# Bokeh...is the look getting dated?



## pwp (May 29, 2012)

We have all spent the past few years kitting up with lenses that will deliver sharp images at wide apertures and with smooth appealing bokeh. Such lenses are high on the "must-have" list. It's a look that I personally like a lot, as do most of my clients.

Interestingly, I've been getting an increasing, though still very occasional request in a job brief for total depth of field in subjects that my instincts would have delivered the now more conventional "look" of shallow depth of field and smooth bokeh. There is an old saying that everything old will be new again. 

A brief, possibly flawed look through the photographic styles since WWII reveal a predominance of full depth of field wherever possible. Long lens work would be excluded here. I just wonder when the current desirable "look" will start to look tired and old fashioned. It will happen. It always does. Probably not anytime soon, but still it's worth staying skilled up in the art of making an image look good with a total depth of field. 

We may well start grinding away at Canon to deliver lenses that perform superbly ay f/22. As ISO performance improves, shooting at f/22 with a good fast shutter speed is becoming a practical reality. Though not always a great IQ reality. Strong sales of Canons new tilt/shift lenses may push this trend. 

As creatives, it's over to us to establish new looks, or at least to see the future coming and be ready for it rather than reacting once it's already run right over the top of us. 

Just my thought for the day...

PW


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2012)

*Re: Bokeh...is the look feeling dated?*



pwp said:


> Interestingly, I've been getting an increasing, though still very occasional request in a job brief for total depth of field...



Let us know when brides start requesting you to shoot with a Lytro plenoptic camera...


----------



## briansquibb (May 29, 2012)

*Re: Bokeh...is the look feeling dated?*

Interesting that recent cameras are getting defraction earlier than older models.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 30, 2012)

*Re: Bokeh...is the look feeling dated?*



briansquibb said:


> Interesting that recent cameras are getting defraction earlier than older models.


 
Diffraction is a lens property, and it is the same for a given lens, no matter what body you attach. 

A High MP body has better resolution and can see diffraction better, but it is not any more or less.


----------



## pwp (May 30, 2012)

*Re: Bokeh...is the look feeling dated?*



neuroanatomist said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, I've been getting an increasing, though still very occasional request in a job brief for total depth of field...
> ...



Hah! What a concept. I suppose someone on the planet has shot a Lytro wedding. But there are no brides on my client list...

PW


----------



## dr croubie (May 30, 2012)

How much DOF do you want?
50mm f/177 gives hyperfocal at 74cm, that's everything sharp from 37cm to infinity...
('sharp' being a relative term, of course)


----------



## wickidwombat (May 30, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> How much DOF do you want?
> 50mm f/177 gives hyperfocal at 74cm, that's everything sharp from 37cm to infinity...
> ('sharp' being a relative term, of course)



sharp as a bowling ball!


----------



## EOBeav (May 30, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> How much DOF do you want?
> 50mm f/177 gives hyperfocal at 74cm, that's everything sharp from 37cm to infinity...
> ('sharp' being a relative term, of course)



No. An aperture that size will not be sharp. Everything will have the same focus, maybe, but it will not be sharp.


----------



## NWPhil (May 30, 2012)

*Re: Bokeh...is the look feeling dated?*



neuroanatomist said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, I've been getting an increasing, though still very occasional request in a job brief for total depth of field...
> ...



had to look at that on the web - pretty cool concept.

I envision that one day, the digital cameras will take pictures in some sort of 3D vectorizing plane, allowing to choose the DOF in PP, just like it's possible to do with exposure, adjusting it thru lighting and curves parameters


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (May 30, 2012)

Cool thought... It is important as photographers to stay ahead of the game... but his point is valad... how many people use iphone cameras with the vintage camera aps. the filters that are added to these "photos" (snapshots) are just "problems" with vintage film. and what they looked like as the film/prints would age. 

I dont know that I'd expect deep DOF to be what will be desired in the future but the thought of creating an image that looks great at deep DOF could be a practice that could improve your photography and earn you clients.

