Best case: subject is close to the camera, with a distant background long real focal length and fast aperture. This scenario is precisely why compact cameras are incapable of delivering any noticeable blur under most conditions.ī. What will happen? Everything will be in focus. ![]() ![]() Worst case: subject is far away from the camera and close to the background very short real focal length and moderate aperture. Distance between subject and background (the further away your background from your subject, the more the blur).Ī. Distance between camera and subject (shorter subject distance means shallower depth of field – remember the percentage explained above).Ĥ. ![]() Aperture (wider apertures have shallower depths of field and thus more pronounced blur)ģ. Real focal length (not effective 35mm focal length longer focal lengths have shallower depths of field and thus more pronounced blur)Ģ. The rules of optics also play a big part. This percentage doesn’t change with the focus distance the difference is the longer the focus distance, the wider the actual, physical range that comes into focus. For a given aperture and focal length, a certain percentage of the focus distance will be in acceptable focus. One important concept to explain up front is depth of field. It’s also why most of the new Nikon f1.4 lens designs have beautiful, non-offensive, smooth bokeh they’re all telecentric designs and optimized for digital sensors. Telecentric lens designs generally have better bokeh than conventional spherical designs this is because you’re less likely to get crossing of rays after and before the nodal point within the lens, causing double images and the like. In general, round diaphragms produce the best bokeh though having said that, the Leica 50/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH has some of the nicest bokeh around, but that has a strange multi-pointed star-shaped diaphragm. The nature of the optical formula and placement and design of the diaphragm, specifically. What factors affect bokeh? Mechanically, the lens design plays a big part. Yet others prefer a uniform wall of gaussian blur foreground-background. There are some who like ‘busy’ bokeh where out of focus areas take on double images, swirls or other patterns some like the pentagons and other shapes on highlights. It’s certainly not quantitative in any way – what constitutes good bokeh and what is bad or ugly bokeh is very much up to the viewer. The closest we can get is ‘the nature/ character of blur’. The term is a derivative of the Japanese word boke, which doesn’t really have a good translation into English. ![]() I believe Mike Johnston was the one who coined/ Anglicised it, though there may be earlier derivations. Possibly one of the most misunderstood, yet most bandied-about terms in the world of photography today – right up there with dynamic range, resolution, A-is-noisier-than-B and other such myths. Plus, things tend to get buried in the depths of time and forgotten…īokeh. This article is one of my first from the archives, brought up, dusted off and refreshed with new images in preparation for the next mini-series on cinematic photography: let’s just say that bokeh matters, and having a little pre-prep can’t hurt. For that matter, few outside cinematography actively seek to use out of focus foregrounds as part of the underlying structure of their compositions. However, few outside cinematographic circles talks much about the way the foregrounds render. too much bokeh might be pretty but completely negates any sort of context other than what mood can be inferred by the feel of the light and some bokeh is always preferable to none because it helps with subject isolation. I think we can generally agree on a few things – ‘good’ bokeh doesn’t distract from the subject with uneven or sharp luminance transitions, double images, harsh rendering, rings or irregular textures in the ‘highlight balls’, patterns, bright edges, coloured fringing etc. Whilst much emphasis is placed on the way a lens renders out of focus areas – the oft-overused ‘ bokeh‘ – it’s almost always used to describe the areas that fall behind the focal plane.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |