mike]

I noticed on some dig shots that the bokeh of flowers looked like color blobs. No details in them just a mass of color. I don't have any film shots to compare this to. But did film do better with certain bokeh compared to digital?

I believe your question has been answered above, but another factor to the issue may be how different mediums record color. Digital cameras (and image processors) don't all render color exactly the same way and from film type to another, the difference could be huge.

So when you see a 'blob of color' rather than detail, it may be a DOF issue but it may also be that the specific color channel has been overexposed and blown out.

 

[Ilovemycam]

I noticed on some dig shots that the bokeh of flowers looked like color blobs. No details in them just a mass of color. I don't have any film shots to compare this to. But did film do better with certain bokeh compared to digital?

I believe your question has been answered above, but another factor to the issue may be how different mediums record color. Digital cameras (and image processors) don't all render color exactly the same way and from film type to another, the difference could be huge.

So when you see a 'blob of color' rather than detail, it may be a DOF issue but it may also be that the specific color channel has been overexposed and blown out.

"Blown out" is a good word for it.

Here is another example of blown out color that I was talking about. See the yellow flowers up front.

http://bogsofohio.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/march-2012-094a.jpg

The other photo I saw had out of focus bokeh blown out the same way. It was a mass of red and no detail in the out of focus flower. Would film have blown out same way as digital?

 

[Village Idiot]

The only real impact that the camera body can have on bokeh is that it's easier to create when the size of the film or sensor are larger. It's hard to create bokeh on small sensor cameras. It's pretty much pointless to try to create it with a tiny sensor cameras -- e.g. a lot of point & shoots can't do it at all.

This depends on the Max aperture and the focal length as well. A lot of P&S cameras have what would be considered a slow maximum aperture and have variable aperture lenses that have the apeture of the lens getting smaller as the lens zoom out.

 

[Big Mike]

My point was that you can't just compare "film" to "digital". You have to compare one camera to another or to a specific type/brand of film.

Or it could simply be an issue of exposure. If it's an overexposure issue, just use less exposure next time.
But we could then consider the difference in dynamic range between digital cameras and different films. For example, color negative film (in general) has a larger range than typical digital cameras (maybe the best ones are caught up or better). But slide film (in general), which was often touted as giving the richest, deepest colors, had a very narrow dynamic range.

And another thing to think about is the way, or the limits of how things are blow out in film vs digital (or one film to another etc.). With digital, it's a fairly linear scale up to being blown out, and once it hits that limit, it's gone. Film (I think) tended to have more of a curve and the tones would get compressed more as they reached the limits of the dynamic range. So I guess you could say there is a difference is the way film would 'blow out' vs digital....but I'm just about at my limit of knowledge on the subject...

 

[DiskoJoe]

The only real impact that the camera body can have on bokeh is that it's easier to create when the size of the film or sensor are larger. It's hard to create bokeh on small sensor cameras. It's pretty much pointless to try to create it with a tiny sensor cameras -- e.g. a lot of point & shoots can't do it at all.

Apart from that, bokeh is all based on attributes of the lens. The aperture diameter, the shape of the aperture blades (the roundness of the aperture opening), and the focal length of the lens. Large aperture long focal length lenses with a very round opening will create the best bokeh.

A 135mm f/2 lens can generate so much cream it'll give you diabetes.

Bokeh refers to quality and not the blur its self. Just saying.

 

[TCampbell]

The only real impact that the camera body can have on bokeh is that it's easier to create when the size of the film or sensor are larger. It's hard to create bokeh on small sensor cameras. It's pretty much pointless to try to create it with a tiny sensor cameras -- e.g. a lot of point & shoots can't do it at all.

Apart from that, bokeh is all based on attributes of the lens. The aperture diameter, the shape of the aperture blades (the roundness of the aperture opening), and the focal length of the lens. Large aperture long focal length lenses with a very round opening will create the best bokeh.

A 135mm f/2 lens can generate so much cream it'll give you diabetes.

Bokeh refers to quality and not the blur its self. Just saying.

I'm going to go against the grain here.

Bokeh has quality just like wine has quality. Not all of it is what you might consider "good" quality but that doesn't mean it's not wine -- even if it was cheap and you wake up with a miserable headache. There is such a thing as poor bokeh and good bokeh.

An out of focus image is just blurry. "Bokeh" occurs when you have an "in focus" subject which is offset by other areas of the image which are deliberately out of focus.

If those out-of-focus areas appear to be artistically blurred then it's good bokeh. But if you have the $99 "nifty fifty" lens with the 5 non-curved blades of pentagonal aperture which creates "nervous bokeh" then you still have "bokeh". It may be poor "nervous bokeh" we don't like, but that's a different issue. There's even artistic "designer" bokeh which isn't or creamy at all.

At it's core, your statement implies that bokeh can be "graded" and that it's desirable for the bokeh to be good. I absolutely agree with you -- just like wines are scored and some are better than others. Everyone should take away that it's not enough to create an out of focus area if it still looks bad. I'm just arguing against this (somewhat recent) recurring theme that I see popping up that you're not allowed to call it bokeh if it looks bad. Sure you can. It's just crappy bokeh and not the good stuff we crave.

Bokeh is not mysterious. Turns out we actually do understand the physics involved which will result in a pleasing effect vs. the the stuff that results in a lousy effect.

Bokeh is created by a more fundamental concept called the "circles of confusion". ...that every defocused point will blur in the shape of a "circle" OR more accurately, in the shape of the aperture through which the light was allowed to pass (and this has been understood for centuries... when it was noted that a solar eclipse through the trees resulting in a each spot of light on the ground having the shape of the partially eclipsed sun.) Irregular shapes create odd bokeh effects which don't necessarily look pleasing. Perfectly round "circles of confusion" tend to result in very smooth blur textures.

 

[Ysarex]

I noticed on some dig shots that the bokeh of flowers looked like color blobs. No details in them just a mass of color. I don't have any film shots to compare this to. But did film do better with certain bokeh compared to digital?

I believe your question has been answered above, but another factor to the issue may be how different mediums record color. Digital cameras (and image processors) don't all render color exactly the same way and from film type to another, the difference could be huge.

So when you see a 'blob of color' rather than detail, it may be a DOF issue but it may also be that the specific color channel has been overexposed and blown out.

"Blown out" is a good word for it.

Here is another example of blown out color that I was talking about. See the yellow flowers up front.

http://bogsofohio.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/march-2012-094a.jpg

The other photo I saw had out of focus bokeh blown out the same way. It was a mass of red and no detail in the out of focus flower. Would film have blown out same way as digital?

Examine this photo below. Is this is an example of what you're talking about? If it is then the answer to your question is no -- film would not do this. Digital doesn't have to do this either. Based on your answer I'll explain.

Joe

 

[Ilovemycam]

No, not really

Maybe 1 or 2 white petals, bottom left show it.

 

[Ysarex]

No, not really

Maybe 1 or 2 white petals, bottom left show it.

OK, I thought maybe you were reacting to clipped color channels which shows in the rose.

Joe

 

[Solarflare]

Bokeh is a 100% property of the lens.

The sensor has no influence whatsoever on it, no matter if its chemical film or digital sensor.

One of the reasons why photographers care first about the light, then about the lens, and only then about the camera.