I think these are the images to which Brian was referring:
http://lrh.structuregraphs.com/test/olympus_portrait_lens.htm
also a few Nikkors:
http://lrh.structuregraphs.com/test/nikon_portrait_lens.htm
The closest branches are probably 1.5m behind my daughter's face.
...Wayne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moose [mailto:olymoose@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, 4 June 2012 8:01 AM
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] Quick, before the storm hits...
>
> On 6/3/2012 3:43 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> > Moose wrote
> >> My limited experience is the closer the subject in focus and the
> >> farther the background, the worse it gets. Limited experience because
> >> I was shooting film and stopped wasting it on shots I knew I wouldn't
like.
> >>
> >> Macro Bokeh Moose
> > I am quite puzzled by this on several counts.
>
> First, you have taken my comments out of context. The subject was the
> Zuiko 50/3.5 macro lens. My comments were directed to that lens ALONE.
>
> > 1) The background was already busy, and lousy bokeh could have been
> > expected as a matter of course. Now that I think of this, I remember
> > Wayne H asking us a few years ago to comment on the relative rendering
> > of the bokeh of about 20 lenses - and in my opinion none of them had
> > a chance because the background consisted of a lot of tortuously bent
> > branches that were simply too close to the subject - one of his
> > daughters if I remember correctly.
>
> Here, I simply disagree, and there may be some definitional differences,
as
> well. Bokeh is not about the subject, but about how the lens renders the
out
> of focus parts of the subject. More specifically, it is about what happens
to
> small highlights and to sharp edges between light and dark when they are
> out of focus.
>
> There are differences between the sort of subject you describe and the
> other extreme, say a portrait against a smooth, featureless background.
One
> may have opinions about such differences, likes and dislikes, but they are
not
> about bokeh.
>
> In your example, a lens with poor bokeh would exaggerate the edges,
> making them harder, and turn small bright spots into larger areas with
dark
> centers and bright, sharp edges (clear example below). Light or dark lines
> against opposite backgrounds tend to become multiple lines.
>
> A lens with good bokeh would soften the edges. So, for example, a slim
> branch against light sky would start to lose definition at its edges,
blending
> smoothly into the background, with some remnant of center perhaps
> remaining as a diffuse, darker line. Bright spots would also become
diffuse,
> brightest at the center and tapering off gently into invisibility.
>
> While not perfect, I hope this example helps to illustrate what I am
saying.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Bokeh/_MG_6431.htm>
>
> So I think Wayne's subject as you describe it it would be a good test of
> bokeh, as the test lenses and settings either make the busyness stronger
or
> softer.
>
> > 2) The background was too close to the subject. Moose wrote " the
> > closer the subject in focus and the farther the background, the worse
it
> gets"..
>
> Again, only about the 50/3.5. I would not claim that to be true of lenses
in
> general.
>
> > My experience is opposite, as I recall. The closer the subject usually
> > means the background is relatively far away ( better).
>
> Reread what you have written. It is logically fallacious. Look at Jim's
recent
> orchid images. The subject is very close to the background. Had he set
them
> outside in his yard, the background across the street would be far away.
> Background distance has no necessary relationship to subject distance.
>
> > The further away the background is ( especially when highly detailed
> > and messy), the better. Better because every little bit of detail
> > becomes relatively smaller, more out of focus, and therefore matters
less.
>
> This is not true of my experience with the 50/3.5. With that lens, my
> experience is that the closer the subject and the farther the background,
the
> worse the bokeh. I have poor records of my old images and nowhere near all
> of them have been scanned, so I can't show an example, at least not
without
> effort beyond what I'm willing to expend on this subject.
> There are few of them, as I quit using it that way as soon as I realized
the
> problem.
>
> However, the 50/1.8s suffer much the same sort of bokeh problems as the
> 50/3.5, although not quite as bad, so I will illustrate with them.
>
> Here, rolling the mouse up and down between the leftmost boxes, look at
> the left edge. (The Zuiko and Zeiss are essentially identical at f11.) At
f11, you
> can already see the bright elements starting to get edgy. At f8, although
> blurrier overall, the bright elements have started to be darker in the
center
> and lighter at the edges. The brightest, most complex one, just above
center,
> has started to throw off separated halos.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/50mm_lenses/50mmc
> omp.htm>
>
> Wider open, and with background much further away the bokeh bokeh gets
> really bad. In the upper image here, upper left, large highlights have
become
> almost circles of brightness, with hard edges. On the upper right, smaller
> highlights, brighter against darker background, have become full halos,
bright
> circles with fully dark centers. This is absolutely not like the actual
subject,
> and not unlike what mirror lenses do.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Misc/5018bokeh.htm>
>
> Nor is what you suggest true of the two examples CH just posted. The
> backgrounds in both of his images are close, and the bokeh relatively
good.
> In the first, there are a few large, hexagonal highlights on the left with
> relatively even illumination and moderately soft edges, moderately good
> bokeh, assisted by the fact that they are not very bright. Bokeh in the
second
> is even better, indicating to me that the background is probably even
closer.
>
> The only generalizations that I think can be fairly made about bokeh are
that
> for any particular lens (and focal length, for zooms), it will differ with
> aperture and with subject/focal plane distance and foreground/background
> distance.
>
> Beyond that, it seems to be generally true that variations of the Double
> Gauss design, which include virtually all modern, fast lenses for 35 mm
from
> about 40 to 80 mm, tend to suffer from poor bokeh with relatively close
> subject and distant background. In my limited testing, a 1950's Zeiss Jena
> 50/2.8 isn't much different.
>
> > My 2 cents.
>
> Add mine, find a penny on the street, and you'll have a nickel. :-)
>
> Holy Bokeh Moose
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> __________________________________________________________
> _______
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|