Bokeh and Portraits: Why I Just Don't Care

Pull up almost any lens review these days and one of the primary attributes people are judging is the oh-so-important bokeh. Purchases are made and lenses are brought back all because of the how a lens does or doesn't measure up in the bokeh department. Well I’m here to tell you, at least for portraiture, it’s just plain overrated.

What Is Bokeh?

For the uninitiated, bokeh is the character of the out of focus area in an image. Usually aficionados of bokeh desire smooth transitions from light to dark without jagged areas. Why? Because jagged areas in the out of focus areas are distracting and take away from the overall image. OK, really?

Bokeh is, in this photographer’s opinion, one more thing to scrutinize by gearheads (I should know, I am one). It’s a talking point. It’s a gimmick. It’s something that lens manufacturers can point to and say, “Look how smooth my light balls are! Buy my lens!” Yeah, I said it. The bokeh of an image, unless just obscenely ugly, doesn't matter as much as we'd like to believe.

To illustrate my point, I put together a fabulous photoshoot complete with stylists, exotic locations, and the most expensive gear. When that fell through, I did a quick setup in my living room of the cheapest model I could find: me. 

The Experiment

I wanted to show both a close portrait/headshot along with a wider portrait to show how little difference there was in the bokeh of two common, but vastly different, lenses. The first lens is a trusty Nikkor 50mm 1.4D. It's a lens a lot of beginners might select as their first 50mm prime. The next lens is the amazing Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART. This is one of the sharpest consumer lenses out there and has been praised for its bokeh-producing capabilities along with its stupid level of sharpness. Let's see what sort of bokeh these lenses produced wide open.

I threw my camera on a tripod, kicked the dog out of the way, and started triggering away with a CamRanger. I brought the images into Capture One, did some levels editing and that's about it. I didn't even bother to Photoshop the bags out from under my eyes. Hey, I have a 3 month old. Cut me some slack! The results are below.

What about a closer shot where the bokeh differences will be more pronounced? Glad you asked!

Conclusions

The Sigma is worlds sharper. We knew that. But that's not what this experiment is about. The bokeh on these two lenses is, of course, different. But lets be honest here; If you were to see both of these images on a wall you'd be hard-pressed to pick between them based on the bokeh. You'd be paying attention to (for better or worse) the subject. The bokeh just isn't enough of a factor in the images to be important.

As photographers we always want the latest and greatest. That’s natural. But I think we’ve become a bit zealous about things that just don’t have the weight we attribute to them. I’m not saying bokeh is a unicorn that doesn’t exist. It totally does! There is a marked difference between the out of focus area of different lenses. But why should we care so much? The difference between a bokeh crazy lens and a normal run-of-the-mill lens is so slight at normal viewing distances as to be laughable.

But, “Hans,” you say, “My new 50mm has luscious, creamy bokeh and it cost me $1,500! I want to be able to throw everything out of focus and that out of focus area needs to be puuuuurty!” Well great. Why do you want to throw everything out of focus? Is there an actual reason or do you just think it would look cool? How does the background relate to the subject? Hey, I get it, sometimes when you’re on the go and can’t find a suitable environment you need to throw the background completely out of focus to hide the closet you were forced to shoot in. But does that tiny bit of difference in the character of the out of focus area really make a difference? I’m talking about to the end viewer, not other pixel peepers. It doesn’t; and if it does, then chances are you really need to focus more on the content of the portrait. What does it say about the subject if the out of focus area is actually able to distract from it?

Don’t believe me? Take a look at some of the master portrait photographers of our time: Annie Leibovitz, Mark Seliger, Helmut Newton, Richard Avedon, Irving Penn, Joe McNally, Mary Ellen Mark... The list goes on and on. Do a quick Google search on any of them and tell me if you give a rats patoot about the bokeh or lack thereof in their images. It’s all about the subject.

How about some crops?

And the close shots...

Are You an Artist or a Technician?

Of course, the answer to that question should be "both." I have made tons of crappy portraits in my time. Not one of them was because of bokeh. It's because I failed as a photographer to leave an impression, even on myself. Put the focus where you want it and then worry about the feeling of the portrait. Worry about the relationship between you and subject. Worry about exposure, weather, the environment, narrative, and all the other things that truly make or break a portrait. Stop using your lenses as a crutch and realize that as long as they are putting the focus where you want it, they are doing their job.

It’s easy to get up close to a person (or far away with a tele), open up that lens, snap a few and call it art, then wonder why the image is forgettable. It’s because we’re worried so much about the characteristics of the lens (or camera body, lights, modifiers, etc.) and not about truly creating that special something.

Bokeh is nice. If you can afford the great lenses that happen to have nice bokeh and are razor sharp, go for it. But if you don’t cultivate all those other things that make a good image, you’re just putting lipstick on a pig anyway.