PIX 2015

Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

Started Mar 6, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Senior MemberPosts: 1,049
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
In reply to darngooddesign, Mar 6, 2014

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Both these photos have blurring, but with different qualities.

That's right. The qualities are descriptions of a REAL thing--BLUR. The roundness, smoothness, are descriptions, or QUALITIES, of something REAL, that is BLUR. You are saying that quality ITSELF is a thing, if so, you should be able to give me aspects or QUALITIES of the real thing called quality, BEYOND THE BLUR. The blur is REAL, so the softness, or roundness are DESCRIPTION of a real thing--BLUR. Since you say bokeh is NOT just blur, then you should be able to give me some descriptive qualities of that quality, roundness and smoothness CANNOT BE IT, those are qualities of the BLUR. Tell me what the bokeh is BEYOND THE BLUR, YOU CAN'T, it's that simple.

You are correct, bokeh is the name for the quality of the blur.

It is neither good nor bad; its just a more specific term so you don't say things like "I like that blur" because someone might just think you like the amount of the blur instead of how smooth/angular that blur is.

Bokeh and blur are one and the same, yep. Bokeh just sounds more mystical, artsy but it IS blur, there is nothing that can be described about it that is not subjective beyond the blur.

There is the amount of the blurring and the visual quality of the blurring.

Amount of blur is meaningless.  If there is any, it's blur/bokeh as long as it is there because of dof.  Visual quality is NOT A THING.  "Visual quality" is subjective  Visual means visual quality to an individual, which means that's subjective.

They are not separate, nor are they exactly the same. You can either just say "blur" or come up with your own less-artsy term for the quality of the blur.

It has nothing to do with the quality of the blur.  Qualities are descriptions of real aspects, not subjective.  You can also use the word quality to mean VALUABLE to you personally, but that is COMPLETELY subjective.  several of you are mixing these two meanings up.

If I see a painting and say, "That painting is a quality work of art", then quality in that sense is COMPLETELY subjective.  Someone else may completely disagree that it is a quality art work.

Now, if we say, the painting has the quality of being done on canvas, that is NOT SUBJECTIVE.  It is either on canvas or it isn't in the real world, it won't be on canvas for one person and not for another.

There is NO definition that means anything if the word quality means as it does in the first instance.  Since the first instance is COMPLETELY subjective, then there is nothing real about that meaning, it exists only in the mind.  Now, we know you folks don't mean this since you have already claimed that bokeh isn't just in the mind and does not exist in the real world, you claim it is a REAL thing, like we used the word quality in the second instance.  Now, lets see how that works.  In the second instance, the painting has the quality of being on canvas, you see, that has a REAL description of that aspect and it can be proven measured, it is REAL.  Now if your bokeh is the same realness, you too should be able to show me some real aspects about it that are also based on something real, like being on canvas.

Whether we like the various qualities of that blur are up to us subjectively.


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