Is Background Bokeh really necessary in Wildlife Photography.

With all the movement towards the mirrorless glass these days coming out at 4.5 to 8 does that mean that bokeh is a thing of the past? With the exception of spending over 14,000 on up on a lens. I love my 600 f4 however the new glass is very much out of my reach these days. Just curious how the majority of people felt about it.

Weight and money can dictate what folks can afford.............but not what constitutes a good image. Apples and oranges to me............

Interesting “poser”… Short answer is yes as bokeh tones down distracting background. There are simple editing tools in Apple for JPEGs that were originally designed for removing dust spots, etc, that can be enlarged to soften backgrounds…. If you’re happy with the results that’s all that matters..

There are more slower aperture telephoto lenses these days but I don't see a reduction of pace in the development of long reach large aperture lenses.
The slower aperture telephoto lenses are partially enabled by the ability of the new focusing systems to focus beyond certain apertures which would be limited with DSLRs.

Perhaps the large aperture telephoto lineups are not as complete as they used to be but that's likely because mirroless systems are relatively new. Regarding pricing, as far as I am aware, long large aperture lenses have always been relatively expensive.

Whether it's on a photo, a work of graphic design or a work of CGI, blur is an important element that serves the purpose of making some details of an image stand out in relation to other details. As long as there is a need for this effect, I think the market will continue to provide products that realise it.

Larry Sherertz said:

Interesting “poser”… Short answer is yes as bokeh tones down distracting background. There are simple editing tools in Apple for JPEGs that were originally designed for removing dust spots, etc, that can be enlarged to soften backgrounds…. If you’re happy with the results that’s all that matters..

Click to expand...

I agree just didn't know how much it really affected images these days. I wasn't sure if using the 4.5 to 6.3 glass affects it that much. I have watched Steve's videos comparing the two. Being a relievedly new to photography less than six years how the new glass was really going to affect that.

Another thought here is that a distinguishable object or animal in the background (or foreground) may add to the image rather than be a distraction..

One thing I do routinely in post processing to help fix background issues is to use NIK Color Efex Pro and especially the contrast plugins. The one I use the most for background fixing is Tonal Contrast, either globally or locally with a Control Point. By adjusting one or more of three sliders, Highlights, Midtones and Shadows, I can reduce the impact of disturbing elements in backgrounds. I usually select Fine too.

I access NIK from DXO PL. If you are a Photoshop user, you have additional options to incorporating plugins into your workflow--Smart objects. Google for videos on how to do this.

Bokeh can be cool, but photography is not a one trick pony. The downside is you lose the sense of where the creature is and the story the surroundings might tell. So I guess it depends.

Keep in mind that although aperture is really the only thing that can affect depth of field, there are a number of things that can affect how our backgrounds look. Most notably, your distance to the subject and the distance of the subject to the background. The quality of the background can have a significant impact as well.

Take a look at these images - all of which were shot with slower glass. To me, the backgrounds look every bit as good as what I see with my faster glass. However, they only look that way because I positioned myself so I was close enough to the subject to (more or less) fill the frame, the background was somewhat distant, and the backgrounds where generally "smooth" and not overly disturbed. Also, I'd add that not every background has to be a smooth, creamy blur - sometimes a hint of what's there is helpful for context. The trick is that it's just a hint and not hitting you over the head!

Oh, and I'm contractually obligated to mention that the first two were with a pre-production 600 PF.

IMO, the new faster glass is driven by light weight, smaller and in some cases less expensive lenses and the trend towards more hand held photography. Those features can open up new possibilities for light and nimble photography and can make long lens wildlife work economically feasible for a wider range of photographers but there's nothing about these slower aperture lenses that lessens the importance of good backgrounds in wildlife work. The meaning of good background is of course subjective and not all wildlife photography demands soft out of focus backgrounds but when that's the goal, lenses or shooting perspective that can deliver backgrounds that don't compete with the subject can still be very important.

In a lot of situations slower aperture lenses can deliver fantastic backgrounds just by careful attention to shooting position or field craft that gets a photographer in position to shoot with the background a long way back from the subject. So it's certainly not impossible to get fantastic smooth backgrounds even with a stop or more slower lens of the same focal length but we often have to work a bit harder to do that.

[edit] it looks like @Steve beat me to the point about field craft and positioning as a way to overcome background issues with slower glass

Steve said:

Keep in mind that although aperture is really the only thing that can affect depth of field, there are a number of things that can affect how our backgrounds look. Most notably, your distance to the subject and the distance of the subject to the background. The quality of the background can have a significant impact as well.

