# Bokeh confusion.



## sanj (Dec 27, 2012)

Hello learned friends.
I recently did a job for a client who wanted me to take pictures to sell land/second homes in his farmland. 
I am attaching two photos: Bath Tub and Glasses.
I like the bokah on the shot with the glasses but somehow do not like the way the sand is going out of focus in the bath tub shot. 
Is it me of does anyone else also find it unpleasant? 
Tech info (same for both shots!) 70-200 II f2.8 @200mm.
Thx,
Sanjay


----------



## RobT (Dec 27, 2012)

The first shot looks messy in terms of bokeh since all the OOF areas land on the ground, and it doesn't provide a lot of depth between the subject and background.

Bokeh has that magic look when a lot of highlights and depth is involved, like your second shot, where the background is very far away from the wine glasses and contains highlights and light diffraction from trees, etc.

As a general rule of thumb for photography, don't forget to look at your subject from a lower perspective. If you had shot the tub from ground level, it would contain roughly the same bokeh effect that you see with the wine glasses.


----------



## sanj (Dec 27, 2012)

Thx Rob for the suggestions. I agree.
However I could not go low on the bath tub shot as there were unwanted elements coming into the frame at top....


----------



## infared (Dec 27, 2012)

My two cents:
I LOVE my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. ...It has incredible sharpness for a Zoom Lens. Incredible. That being said...the trade-off is that the bokeh is less than creamy smooth. (alas...photography is a world of compromises). The bokeh with any lens will ALWAYS look better when you are up close, with much lower DOF that allows the background go much more out of focus because it is way out of your in-focus DOF area. Your shot of the glasses shows this.
The things that effect DOF are f/stop, focal length and closeness to the subject. You want the background as far out of your relative focusing DOF as possible.
The bathtub image is shot from a greater distance at the same focal length as the shot of the glasses..but the background is "relatively" much closer to your in-focus DOF for the image. This particular lens is not that kind with the bokeh in these situations...but damn is it sharp. 
I think you could try a 1.4xIII and keep the framing the same it might help somewhat to separate the background out and make it smear more although your effective focal length is then 280mm and you have to move back to get the more compression that is attained with that setup......or go to another lens which is known for its bokeh, like the 85mmL or 135L with a converter or a 200mm f/2L etc to get the image more bokehlicious. (Don't know how the zoom would compare to the 200mm f/2.8L...be interesting to see tho, perhaps someone with more experience can enlighten us here!).
Hope that helped a little.


----------



## PackLight (Dec 27, 2012)

Sanj, I agree with RobT and lower would have been better.

Since that wasn't an option;

It looks like a good job for a wide angle, up close and you could have gotten lower. It would have taken out the impact of the gradual fall away background. Compression of a long lens is not your friend in this picture.

I am not sure you were looking for other answers, but the two examples are not all that comparable. The glasses are shot close with separation from the background. The background didn't need to be as far away to have a very nice blur. The other shot is farther away, the DOF is no doubt deeper and the way the background is presented it falls away gradually. Of course you would have need a larger distance from the subject in this picture to get the same background blur.


----------



## Studio1930 (Dec 27, 2012)

Use a tilt shift lens or an easier way would be to use the Brenizer method. I do this with my 85L. Google it.

http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/category/brenizer-method/


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 27, 2012)

The bath tub shot presents a number of interesting problems to solve. 

Some have been already suggested. I also see top corner distortion which adds to the bokeh issue. The field or farm which you want to highlight itself is not a uniform lawn of green or brown...rather it is mottled brown and green and busy...a tough subject in its own right. 

If you we're reshooting (thought experiment here) then a wide angle shot that is lower to the ground closer to the girl can be considered to emphasize the vastness of the farm. DOF would cover a wider range with a wide angle and fall off would be gradual. 

But what can be done with the shot you already have... The girl in the bathtub is now centered... Crop the last fifth of the empty field to the right ...so she falls in the third herself...will fulfill the thirds rule and be more edgy.

Alternatively, you can crop long horizontally in a banner style ... Removing the top DOF fall off region... This will emphasize the land stretching on either side and remove the bokeh "confusion" in the background you refer to. I am sure there are a lot of other creative ways of getting the shot to work the way it is shot. Cheers.


----------



## rj79in (Dec 27, 2012)

Packlight is right ... the shots are not comparable and unlikely to have the same bokeh quality given the compression of the frame. 

BTW, I feel something odd about the first shot. The mid-right of the frame is surprisingly in sharp focus whereas the mid-center of the frame, which is on the same plane, is OOF!


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 27, 2012)

I'm just an amateur, but I'll throw in a few thoughts/ideas regarding the bathtub shot. First, there's a right-left imbalance on the OOF areas. That distracts my eye from the subject. Second, clods of dirt don't make good bokeh; it might have worked better when the field was sprouts 6-12 inches high. Third, this might be a job that needs maximum DOF on capture, then add blur in PS afterwards. Fourth, maybe not use blur at all, but capture at full DOF and slightly desaturate the dirt. 

You might be able to rescue the shot by adding blur to the dirt in post, but balance it left-right. Again, I'm an amateur, so take this FWIW.

One more thing: it's a really interesting concept -- if you can make the execution work it could be a very compelling image.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 27, 2012)

THAT'S IT! WE'RE MOVING TO DEL _BOKEH_ VISTA, LOCK, STOCK, AND BARREL!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 27, 2012)

Studio1930 said:


> Use a tilt shift lens or an easier way would be to use the Brenizer method. I do this with my 85L. Google it.
> 
> http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/category/brenizer-method/



That sounds really interesting. Maybe I should try this out with my 135L, or if I get a full Macro rig with my macro lens. Talk about getting some fine detail!


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 27, 2012)

Leaving aside other aspects of the bath tub shot, regarding composition, subject etc, I think the problem is the DoF is too great, leaving the ground just behind the screen very sharp. There is then an abrupt fall off in focus. For this type of shot to work the screen would have had to have been on the absolute limit of far focus, which takes a little trial and error, difficult to judge it on camera. 

Moving closer with a shorter focal length would alter perspective and make this easier to achieve.


----------



## kubelik (Dec 27, 2012)

bokeh isn't just about focal length and aperture, it's about the relationship between the distance from backdrop to camera and subject to camera.

in the first image, the backdrop is very far away, but so is the subject. thus the backdrop->camera vs subject-> camera ratio is very small.

in the second image, the backdrop is probably moderately to very far away, but the subject is very close to the camera. the backdrop->camera vs subject->camera ratio is very large, giving big, soft blur.

when you're trying to hit a certain amount of separation, always think in terms of how far your background is versus how far your subject is. it's equally as important as what the absolute focal length of the lens is.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 27, 2012)

kubelik said:


> bokeh isn't just about focal length and aperture, it's about the relationship between the distance from backdrop to camera and subject to camera.
> 
> in the first image, the backdrop is very far away, but so is the subject. thus the backdrop->camera vs subject-> camera ratio is very small.
> 
> ...



I agree with this. This happens all the time in sports. If I am very far away from a player, and the player is close to the fans in the stands, I cannot blur the fans in the background and therefore it becomes confusing when you look at the shot.


----------



## kubelik (Dec 27, 2012)

Studio1930 said:


> Use a tilt shift lens or an easier way would be to use the Brenizer method. I do this with my 85L. Google it.
> 
> http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/category/brenizer-method/



btw, studio1930, thanks for sharing that link! I've considered doing something similar in the past without being able to determine why it made sense, but now it's super obvious. I do think that the OP's shot is a perfect opportunity for using the Brenizer method since it's mostly a still-life where the model only takes up a small portion of the overall image and is holding a pose than can easily be held still for a half a dozen frames or so.


----------



## Studio1930 (Dec 27, 2012)

kubelik said:


> Studio1930 said:
> 
> 
> > Use a tilt shift lens or an easier way would be to use the Brenizer method. I do this with my 85L. Google it.
> ...



No problem. I also agree that the Brenizer method is perfect for the OP. I love the way it simulates what medium format can often do. I actually have a project coming up that will use this method. 

Happy stitching.


----------



## sdsr (Dec 27, 2012)

kubelik said:


> bokeh isn't just about focal length and aperture, it's about the relationship between the distance from backdrop to camera and subject to camera.
> 
> in the first image, the backdrop is very far away, but so is the subject. thus the backdrop->camera vs subject-> camera ratio is very small.
> 
> ...



That all sounds about right, but even then different lenses respond, well, differently, and it matters what the background is. I've noticed that if leaves/branches/twigs are in the background at a certain distance in relation to the subject and the camera (I've not tried measuring it), some lenses emphasize the lines and angles. It was true of a Pentax 55-300 I used to own and is true of the 100-400L and 70-200 2.8 II I fairly recently rented, especially the former which, in almost every photo I took one afternoon, created extremely busy backgrounds that I disliked quite a bit; it's perhaps the main reason why I bought a Sigma 50-500 OS instead - it's much smoother. Nor have I noticed busy bokeh from my 70-200 f/4 IS, even if it doesn't throw backgrounds out of focus to quite the same extent as the 70-200 2.8 II at 2.8. And I was very pleased (and somewhat surprised) by the blur that my 24-105L created at 105mm in some silly photos I took while wandering around a kitchen supply store the other day; objects merely a few inches away from the subject (pepper mills, in one case) blurred away very nicely. It's no surprise that I've never seen busy bokeh from my 135L....


----------



## sanj (Dec 28, 2012)

Infared: Yes it helped, thx! I will watch out for more bokeh issues with the 70-200 your point in mind that this lens does not have a 'creamy smooth' bokeh. 

Packlight: Thank you.

Studio 1930: I will find time to go through the link asap. Thank you for it, am looking forward to discovering something new..


----------



## sanj (Dec 28, 2012)

Ray2021: Yeah I agree about the top corner distortion. I do not like it at all.. I will experiment with your suggestions. Thx..

Rj79in: Thx for commenting and I believe that you find confusing OOF areas as the shot is taken from an angle. Perhaps..

Orangutan: Yeah, the dirt does not make good bokeh. Perhaps that is the main problem. Agree about the blue idea, it occurred to me too. 

Scrappydog: Thanks for introducing me to term 'radical bokeh'. Going by the bathtub shot, 70-200 seems to suffer from it. Or is that a radical statement?


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 28, 2012)

I think he meant "radial" but your version works too


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 28, 2012)

I like radial/swirly crazy bokeh, as long as it's smooth enough, and as the above shot isn't bad at all.
While if anything, the overexposed table top on the second shot is rather unpleasant IMO


----------



## Aglet (Dec 28, 2012)

I find a practical solution is to NOT USE THAT LENS.
Choose something else when you know you'll have somewhat fine textures in the focus transition zone.

For all it's fabulous sharpness and great IS it has too much CA and horrid bokeh in such situations.
Have a look at a recent shot I put in the lens gallery as an example.

Since I got this lens last year I've been amazed at the sharpness and dismayed by the bokeh, often in the same shot.
I preferred my old, non-IS 70-200mm for better bokeh. Might still grab a used one for the purpose.

If time and planning was possible, I'd have shot that scene with a prime.


----------



## sanj (Dec 28, 2012)

Radial radial radial. Not radical radical radical..... Opps.


----------



## sanj (Dec 28, 2012)

Aglet: I would struggle if I did not use that lens... I find that it has a very useful focal length range..
But yeah the bokeh going by what we see here does seem weird. It is almost as if the camera was rotating on its axis as the shutter was pressed.


----------



## sanj (Dec 28, 2012)

Nishi: I will keep the burn out in mind when I post process. However at this point I kind of like it. 

Sdsr: Thx..

Sporgon: I see your point. 

And am relieved to realize that I was right in not liking the bokeh, it comes from one of Canon's landmark lens...


----------



## Aglet (Dec 28, 2012)

sanj said:


> Aglet: I would struggle if I did not use that lens... I find that it has a very useful focal length range..
> But yeah the bokeh going by what we see here does seem weird. It is almost as if the camera was rotating on its axis as the shutter was pressed.



I hear ya. I'd love it if I could just use this lens and not be concerned about ugly bokeh showing up.
but it does, so be aware of the weaknesses of whatever gear you're using.
Just because it cost a lot and came with an "L" in the moniker does not mean it's perfect.

It's a lens with compromises, as most are, unfortunately.
My new Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR shows some of the same effect. I knew this before I bought it as I could see the radial blur effect in a sample image someone posted from an early production sample. The shot was of grass, at a shallow angle, so you could see the blur quality around the central focus area. In the full size shot it was hard to notice the radial blur but in the small thumbnail size image it was grossly obvious.

What I've seen from modern zooms is more of this _radial_ bokeh tendency. I'm no lens designer but I think this is the price we pay for zooms that are super sharp with well controlled CA. Subjects in the focus zone are rendered very accurately but those just in front and behind get some strange distortion that seems to be caused by the special elements which are used to provide the corrections that give the focused area its sharpness and color convergence.

For anyone shopping for zooms tho, you can see this effect in the viewfinder if you can aim at some suitable subject matter tho. I find that tree branches in backgrounds, especially those where you also have plenty of sky available for contrast between them, will often show this distorted bokeh. Just focus the lens in front of or behind the branches and play with focal length, focus position and aperture and you'll see the distortions show up as you make the changes. On my 70-200/2.8 v2 I noticed entire sections of blurred branch actually disappearing at some settings! Very strange!

In general, I'm finding these radial bokeh effects show up more at close focus distances and at wide aperture settings. They often diminish in effect when stopping down.
Your mileage may vary.

This is just another instance of where you need to be wary when everyone raves about how good some piece of gear is. There's often a catch that's not been discussed as well. Forums like this are good education opportunities.

Knowing this I've kept a lot of lower quality lenses on hand for just this reason. Altho a cheap lens will rarely provide the biting sharpness of the pro glass, they'll also rarely show these same distracting aberrations. They'll have their own problems of course. But a $200 lens may provide you a workable option when the $2000 one fails in this way. Some of my best images were made with second-hand consumer grade lenses merely because they provide a balanced "look" with adequate sharpness and smooth bokeh. I wouldn't expect these cheap lenses to perform well at a race-track though, they focus too slowly.


----------



## sanj (Jan 2, 2013)

Thanks so much!


----------