This is a place that I am at in my photography. I am not used to WA lenses and have recently challenged myself to start shooting on my 16-35 (crop body). I feel "limited" by this lens but it is making me think more about every photo rather than snaping of a bunch of shots and hoping for the best...

Does anyone else have any "practices" they do to keep themselves on their toes?


----------



## Random Orbits (May 30, 2012)

*Re: Bokeh...is the look feeling dated?*



NWPhil said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > pwp said:
> ...



It'd be nice if they could get it to work well at fast shutter speeds. Want an HDR? Just process 1 shot and let the software deal with the math from near to far.


----------



## NWPhil (May 30, 2012)

KreutzerPhotography said:


> Cool thought... It is important as photographers to stay ahead of the game... but his point is valad... how many people use iphone cameras with the vintage camera aps. the filters that are added to these "photos" (snapshots) are just "problems" with vintage film. and what they looked like as the film/prints would age.
> 
> I dont know that I'd expect deep DOF to be what will be desired in the future but the thought of creating an image that looks great at deep DOF could be a practice that could improve your photography and earn you clients.
> 
> ...



- using a manual focus lens - not just switching off the AF button
- leaving the zoom lenses at home
- taking "only" two lenses while out-and-about


----------



## briansquibb (May 30, 2012)

NWPhil said:


> KreutzerPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Cool thought... It is important as photographers to stay ahead of the game... but his point is valad... how many people use iphone cameras with the vintage camera aps. the filters that are added to these "photos" (snapshots) are just "problems" with vintage film. and what they looked like as the film/prints would age.
> ...



+1 Manual focus - tse-24, my was of choice
+1 Sometimes
+1 usually 3


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 31, 2012)

Many or even most people have a point and shoot camera with a small sensor, and a huge depth of field. I've bought little used DSLR's from many who just felt that it was out of focus due to the shallow depth of field, they preferred the everything in focus look.

So, I think you might be right, the average casual point and shoot person has been trained to expect everything to be in focus, and they are uncomfortable to the point of thinking something is defective with a shallow depth of field.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 31, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Many or even most people have a point and shoot camera with a small sensor, and a huge depth of field. I've bought little used DSLR's from many who just felt that it was out of focus due to the shallow depth of field, they preferred the everything in focus look.
> 
> So, I think you might be right, the average casual point and shoot person has been trained to expect everything to be in focus, and they are uncomfortable to the point of thinking something is defective with a shallow depth of field.



of couse they will also be used to it all being soft, lacking contrast with piles of CA and noise too


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> So, I think you might be right, the average casual point and shoot person has been trained to expect everything to be in focus, and they are uncomfortable to the point of thinking something is defective with a shallow depth of field.



On the flipside of that, that's why many people used to the deep DoF of a P&S think shots from a dSLR and a wide aperture lens are 'professional'.


----------



## EvilTed (May 31, 2012)

and even more shocked when they discover good old vinyl sounds better than anything 

I've been playing with a Fuji X-Pro 1 a lot over the past couple of weeks and while I don't think it can match the MK3 + 50mm F/1.2, it does have a distinct "look" that feels from another time in certain shots.

Maybe we are going to see more high quality Instagram type processing in-camera in the near future?

ET


----------



## EOBeav (May 31, 2012)

Good points, these last few comments. For me, I knew I was ready to move up from a p/s to a dslr when I realized I couldn't control aperture the way I wanted to.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 31, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> and even more shocked when they discover good old vinyl sounds better than anything


I think it's best to keep that can of worms closed. 



> Maybe we are going to see more high quality Instagram type processing in-camera in the near future?



I hope not. Instagram, as a collective is the biggest pile of visual crap that has seen the light of day since myspace. While there are many talented individuals who know how utilize it for gorgeous results, 99.9% is pure garbage and we really do not need anymore of it.


