Bokeh hooky pooky

[Greg Beetham]

Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed numerous examples of usually good photographers (at dpr) taking macro photos of flowers (mostly) and the criteria of it being a "good" photo is that it has really smudgy bokeh, it doesn't matter if the main subject is badly focussed, such as the near and far side being clearly out of focus from not using a deep enough f/stop (that would interfere with the bokeh).
I'm not hip, I just don't "get it" I thought the main point of taking a photo of something was too portray it at it's best...but now it seems that bokeh rules, the main subject is of secondary consideration...as long as you have created some really nifty bokeh it's a great photo???
Anyone else agree, disagree, don't care?
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

Try visiting a site like Alamy or Getty and doing a library search for a subject like 'food close-up'. You will find that getting the entire subject sharp is not what today's style is about. But having a really attractive defocused image may be important.

David

[Dr. Harout]

Relax. There are too many things that we may not like but remain part of the real world. After all, you are not in heaven.
I don't like such shots either, but yet there are some instances when it might be fine. For me a non sharp main subject might express motion (or should), or maybe I'm wrong
Anyway, perceive the beauty as you personally like it, and do the shots likewise.
I don't like Grotesque Art, but it is a fact, and as I see it, that might lead you away from it and towards real beauty
As for your question: I'm on your side.

[Greg Beetham]

Try visiting a site like Alamy or Getty and doing a library search for a subject like 'food close-up'. You will find that getting the entire subject sharp is not what today's style is about. But having a really attractive defocused image may be important.

David

I can imagine, say in the field of advertising where the contemporary attention span is measured in nanoseconds the last thing you'd want is that attention being diverted away from the overlying message, so maybe in some sections of the advertising industry (some...anything is possible I guess, but I doubt we will ever see an advert for a camera for example, that has parts of the camera body in a fuzzy defocussed state) I agree there is a requirement, but I can't see such an image ever making it onto the cover of a HQ magazine....so I'm left with the conclusion that it's some sort of abstract art form attempt (or marketing/advertising) that appeals or it doesn't....so far with me, it's a "doesn't"
Greg

[Greg Beetham]

Relax. There are too many things that we may not like but remain part of the real world. After all, you are not in heaven.
I don't like such shots either, but yet there are some instances when it might be fine. For me a non sharp main subject might express motion (or should), or maybe I'm wrong
Anyway, perceive the beauty as you personally like it, and do the shots likewise.
I don't like Grotesque Art, but it is a fact, and as I see it, that might lead you away from it and towards real beauty
As for your question: I'm on your side.

Thank goodness, someone who agrees, when I see such an image my first reaction is, the poor lad hasn't quite grasped f/stops yet
Greg

[01af]

When the topic of out-of-focus rendition, or 'bokeh,' first came up among photographers a few years ago, many refused to take it seriously. A good photograph has to be sharp, and who with a healthy mind would care about the appearance of the blurred parts in an image?

Meanwhile most photographers understand what bokeh is about, and now they're getting carried away into the other direction. Bokeh often gets more attention than image content, and depth-of-field now has always to be minimzed rather than optimized. I guess this is---at least partly---driven by the fact that many of today's hobbyist photographers have started with digital point-and-shoot cameras which didn't allow playing with selective sharpness. And people always appreciate most what they don't have. So when eventually switching to a 'real' camera, to them selective sharpness seems the hottest thing since sliced bread.

These things come and go in waves. Each era has its styles and fashions ... and daftnesses. I guess the current bokeh mania will settle down to a reasonable level---sooner or later.

-- Olaf

[Greg Beetham]

When the topic of out-of-focus rendition, or 'bokeh,' first came up among photographers a few years ago, many refused to take it seriously. A good photograph has to be sharp, and who with a healthy mind would care about the appearance of the blurred parts in an image?

Meanwhile most photographers understand what bokeh is about, and now they're getting carried away into the other direction. Bokeh often gets more attention than image content, and depth-of-field now has always to be minimzed rather than optimized. I guess this is---at least partly---driven by the fact that many of today's hobbyist photographers have started with digital point-and-shoot cameras which didn't allow playing with selective sharpness. And people always appreciate most what they don't have. So when eventually switching to a 'real' camera, to them selective sharpness seems the hottest thing since sliced bread.

These things come and go in waves. Each era has its styles and fashions ... and daftnesses. I guess the current bokeh mania will settle down to a reasonable level---sooner or later.

-- Olaf

Yes I think that's what it is, a "fad" that grew because it was "different" and got noticed, sort of like the modern reverse logic that's popular...(bad is good, sour is sweet etc.) and I think you're right, it'll pass..eventually.
Funny thing, some photographers seem just as it not more accomplished with the software than with the camera, and one would think that if they wanted bokeh behind the subject they could construct a really good smudge and then paste the normal macro subject (lifted from another photo that was front to back sharp) onto it.
Greg