Take a look at these images - all of which were shot with slower glass. To me, the backgrounds look every bit as good as what I see with my faster glass. However, they only look that way because I positioned myself so I was close enough to the subject to (more or less) fill the frame, the background was somewhat distant, and the backgrounds where generally "smooth" and not overly disturbed. Also, I'd add that not every background has to be a smooth, creamy blur - sometimes a hint of what's there is helpful for context. The trick is that it's just a hint and not hitting you over the head!

Oh, and I'm contractually obligated to mention that the first two were with a pre-production 600 PF.


View attachment 73967
View attachment 73968

View attachment 73972

View attachment 73971
View attachment 73970

Click to expand...

Thanks for chiming in it helps a lot watching your videos and studying your images along with others who have created an impact on how I learn and look up to. In short it helps me be the best photographer I can be with the gear that I have to work with.

robertrear said:

I agree just didn't know how much it really affected images these days. I wasn't sure if using the 4.5 to 6.3 glass affects it that much. I have watched Steve's videos comparing the two. Being a relievedly new to photography less than six years how the new glass was really going to affect that.

Click to expand...

I can’t afford the big glass either! Work with what you have and find ways to get the results that please you. Unless you’re a working professional the long 2.8 glass is just financially out of reach and impractical for us old retired folks on a fixed income that ENJOY photography as a hobby….. Sometimes simply moving your position to put the background further away may create the effect you’re looking for…. Go have fun!

Useful thread. I also think the low ISO days of film were the primary reason for fast telephotos, and bokeh was a bonus. The main clients were Pro Sports photographers, who aree often challenged by low light but needed to freeze action.

Nevertheless, the background rendering of the 200 f2, 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, among others, set the bar high for beautifully smooth bokeh. Remember the first SLR autofocus systems were also constrained by light thresholds hitting the AF sensor through the mirror. This barrier persisted through the DSLR era - hence f5.6 was the lower limit, until pro sports ILCs, such as the D4 improved the tolerance by 1 whole stop of light - f8! So few high end telephotos were slower than f5.6. Mirrorless now sets this limit down to f22.

Today, we live in remarkable times. Modern optical engineers have shed the constraints of the film era, and also the 1st and 2nd generation sensors. The extraordinary high ISO ceilings have opened up wider design envelopes, which we see in slower, and thus lighter telephotos, but still outstanding optics.

And this applies particularly to 600mm and 800mm lenses; in fact, in practice the tight DOF of a 800 f8 is very close to that of a 400 f2.8 over subject distances of 6-15m, but frames subjects more tightly, obviously. As Steve says, blurring backgrounds often depends on subject distances, as well as choosing the suitable focal length.

robertrear said:

With all the movement towards the mirrorless glass these days coming out at 4.5 to 8 does that mean that bokeh is a thing of the past? With the exception of spending over 14,000 on up on a lens. I love my 600 f4 however the new glass is very much out of my reach these days. Just curious how the majority of people felt about it.

Click to expand...

For me the background is more important than the subject. No matter how good the subject is, if the background is trash then the image is an automatic "delete". You don't necessarily have to have a fast lens to produce a decent background. Just being conscience of the background when making the image goes a long way. Here is a shot of a hummingbird at a feeder using the Z 400 F4.5 /w 18mm extension tube. The background is a lawn. Had I shot the image straight on the background would have been cluttered, instead I sat in the bed of my truck and shot down with the grass as a background. A simple adjustment, and made a difference. Looking at the DOF for the Z 600 f6.3, at 30 feet, and f6.3 the DOF is less than 1 inch. More than enough to blur the background.

I agree with most of what is said and with the right field craft etc a lot can be done with slower lenses in terms of background blur. I currently have a Z400 F2.8 and also just got delivery of the 600PF. Reason being: I want smaller lenses that are easier to transport , especially by plane but still produce excellent images . Yes I lose the fast aperture, it’s a sacrifice I think I can live with . I’m also looking into replacing the Z400 with the F4.5 versions. Secondly the majority of the public that look at pictures will generally either like a picture or not and not question bokeh or a background that’s too “busy” (I would think)

As @Steve said, aperture is only one factor determing bokeh. A lens with a smaller aperture can get the same result by being close to subject especially with long lens. As @fcotterill said, large aperture monster telephotos were developed initially to get better shutter speeds with low ISO film, an issue that is no longer exists (unless you still use film).

So in the age of modern digital cameras and processing, no, in my opinion, large aperture telephotos are not completely necessary (though still nice if you can afford it). That is not exactly the same as your question, is bokeh necessary, in which case I would say yes but there are other ways to get it. (Obviously there are exceptions to most rules and there are times when the background is integral to a wildlife image).

I have seen many photos in publications - sometimes contest winners - where the depth of field was too shallow and they were using a 500 f4 or 600 f4 wide open and should have stopped down to something like f8. I am thinking of a closeup of an ungulate face where the ears and nose are soft or a small group of animals where you want to see the others but only one is in focus. I think the tendency is I paid extra to carry a monster 400 f2.8 or 600 f4 so therefore I am always going to use it at f2.8 or f4. I found even with my more moderate aperture lens I still have to stop down further at times to get, for example, more of a bird's body in focus.

Of course the obvious thing we have not discussed besides the prohibitive cost is the weight. Even though the mirrorless versions are lighter, they are still too big and heavy for people like me to feel comfortable using. The one exception that pops out is the just announced Sony 300 f2.8 .

with the z400 F2.8 I never photograph wide open. Ajwats go to 5.6 or even a bit more

robertrear said:

With all the movement towards the mirrorless glass these days coming out at 4.5 to 8 does that mean that bokeh is a thing of the past? With the exception of spending over 14,000 on up on a lens. I love my 600 f4 however the new glass is very much out of my reach these days. Just curious how the majority of people felt about it.

Click to expand...

You want a background that complements the photo. That can be a clean background, a blurred background with specific color or light choices, or an environmental context. I have discarded a lot of photos solely because of the background. At this point, I know what to look for and look at the background options before deciding to make a photo. I have sold lenses (500mm PF) because of the way they render the background. I have bought lenses (400mm f/4.5 and 600mm f/4) because of the way they render backgrounds. I've even sold cameras (D300 and D500) because I preferred the backgrounds using full frame alternatives.

When backgrounds are a problem, aperture is not the only tool. A stop or two difference in aperture can change the background - but it may be that you need to get closer, move left/right/up or down, or choose different lighting on the background. Background distractions take away from a good image of a subject, and a good background supports the subject - potentially making a great image out of a common subject.

In terms of importance, I'd say it's 70-80% subject and 20-30% background. If you can put both together you can end up with a great image.

Beyond that, aperture does make a difference in your shutter speed and/or ISO. Having the option of f/4 or f/4.5 can make a big difference vs. f/8 or f/9.

Don't forget about the foreground ...

In an age where fast lenses are relatively affordable and there's plenty of us monkeys bashing away on your cameras, mastering how your background and foreground look and interact with your subject can be the difference between your image standing out or just being another one in a sea of samey wikipedia looking snaps.

For inspiration, I recommend taking a look at the macro crowd and their obsession with long Sigma macro's, shooting contre-jour and last bu not least, the Meyer Goerlitz Trioplan 100mm (say that 3 times fast )

For instance:

For those of us shooting Nikon's f/6.3 super telephoto lenses, noise-reducing software and "Lens Blur" technology can help put backgrounds further into the background when no position can minimize sensor-to-subject distance or maximize subject-to-background distance.

A blurred background is great, and I'll do it if I can get it, but if not I don't sweat it. The background in focus/partial focus can provide context. Sometimes it just isn't possible to get bokeh, like the grizzly that was (obviously) a long way away but right up against the background. I still like the pic I got. Rules are made to be broken...

Isolation of the subject from the rest of the photo's elements helps to increase the image's impact, which in a formal judging environment causes a photo to score higher. There is a reason for this being one of the elements considered when formally judging and scoring an image.

so yes, bokeh still matters.

Sometimes the background is an essential part of the story. Maybe more true with larger mammals and birds but some bird images also. Last weekend I attended a regional photo contest. One print was a spirit bear (white/beige black bear) walking along a log with a jumbled forest scene behind. The photographer spent a lot of time and money to get to this remote wilderness area. The rugged, uneven background was a key part of telling the bear's story. I love isolated bird images with a creamy, unidentifiable background but there is a place for including the background sometimes also.

Bokeh is good but so is being able to see the background, if it is relevant. A lot of this is fashion. Bokeh is fashionable. It can be over done. I'm interested in how I see things. Have I been trained how to see? Do I see what others see?

This is probably my favorite natural bokeh of my images. Shot with a 70-200 at f/9 , 1/200.