----------



## dafrank (May 31, 2012)

Yes, everything old _does_ become new again, if you hang out long enough. I have already. For instance, I was around at the end of the older era when cars were being shot with tungsten bounce light off giant studio canvas "tabs" or "bounce flats" and coved stage walls. Then, briefly, the _in thing_ for a few years was to replace the tungsten light with that of multiple very powerful studio strobe power supplies, employing many flash heads. Then, the next trend was to shoot them with giant soft boxes in which were placed those same multiple flash heads. Then, the next one was to replace the flash heads inside the boxes with tungsten light fixtures. And finally, the best solution was thought to be to once again to shoot them with tungsten bounce light off giant studio canvas "tabs" or "bounce flats" and coved stage walls. There always have been alternate techniques (as are being employed right now) used at any given time which are different from the general trends described above, but that is a pretty good summary outline of studio car lighting technique, circa 1962 to 2012.

One contrary fact, as for bokeh, taken here as to be shorthand for actually the very narrow depth-of-field look afforded by lenses which are sharp at very large aperture settings (given the focal length and format size), shot at or near the maximum aperture, its use is far from universal; it's mostly employed for things like portraits, weddings, lifestyle, some food shooting and moody environmental images. Even conceding the "bokeh" trend, you might want to keep in mind that in 90% of all hardcore photography of manufactured products, maximum depth of field never went away and is still the presumed method of operation. Again, exceptions abound, but I'm referring to the rule, not the exception. I, myself love to introduce the narrow DOF look in some feature shots, and they're usually well received in those instances, but, as for the "hero" shots of these products, clients don't want to leave very much to the imagination of potential customers as to what their industrial designers have labored over for so long.

So to summarize about the narrow DOF look, yes, this too will come to pass. It's just a matter of time.


----------



## bp (May 31, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > So, I think you might be right, the average casual point and shoot person has been trained to expect everything to be in focus, and they are uncomfortable to the point of thinking something is defective with a shallow depth of field.
> ...



^this. Looking back at the history of photos since WWII, yes - you see a LOT of huge DOF photography. But those were also times where everyone on the planet didn't have a P-n-S camera in their pocket. People hire a photographer to capture an image in a way that they can't. (with the exception being photojournalism, where the qualities of a picture are less important than the content) These days, almost anyone can capture a shot with huge DOF. And until they figure out a way to get an f/1.4 lens with amazing IQ on an iPhone, I think that shallow DOF, buttery bokeh look is going to be what continues to give our services a perceived sense of value.


----------



## dryanparker (May 31, 2012)

At least for me, when I'm having a face-to-face conversation with someone, their ears don't fall out of focus. In that sense, the f/1.2 look isn't a naturally-occurring phenomenon. However, it leads to a flattering effect of defining or accentuating the subject of an image — probably because it's not something we can see with our eyes, but rather something the photographer uses to tune our view of the image.

So, it's a creative endeavor. Whether it lasts remains to be seen, but I think the shallow DOF look has as much place in photography as images with great DOF.


----------



## Rocky (May 31, 2012)

"Bokeh" actually means the "smoothness" of the out of focus area. It does not mean a partially sharp picture. Nowadays, in odrer to trim the manufacturing cost, some lenses comes with only 5 aperture blades. The out of focus area will look "rough" and the round bright spot will become a 5 point star. That is bad "Bokeh". A lot of old lenses and some newer expensive lenses uses 12 aperture blades (some of the even using curved blades) to get a round aperture even it is stopped down. These lenses will give a very " smooth" out of focus area and a round bright spot will just have a fuzzy edge. The shape is still round. That is good Bokeh. Good "Bokeh" has been around since the dawn of photography. That is why almost all the old lens are of round aperture, even they are stopped down. "Bokeh" is a Japanese word.


----------



## dafrank (May 31, 2012)

You are correct about the actual meaning of the word, from its Japanese origins, and what affects it. But, as I have indicated in my previous post, the word has come to represent the very narrow depth-of-field, large aperture shooting technique which is very popular these days. Unfortunately, you cannot stop the changing nature of word meaning in the English language, in which definition is eventually based on common usage.


