Just sold V1, 50% Depreciation - 6 mos

Started Sep 13, 2012 | Discussions thread
olyflyer
Forum ProPosts: 22,757
Like?
Re: still not the correct usage ...
In reply to mlewan, Oct 8, 2012

mlewan wrote:

Paul Pasco wrote:

mlewan wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

Your use of "bokeh" is incorrect. That term defines the quality of the out of focus area, not the amount.

Do you have any source to support that statement?

I'll chime in here with a few links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

Bokeh has been defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bokeh

Japanese term for the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of a photographic image.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bokeh

the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens.

http://www.idigitalphoto.com/dictionary/bokeh

Subjective quality of the out-of-focus image projected by an optical system, usually a photographic lens.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/1518/bokeh

In photography, bokeh is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image.

Out of those links, none says that the expression cannot be used to describe the amount of the blur.

Have you ever seen a definition saying that that definition can not be used for a certain thing? Definitions typically define what things are, not what things are not. For example: look up the definition of speed. Can you find saying anywhere that speed can not be used to describe volume? Of course not.

Two give the definition: "In photography, bokeh is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image." (My italics.)

Which two you had in mind? Like we say here: You seem to read those links as the devil reads the bible. Or am I missing something?

Note that I do not dispute that bokeh can be used to refer the quality. I dispute that it would be incorrect to let it refer to the amount.

Are you always disputing the obvious? What else would you like to change?

On the Oly forum some people claim that a magnification factor of 2:1 is the same as 1:1. They confuse the crop factor with the magnification factor. Should we redefine "magnification factor" as well based on the sensor size? No, I don't think so because it would just create more confusion.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
downNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow