Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 846
Like?
Re: In focus area: IQ. >> Out of focus area: Bokeh.
In reply to carlk, 4 months ago

carlk wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

carlk wrote:

You say IQ of the picture is good/bad and Bokeh of the picture is good/bad. Simple as that.

I can live with that. The bokeh (blur is pleasing or not to individuals, that's subjective. the blurs existence in the photo is not subjective, that's a real thing. And if bokeh is to be a real thing, then the only thing it can be beyond subjective is the blur. Simple as that. Made even shorter, --there is no REAL part of bokeh, beyond subjective, OTHER THAN BLUR.

Exactly. It's the same as you can't have an objective or quantitative definition of IQ other than perhaps sharpness.

Right on brother.  It is amazing to watch folks who want this esoteric, mystical concept of bokeh try to hang on to a gibberish definition that isn't a definition at all.

It is obvious that this silly definition was put forth in order to make the word bokeh some mystical thing that only great photogs can understand.  Can't you just see some geeks sitting at a Starbucks saying, "doesn't the word bokeh sound so cool and artsy, like some mystical concept?"  And his friend saying, "yeah, sounds good, but it's just the Japanese word for blur" and the other geek says, "oh man, we can't have such a cool sounding word that rolls off your tongue simply mean something boring like blur, we want it to be a mystical term".

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