----------



## Mike Ca (May 31, 2012)

bp said:


> Looking back at the history of photos since WWII, yes - you see a LOT of huge DOF photography. But those were also times where everyone on the planet didn't have a P-n-S camera in their pocket. People hire a photographer to capture an image in a way that they can't. (with the exception being photojournalism, where the qualities of a picture are less important than the content) These days, almost anyone can capture a shot with huge DOF. And until they figure out a way to get an f/1.4 lens with amazing IQ on an iPhone, I think that shallow DOF, buttery bokeh look is going to be what continues to give our services a perceived sense of value.



Shallow DOF with nice bokeh is one thing a professional photographer can do that you cannot do with an iPhone or a P&S, but if you are in the business of sell portraits posing and lighting are also big factors.

I started out doing a lot of shallow DOF environmental portraits with natural light. Now I learned how to use lighting equipment outdoors, and I do some environmental portraits with greater DOF. The shallow DOF portrait draws the viewers eyes to the subject, because the background is out of focus. If you have a beautiful background that is in focus, the viewers eyes can get drawn to the background. You need to light the subject (over power the sun) and slightly underexpose the background to draw the viewer's eyes to the subject. 

If the background is busy or not attractive, go for shallow DOF. If the background is attractive, simple and elegant looking, slightly underexposing the background can be a better technique.


----------



## Arkarch (May 31, 2012)

bp said:


> ^this. Looking back at the history of photos since WWII, yes - you see a LOT of huge DOF photography. But those were also times where everyone on the planet didn't have a P-n-S camera in their pocket. People hire a photographer to capture an image in a way that they can't. (with the exception being photojournalism, where the qualities of a picture are less important than the content) These days, almost anyone can capture a shot with huge DOF. And until they figure out a way to get an f/1.4 lens with amazing IQ on an iPhone, I think that shallow DOF, buttery bokeh look is going to be what continues to give our services a perceived sense of value.



I and I know a many others are playing with focus-stacking. Used effectively, its another way to get those impossible to capture shots with a P&S or camera phone. And totally opposite of the dreamy bokehs. My other sinful obsession is edge-to-edge sharp wides.


----------



## thepancakeman (May 31, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Many or even most people have a point and shoot camera with a small sensor, and a huge depth of field. I've bought little used DSLR's from many who just felt that it was out of focus due to the shallow depth of field, they preferred the everything in focus look.
> ...



Don't you mean vinyl?


----------



## Rocky (May 31, 2012)

Vaccum Tube Amplifier vs Discret Transistor amplifier vs Ingrated Circuit Amplifier

Vinyl vs CD

Film camera vs digital camera

Leica vs Ziess

Canon vs Nikon

Cone speakers vs electrostatic speakers vs Magnap[lane speakers

etc.

These are endless agruement for the last half century, or even longer


----------



## Razor2012 (May 31, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



When CD's first came out I thought they sounded like tin cans, no bottom end. To this day my favourites are the SACD's, to me they sound closest to vinyl.


----------



## briansquibb (May 31, 2012)

Arkarch said:


> bp said:
> 
> 
> > ^this. Looking back at the history of photos since WWII, yes - you see a LOT of huge DOF photography. But those were also times where everyone on the planet didn't have a P-n-S camera in their pocket. People hire a photographer to capture an image in a way that they can't. (with the exception being photojournalism, where the qualities of a picture are less important than the content) These days, almost anyone can capture a shot with huge DOF. And until they figure out a way to get an f/1.4 lens with amazing IQ on an iPhone, I think that shallow DOF, buttery bokeh look is going to be what continues to give our services a perceived sense of value.
> ...



Focus stack when wide open means that you get the creamy bg blur with only the subject focal plane in focus


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> Don't you mean vinyl?



Vinyl? I thought that's what they use to make cheap car seats. What am I missing?


----------



## Arkarch (Jun 1, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Arkarch said:
> 
> 
> > bp said:
> ...



You can do it that way if you choose not to provide a background shot in-focus.

I mean numerous shots at different focus planes assembled together with software so that you are sharp near field to far.


