Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
darngooddesign
Senior MemberPosts: 1,314Gear list
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
In reply to guitarjeff, 6 months ago

guitarjeff wrote:

John Motts wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Just bugs me because I see so many people give that silly definition that sounds so cool, but it's simply gibberish. Bokeh is blur due to dof, if you like the bokeh, great, if you don't, then it's bad bokeh to you, but it still either exists or it doesn't exist.

It probably seems gibberish to you because you don't understand it.

Then explain it to me, let's see how you do.

If you compare the out of focus areas of an image shot with a cheap zoom lens with those from a real quality prime, obviously at the same aperture, there really is no question that the quality of the bokeh on the prime is far superior.

The blur between the two is different, but BOTH have REAL descriptions/qualities that DESCRIBE a real phenomenon, BLUR, get it? Superior is another SUBJECTIVE TERM.

Bokeh is no less a quality than sharpness or distortion.

Ridiculous. Distortion is a quality, it can be measured as oppossed to NO distortion. Now tell me how we measure/define bokeh as anything other than aspects to real blur, to a REAL phenomenon in the real world that we can measure? There is NOTHING outside the descriptions of real blur that is called bokeh, if so, let's hear the descriptions. Smoothness, roundness, these are REAL physical qualities to REAL blur. But you say bokeh is NOT JUST BLUR, so you should be able to describe bokeh beyond just giving me descriptions of different aspects of BLUR.

Perhaps we're looking at this wrong and instead of abstracting bokeh as a variable quality we look at it as a deviation from natural.

For the sake of argument, lets say that real blur has smooth bokeh? Bokeh would be measured as deviation towards angular. Distortion is only measurable against no distortion, and good smooth bokeh is only measurable against artificial bad angular bokeh. Bokeh would still be the name for the deviation.

You would then discuss bokeh as a description of how far from natural it is in the same way you discuss distortion. That doesn't change the fact that bokeh is still a quality of blur independent from the amount of blur, its just a different way of considering things. Instead of a subjective good/bad bokeh, you have an objective natural/artificial bokeh.

Your opinion on how it looks would still be subjective.

 darngooddesign's gear list:darngooddesign's gear list
Canon PowerShot S90 Canon PowerShot S100 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
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