Film photography is
attempting a renaissance as digital cameras have not always been able to
produce that visual feel film has reached in a century of trials. And I do not
think it is nostalgia although watching 1940s B&W movies often transports
me to that place where I do not need to see colour to live art and artfulness.
I belong to those who
still roll their own film, use only mechanical cameras, who have a Hansa Pro enlarger
and who after submerging millions of 8x10 papers in the developing tray, and
are like a kid on Christmas morning.
Of course a 1948
Rolleiflex TLR cannot do anything a throw away digital camera can do. A 1953
Leica III rangefinder can hardly escape glare and flair. And the meter of 1969
Nikon F Photomic could hardly come close to reading incident light after
sunset! Yet, we marvel at what photographers in the 1950s and 1970s were able
to produce with mechanical shutters, heuristic light meters and lenses with 7
or less straight blades.
One of the signature collaboration
between the photographer and mechanical cameras is the creation of blurred
backgrounds also known as bokeh.
O the subject of the
photo.
What is bokeh
and why do we cherish it?
Simply, it is the
purposeful blurring of the background while focusing on a subject. Clearly such
a technique is great in portraiture when one wants to “eliminate” the visual
distraction any background can create to the printed photo. In other words, it
is the manipulation of reality to create an intended reality by making an individual
stand out of a crowd, of perhaps a forest behind him or her.
Of course, today’s
computerized cameras have many settings one can adjust for the camera and its
synchronized wonder lens to create a background blur. But when a 1938
collapsible Leica Summar, designed with only 6 elements of uncoated glass was
able to produce the dreamiest bokeh I had seen when I started street
photography, one has to wonder about the collaboration between photographer and
the lens. Not the camera, but the lens, because it is the lens that produces
the blur intended by the photographer.
Is a blur, by any other name, a pleasant bokeh?
No. There is almost a
romantic lexicon to describe a blur. It can be creamy, or dreamy. It can be
abrupt or harsh. It can yet be distracting or unpleasant. Finally, there seems
nothing more nerve wracking then a “heptagonal shapes in the blur” bokeh!
So, this takes us to the
difference between a blur and a bokeh.
Since the whole concept is an evaluation by the viewer, the subjective nature
of the difference is:
A bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the blur itself.
Hmm.
To illustrate here are a
few bokeh types from my own works,
using various lenses and cameras.
A. Evening
market in Morocco
I had a Minolta Autocord
TLR as people in the market would ask for payment if they see a tourist lift a
camera to their face.
This woman was doing
temporary henna tattoos and I saw her creating a design around the belly button
of a tourist. I opened the lens to f3.5 and probably at 1/25th
second speed as it was getting quite dark.
Verdict. The Rokkor lenses are wonderful and I got the creamy and uniform
background blur I intended. But there is a big and inverted “S” sign on the
ground behind the face of the tattoo artist. It is very distracting so, the bokeh is of marginal quality.
B. Amsterdam
I had a Yashica Lynx 14E
on that day. I loved this fixed range rangefinder although the lens-imbedded
speeds changing mechanism is prone to malfunction.
The light at the end of
tunnel was perfect to shade the people walking into the tunnel. I wanted that
eerie feeling of alien visitors into the background and it did work well with a
1/25th second speed at f1.4.
Verdict. The bokeh is pleasant
and it achieved the effect I wanted about aliens entering the tunnel.
C. Baltimore
Inner Harbor
I was using a 1954 Soviet/Ukrainian Kiev rangefinder camera on that evening with a Jupiter 12 35mm lens.
This young man was
handling a snake and allowing passers to touch it for a small fee. It was quite
dark and I wanted to totally blur the background. So, lens open at f2.8 and
speed at 1/25th second.
Verdict. The background did blur well, but upon printing I discovered the
head of another person behind the hand of the snake handler! And this made the bokeh unappealing and distracting.
D. Lake
Anna, Virginia
The Mamiya 645 has been
my most reliable “medium format” camera for nearly 25 years. I have traveled around
the globe more than once with that simple camera hanging from my neck primarily
because of one superb lens – the Mamiya Sekor C 80mm f1.9. It is a fast lens
for medium format and one that has amazing bokeh.
This photo proves it. It
was taken for symbolism of an empty nest and time burning away. I do not recall
the speed setting but the aperture was f1.9.
Verdict. It is a smooth and creamy bokeh.
More than that it balanced the foreground with the background with detail, definition
and contrast.
A photo I like a lot.
E.
Signal Mountain, Johannesburg,
South Africa
Again travelling with
the Mamiya 645. Signal Mountain is a spot where folks go to watch the sunset.
As I was climbing up, I saw this lovely woman typing on her laptop. The last
rays of the sun were filtering through her dress.
Verdict. One of my favorite street photography shots as I hardly had a
second to click. The filtering light was perfect for an f1.9 aperture. The
image is both sharp, she is perfectly in focus and everything else is left to
the imagination.
So, is bokeh a big deal in photography?
In my case, it is more a
reward (when it is pleasant and pleasing) when using a mechanical camera and a
lens from yesteryears. Then, it is truly a testimony to the skill of the
photographer in recognizing the limitations of the lens and in framing the shot
to maximize the goal of isolating the subject.
But at the end of the
day, it is for the viewer of the photo to decide. Is it a blur or is it a blur
of quality that makes you remember the photo.
Till then, there will be
harsh, unpleasant and distracting blurs!
April 26, 2021
© Vahé A. Kazandjian,
2021
