What is it (beyond the wikipedia definition) and what makes it good bokeh or bad bokeh? Have any pics that would illustrate either good or bad? Or is it way too subjective?

HTH: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

Good article, thanks.

Your Welcome, I just thought Bokeh was called Blur. Interesting.

i usually just think of it as background blur.

I think we had a discussion a while back... here... but honestly, it's just the blur. I don't see what the big hoopla is about bokeh 'quality'.

well take the images from the Canon 50 1.8 vs say the Sigma 50 1.4 and its night and day..the sigma is nice and creamy looking..While the canon looks very busy and nervous looking. Not as appealing

Example pics?

here is the Canon 1.4 vs the Sigma 1.4

the Sigma just looks so much smoother and appealing and teh Canon looks to busy..Now the Canon 1.4 is better then the 1.8 so that looks even worse. I dont have any pics of that

not seeing anything

edit: nice ninja edit

I see.. but honestly, and I'm not saying this to irk you, the subject should be the focal point of the image and the blurred background only acts to enhance it, I suppose. Put a subject in front of those comparison shots, and they really won't look all that different, imho.

I wasnt saying this is what is important in the image..you asked to see the difference and I showed

it can make a big difference as well.
This was taken when i use to have a Sigma 50 1.4....the Subject is small and 90% of the frame is bokeh..so if I would have had the Canon 1.4 or 1.8 it wouldnt be as smooth looking nd the over all pic would look worse

Nice example, 05XRunner.

The bokeh starts to matter when you're dealing w/ larger prints. On the web, it doesn't really matter much. If you made a 16x20 print of the previous example, then you'd begin to notice the difference between lenses and cameras. Some lenses produce background blur that has a slight pattern, whether that is circles, swirls, or another pattern. In these cases, the blur can be distracting from the subject. You want uniform blur, often described as "creamy" or "smooth".

Really smooth bokeh tends to give images a more 3D appearance IMO. While crappy bokeh tends to distract your eyes away from the subject.

Bad Bokeh



Good Bokeh

i wouldn't call that bad bokeh per-se, it's more a poor choice of backgrounds than anything else

You all suck at posting good vs bad bokeh pictures...



just sayin'...



But srsly, lmao @ 05x posting a "good bokeh" and then for "bad bokeh" just saying "the bad one would look worse" with no picture example

bukakki?

no keep your fetish to yourself and that's not how you spell it

would this be an example? not the sharpest flower, but best i had

oh shi-

True but a lens with a longer focal length would be able to compress even the most distracting background smooth.

What? I was a spelling bee champion many times over in school. I just know stuff.

Get your mind out of the gutter Scott, what your thinking of has 1 more k in it. What im talking about is spelled correctly

It's ok, Scott... we won't judge you.

Here

Those Armenians get it everytime.

That isn't all the background's fault, it is what happens when you use a mirror lens.

Another intresting arcitle http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh.html

interesting - never knew that

bokeh?

Not sure this is bokeh at all, but maybe? Is it appealing? Gives you a sense of what is back there...guess its open to opinion.

If your referring to the point of light in the background(the christmas tree lights) id say they look pretty good. Theyre typically judged on if they are rendered smooth and round.

stop worrying about the background blurring and wipe this poor child's mouth!

(also: cute kid)

BOKEH!

He was drooling from all the fun, mommy was lifting him up and down and stopping just enough for me to take some shots, we wiped his drool, drool is a cute touch...kids drool.

Great shot andy.. love the composition.