----------



## EvilTed (Jun 1, 2012)

"Vinyl? I thought that's what they use to make cheap car seats. What am I missing? "

Cash?

If you were serious about it like I am, it makes photographic gear seem cheap 
My cartridge retails for $4500 and the top end models are $15K

http://www.needledoctor.com/Welcome?search=koetsu

ET


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 1, 2012)

Rocky said:


> Vaccum Tube Amplifier vs Discret Transistor amplifier vs Ingrated Circuit Amplifier


*Tube*



Rocky said:


> Vinyl vs CD


*Vinyl*



Rocky said:


> Film camera vs digital camera


*Digital*



Rocky said:


> Leica vs Ziess


*Leica*



Rocky said:


> Canon vs Nikon


*Duh.*



Rocky said:


> Cone speakers vs electrostatic speakers vs Magnap[lane speakers


*Cones*



Rocky said:


> These are endless agruement for the last half century, or even longer


See, that was easy!


----------



## Wild (Jun 1, 2012)

*Re: Bokeh...is the look feeling dated?*



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting that recent cameras are getting defraction earlier than older models.
> ...



Actually diffraction has a lot to do with the body (copied and pasted from the-digital-picture.com):

* DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) is the result of a mathematical formula that approximates the aperture where diffraction begins to visibly affect image sharpness at the pixel level. Diffraction at the DLA is only barely visible when viewed at full-size (100%, 1 pixel = 1 pixel) on a display or output to a very large print. *As sensor pixel density increases, the narrowest aperture we can use to get perfectly pixel sharp images gets wider*. 

DLA does not mean that narrower apertures should not be used - it is simply the point where image sharpness begins to be compromised for increased DOF and longer exposures. And, higher resolution sensors generally continue to deliver more detail well beyond the DLA than lower resolution sensors - until the "Diffraction Cutoff Frequency" is reached (a much narrower aperture). The progression from sharp the soft is not an abrupt one - and the change from immediately prior models to new models is usually not dramatic. 


He lists the DLAs of many Canon DSLRs in each of his reviews for comparisons.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 1, 2012)

It's amusing how photography, although it can be considered as the evolution of painting, actually lags behind it a lot in term of artistic development. All of these issues were already handled in a couple of thousands years of painting history. It looks a lot like when Realism took over Romanticism.

In the end, I guess, it depends a lot on whether your picture are meant to be descriptive, suggestive or celebrative. When it comes to me, I do not particularly like to cast a huge reflector on every imperfection of my and other people's skin.

I agree though that nowadays many people love to shoot over-sharp portraits, as they are more dramatic than the usual shallow-DoF flattering ones. However, sometimes I also suspect that drama is a sort of alibi to mask the lack of appropriate gear and competence to work with thin DoF. 



Wild said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



I guess you misunderstood a bit. 
It says that the higher the pixel density, the sooner you reach the point in which diffraction takes its toll. It's the same as when a not-so-sharp lens looks acceptable on a 10MP camera, awful on a 18MP one.
This doesn't make diffraction a body property as much as it doesn't make it sharpness.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Wild said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Potayto-potaahto. Yes, technically, diffraction is a lens property. But...it's awfully hard to use a lens for taking pictures all by itself, without a camera attached. So, like sharpness, diffraction is effectively a property of an _imaging system_ - lens plus camera.


----------



## EvilTed (Jun 3, 2012)

Dirtcastle,

Cones vs. Electrostatics? - really?

Vinyl on good electrostatics will floor you 

ET


----------



## bycostello (Jun 3, 2012)

no, never will


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 3, 2012)

dafrank said:


> You are correct about the actual meaning of the word, from its Japanese origins, and what affects it. But, as I have indicated in my previous post, the word has come to represent the very narrow depth-of-field, large aperture shooting technique which is very popular these days. Unfortunately, you cannot stop the changing nature of word meaning in the English language, in which definition is eventually based on common usage.


 
Only for a few, most photographers know what bokeh means, and a few spread the wrong meaning to those who are newbies.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Jun 3, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> and even more shocked when they discover good old vinyl sounds better than anything



Only if you can afford decent equipment, and climate controlled storage for your collection. The nice thing about CD players (was) that a cheap one, purchased at your local superstore, would still sound better than any Record Player you were likely to find at those same stores... and CDs don't tend to warp when your house hit's 105(f) for a week while you're out of town. The current crop of CD players may not sound as nice as today's top of the line turn tables, but...

Back in the late 80's I had a Pioneer Elite PD-91 Reference CD player, I believe it had dual 24bit Burr Brown DACs that, to this day, sounded better than any other piece of audio (delivery) equipment I've ever heard, including the best high end turntables. The sound was so warm and smooth it was incredible to listen to. I had that player over 15 years, I miss it's sound, but not the swapping of CDs. I have currently ripped my entire CD collection at the highest rates possible, and feed it into my Pioneer Elite SC-27, with Wolfson 192kHz/24-bit DACs, which I would describe as clear and smooth, but not as warm as my PD-91. The PD-91 made every receiver I ever hooked it up to sound like a high dollar tube amp. I was under the impression my SC-27 had Burr Brown DACs when I purchased it, it does... but only for analog to digital. The Wolfson's are excellent, but the Burr Brown DACs in the PD-91 were better still.

Unfortunately a lot of CD's, from the mid 90's on, were mastered using dynamic range compression to make them "louder" , but vinyl wasn't immune either.

Hopefully, now that CD's are dying, downloadable music will start to be delivered, and widely supported, in High Definition... without the dynamic range compression that's been distorting music for decades. I can't wait until 192-kHz/32-bit mastering is standard, and lossless encoding is the norm... Put that through some quality DACs, or a tube amp, and it will sound better than any turntable available at any price.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

tl;dr - A properly mastered CD played on a Pioneer Elite PD-91 will sound better than the same album on vinyl... no matter which turntable you own... all other equipment being equal.


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 3, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> Dirtcastle,
> 
> Cones vs. Electrostatics? - really?
> 
> ...



No doubt... electrostatic is amazing. I can't deny that. 

For super clean theatrical/classical/movie stuff, I would give the nod to electrostatic for accuracy and low noise/distortion. Most of the music I listen to is extremely bass-heavy, hip hop, funk, reggae, dubstep, etc. Cones are still the standard for bass music, if I'm not mistaken. Plus, the recordings don't necessarily "sound" better on super high end speakers. A lot of the music I listen to has been intentionally degraded and/or is expected to be played on systems that will distort the music and sacrifice large swaths of the sound spectrum. Lots of bass music sounds different at different volumes, because of the distortions. And that's not always a bad thing.

Ideally, I would go with a "mixed" setup... both electro and cone (and maybe even a true mix of cone subwoofer with electrostatic satellites). But I'm pretty easy to please, actually. I've got 20 year old cones that do me just fine. 8)


----------



## KeithR (Jun 3, 2012)

dafrank said:


> You are correct about the actual meaning of the word


No, he's not.

Bokeh is the _quality_ of the OOF area. Whether the OOF area is smooth, or harsh, or somewhere in between, it's all bokeh - good bokeh, poor bokeh, or so-so bokeh.


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 4, 2012)

*No and in a word…...*

Lensbaby


----------



## keithfullermusic (Jun 4, 2012)

I don't think you can judge where photography is going by the views of people hiring you to photograph their wedding. When people want pictures of events they often times don't want artsy photos. They simply want you to take "nice" aka boring pictures of the event. 

The last few weddings I went to, people were commenting afterwards about how the pictures werent good (I wasn't the photographer). To me, they looked great. I started to realize that many people just want pictures of people, and when there is a bokeh, people are like "that's too artsy, I only like the pictures of the people."

My point being is that no, I don't think the bokeh look is becoming dated. There are just people who never wanted it and never will.


----------



## EvilTed (Jun 4, 2012)

Dirtcastle,

Me too and a lot of early Rocksteady and Reggae from Jamaica.

