This is not a post based on the twitchy, defensive nature many M43 shooters are assumed to have regarding Bokeh.
I was there at the beginning, I got it and I embraced it, but what I did not do is let the obsessive shallow depth at all costs movement change my way of seeing the world or my understanding of what the term Bokeh actually means.
Wide open works for some subjects, no arguement.
Photo Techniques editor Mike Johnson and contributor John Kennerdell bought to light a very real Japanese perspective on a technical reality of photography, art and human vision. The Japanese have given the nearly unavoidable effect of a sharpest plane of best focus and the transition to the out of focus parts of the same image and it’s characteristics.
That term was Bo_ke, anglicised to Bokeh (Bo as in bone, ke as in kettle with the h added for pronunciation, which clearly failed as Bow-kerr seems the common mongreliseation). If you don’t believe me ask a Japanese, it is their word after all.
A sharp and clear deliniation of the main subject always looks good and is often seen as “professional”, but look at what is not sharp that could have been. It is an image of two carts, nothing more, using a pleasant technique to hold the image together. Another way would be to include some context. The reality is our eyes do the same thing as you scan across the frame and adjust, but the photo cannot adapt. You need to choose up front. Remember your images have lost forever what you do not include.
Bokeh is a term used to describe the quality (subjective) of out of focus transitions, but not the quantity of it, nor does it provide a ranking system from good to bad. It just is.
Within the Bokeh umbrella, there are many sub-terms of blurring like Ni-Sen (cross-eyed), something my 300 f4 exhibits. Having Bokeh is a statement of reality, not a measure.
Shallow depth can tell a story, the qualities of the out of focus areas and their transition becoming important elements of the overall effect, because sharp or not, they are still a part of the image.
Funny thing is, the 17mm is often cited as having poor Bokeh, which is not only fundamentally incorrect as a statement like saying weather is bad without qualifying what weather it is, but also misleading, because it ignores the various applications of different forms of Bokeh.
The above taken with a pre-focussed 17mm wide open, has no clear point of in-out sharpness transition, which is why it works on some level (I hope). It is a natural transition, invisible. I think the demonstrative man, an unlikely top left main subject may be it? The inability of the viewer to see that plane of sharp focus clearly allows the effect to be ignored completely. You just follow the lines from the soft foreground hand up to the man. Another point of interest is the 17mm is not rated highly for it’s corner sharpness wide open, so what happened?
Looking back through my earlier Japan files, I have noticed I am responding to both deep depth of field images as well as shallow ones. The interesting thing is, I linger longer over the deeper ones.
The shallow depth of field images are like a catch phrase or a one-liner. The deeper depth files are more of a sentence, even a paragraph. What they are doing is to allow the eye to wander without being blocked from exploration by obvious technical elements.
I think that if you feel you can sum up an image in a single glance, it has power, but a shallow effect. If you need to explore, even change your mind about what it contains, it has more staying power.
Looking at powerful and influential older images, their power often comes from inclusion, not exclusion. Excessively shallow depth of field makes a single subject the hero of the image as it makes all supporting elements an often pretty blur.
I guess this is a plea of sorts.
the habit of over using Bokeh is a little addictive. I get it and have suffered from it. It came from the availablility of both smaller formats, which had natively more depth of field than older, larger formats, removing one of the biggest bains of early photographers, and wide aperture lenses that actually worked as the paint on the barrel promised.
Extra depth in transition is useful when you need to render near and far subjects, with little light and no tripod.
All that was added, was another arrow to the creative quiver, not an excuse to ignore the other techniques that may be harder (including more means more effort is needed to do it well), possibly more relevant, but most likely will stand the test of time better.
Does Bokeh rendering matter in real life?
It does because it is real, but it can also be subtle.
The most useful aspect of the 17mm for me is I can set the lens manually at about 5ft (marked on the handy distance scale), use f2.8 and get most things in focus. The one thing better than fast AF, which it has, is fixed focus with a deep and forgiving sharpness range. If I shoot wide open I use AF, because often even the misses are useable.
I have, as I have written here recently, two work horse lenses that define my kit on a givern day. The Leica 15mm f1.7 and Olympus 17mm f1.8 semi wide standard lenses. Between them they do the lions share of my personal and travel images. I even travelled to Melbourne recently for a long weekend with only the 17mm, a very freeing experience.
If I had to choose, the Olympus would be the keeper hands down, because it offers a more useful practical application, which for its main use, street and travel, is what I want. This is not the current trend, is possibly even considered old fashioned.
I sometimes actually have trouble telling if the lens is set tof1.8, 2.8 or 5.6 when reviewing.
The Leica can seem sharper and to have more “modern” rendering, but that is part of the illusion of fast transition Bokeh. This wide angle lens has similar properties to many longer lenses, which is to say, it creates a strong sharp/soft effect, all together less useful for street photography. I use it in my work bag, because making the subject “pop” is a cheap and easy trick for eye catching news print images.
The thing is, I want different effects from different lenses, not the same look from all. If you compare the Olympus 75 and 17mm lenses, the former is technically perfect and a very strong proponent of a modern Bokeh rendering lens. It is long and fast enough to effortlessly render shallow depth and the quality of the Bokeh is very pleasant.
Sharp front to back, but not using a particularly small aperture.
Arguably the 75 is a one trick pony, except that when stopped down it is also razor sharp and well corrected, offering a sharp-compression lens.
Lovely “Bokeh balls” and creamy rendering of the 75mm. Easy to use, great for effect, easy to over use and at the other end of the story telling stick.
The 17mm on paper looks much weaker, lacks “Bokeh” by common understanding and seems all together less “snappy”. This is actually ideal, because it is the other way of looking at the world.
For me, someone who bought it semi reluctantly, it was seen at the time possibly a necessary compromise*, but now it is the perfect companion and I think of it as being of equal quality to the other primes, just different.
I have a hero maker lens and a story teller.
The sharpness is gentle, natural and forgiving. The actual aperture is almost irrelevant as the transition sits well regardless.
Why have two lenses with the same look, when each can be a specialist in its chosen role?
The more I use the two lenses, the more I am appreciating the 17mm’s old fashioned and more natural rendering. It also has a unique ability to tame strong light, but that is another story.
Thanks Olympus for listening to your own little voice and ignoring the trend of the time.
The other thing that may be a long term boon, is the video application of the lens. This long transition Bokeh is not only useful, but also may add up to a less digital look of the footage. I think this may need some further investigtion.
*When released, technical reviews were mixed, many testing areas irrelevant for most uses like wide aperture corners or fixable CA, but over time it became so well liked by actual users, it tops several must buy lists for this format and has very few detractors. When the new super lens, the Olympus 17mm f1.2 came out, it still stood up favourably, but again showed its role as being different to the new Bokeh master.