Speaking of a hybrid approach, that's exactly what I have 

Sanders 10-C hybrid electrostatic with transmission line bass and digital crossover, ESL amp for the panels and Magtech for the woofers.
Full range 20Hz-20KHz. 
There's not may speakers made with that low end.

http://www.sanderssoundsystems.com/

ET


----------



## K-amps (Jun 4, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> Dirtcastle,
> 
> Cones vs. Electrostatics? - really?
> 
> ...



On mids yes, on highs it's a toss, but on the lower frqs, cones walk over all types.... thats why I have a custom hybrid system.


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 4, 2012)

ET: Woah... incredible setup! I definitely lost my 20KHz hearing a long time ago. But I can still feel a 20Hz bass when it's cranked up. 

I also dig all of that late 60s/70s JA stuff. If you're ever looking for mixes (mostly mp3s, alas), check out my @ericjnord Twitta acct. I post lots of mixes in all sorts of genres. I'm what's known as a person with a music problem. ;-)

I feel lucky that my obsession with photo quality hasn't infected my audio needs: I still have the same Adcom/Paradigm setup I bought as a kid back in the 80s.

K-amps: Ah, didn't know about the highs. Sounds like a cool setup.


----------



## Wild (Jun 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Wild said:
> ...



I stand corrected. ;D I guess I did misinterpret that a bit, however I think Neuro summed it up perfectly.


----------



## K-amps (Jun 4, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> ET: Woah... incredible setup! I definitely lost my 20KHz hearing a long time ago. But I can still feel a 20Hz bass when it's cranked up.
> 
> I also dig all of that late 60s/70s JA stuff. If you're ever looking for mixes (mostly mp3s, alas), check out my @ericjnord Twitta acct. I post lots of mixes in all sorts of genres. I'm what's known as a person with a music problem. ;-)
> 
> ...



Good to meet someone with the same obsessions 

I had to sell my ESL hybrid set-up to fund some of my lense obsessions , right now It's an all cone set-up on mains; but Modular, since I can only afford a HT set-up, so the dedicated Music set-up had to go. I design my own speakers/ enclosures and tweak my power amps. I have 4 modded Luxman M-117's bridged to power 4 15" subs. 2 are TC subs (16Hz to 50Hz) and 2 are jbl Cinema woofs (50Hz to 250Hz) . The mids are B&C 6md38's (250Hz to 3kHz) and the tweets are Vifa XT-25's 3 per channel. The Center channel are Martin Logans (for vocals) and the surrounds are Bose 901's. A Krell KAV-250a powers the mids/ highs and an Adcom 545ii powers the centers. I used to upgrade and sell Adcome 555's a few years back when I had time. Brings back memories... :


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 4, 2012)

K-amps said:


> I had to sell my ESL hybrid set-up to fund some of my lense obsessions , right now It's an all cone set-up on mains; but Modular, since I can only afford a HT set-up, so the dedicated Music set-up had to go. I design my own speakers/ enclosures and tweak my power amps. I have 4 modded Luxman M-117's bridged to power 4 15" subs. 2 are TC subs (16Hz to 50Hz) and 2 are jbl Cinema woofs (50Hz to 250Hz) . The mids are B&C 6md38's (250Hz to 3kHz) and the tweets are Vifa XT-25's 3 per channel. The Center channel are Martin Logans (for vocals) and the surrounds are Bose 901's. A Krell KAV-250a powers the mids/ highs and an Adcom 545ii powers the centers. I used to upgrade and sell Adcome 555's a few years back when I had time. Brings back memories... :



Wow. That's inspiring.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 4, 2012)

Never! as its a fundamental aspect of photography. THE MIGHTY POWER OF BRUTE FORCE APERTURE!


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jun 5, 2012)

It may have already been said here (I didn't read every response), but it is the photographers choice to represent the captured image as they choose. Whether the subject is completely isolated from it's environment or a small detail of it, the "look" of the Bokeh, in all it's varying forms, is just one aspect of how each photograph is individually created.


----------

