Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
darngooddesign
Senior MemberPosts: 1,130Gear list
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
In reply to guitarjeff, 4 months ago

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

slimandy wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

Bokeh is absolutely definable as the out of focus areas caused by depth of field.

No it isn't. It is the quality of the blur.

Then give us the parameters of that thing, if you can't, then it is subjective, which isn't real. If bokeh is real, then it is definable, understand? A quality is an aspect of something definable. Saying a real thing is THE QUALITY is ABSOLUTE GIBBERISH and meaningless.

Its the way the way the out of focus area is rendered by the camera/lens combination. This does not change regardless of who is looking at the photo.

In what WAY does it have to be to be called bokeh? You said "THE WAY" and that impliues parameters, something definable, so now go on and define this real thing called quality for us. How big is it, how soft, how bright.... Not sure why you are having such trouble understanding that a quality is a description of a real thing and NOT In ITSELF a real thing.

There IS NO SUCH THING as a quality by itself. There is no such REAL OBJECT or phenomenon that is a quality apart from a description of a REAL thing or phenomenon. Read this sentence ovcer and over. It is a fact, not opinion.

That's like saying the color blue is not a thing because one person might consider it cool and the other warm.

The color blue IS NOT A THING. It is a description of an object or a phenomenon. Tell me, what is blue beyond a real object?

I changed over to blue paint because its not as vague. I can buy blue paint that is made up of specific ingredients which yield a specific color. I can buy a lens that yields a specific style of out of focus blurring. Bokeh is the style of blurring.

Just because that color blue can be considered warm or cool or that style of blurring can be considered soft or angular does not change the fact that those things exist.

Saying bokeh is a "Style" implies definable parameters, so now I ask for those parameters.

From Wiki: Bokeh characteristics may be quantified by examining the image's circle of confusion. In out-of-focus areas, each point of light becomes an image of the aperture, generally a more or less round disc. Depending how a lens is corrected for spherical aberration, the disc may be uniformly illuminated, brighter near the edge, or brighter near the center. Lenses that are poorly corrected for spherical aberration will show one kind of disc for out-of-focus points in front of the plane of focus, and a different kind for points behind. This may actually be desirable, as blur circles that are dimmer near the edges produce less-defined shapes which blend smoothly with the surrounding image. Lens manufacturers including Nikon, Minolta, and Sony make lenses designed with specific controls to change the rendering of the out-of-focus areas.

"Style of blurring" is the important part, "OF BLURRING", and the blurring is the only REAL thing that can be definitely defined as existing beyond subjectivity.

Not necessarily. Two lenses can produce the same amount of blurring with different styles of bokeh.

Different "Styles"? Styles have parameters. There are style of houses, and style of many different real objects. Saying bokeh "IS" the quality is the same as saying STYLE is a real thing beyond a physical object, which of course, it ISN'T. Tell me what a STYLE is beyond a physical object? YOU CAN"T!!!!! Style is real only in as much as it describes a real object or phenomenon.

Bokeh's parameters are how round the points of light are, how evenly they are illuminated.

You are describing QUALITIES OF THE BLUR, come on, this is obvious. Again, tell me what is real BEYOND THE BLUR. How round a point is is PART OF THE BLUR. I want you to tell me what is REAL BEYOND the blur. You can't, because EVERYTHING beyond the actual blur is SUBJECTIVE, plain and simple. All you are doing above is giving me QUALITIES of the blur. "IS THE QUALITY" is meaninglessa. Tel me what the qualities OF THE QUALITY is, WITHOUT using aspects of a real thing like the blur. YOU CAN'T. There is NOTHING beyond the blur that is NOT SUBJECTIVE!!!! How round a point is is a DESCRIPTION that can be measured of a REAL thing called BLUR, get it?

You can have two lenses that provide the same amount of blurring. One has angular bokeh, the other has smooth bokeh.

Wow, just wow. You mean ANGULAR aspects to the blur? YEP, you HAVE to mean that, if not, tell me WHAT IS ANGULAR BEYOND THE BLUR? YOU CAN'T. You continue to give physical qualities of a real thing called blur. I thought you said bokeh is NOT equivalent to blur, yet I am still waiting for you to describe something other than qualities of real blur. Can you or can't you?

I said that bokeh is not just the blur because two lenses can display different bokeh even if they have the same amount of blurring.

Come on. The two lenses show different qualities OF BLUR, it is still a description OF BLUR, Blur has definable qualities, which two different lenses show, but the defines qualities have ZERO qualities BEYOND being blur. You CONTINUE to give qualities/descriptions OF BLUR. because two lenses have different aspects OF BLUR, there is STILL nothing outside that blur that is NOT SUBJECTIVE. if so, TELL ME what they are without using DESCRIPTIONS of blur.

It is the style, the smooth/angular quality of the blur, not the amount of the blur. If it were only the blur, the only difference in bokeh would be how much is being blurred, not what that blurring looks like.

"Smooth" and "Angular" are describing WHAT???? that's right. aspects of the BLUR. They do not describe ANYTHING out side of the real blur. STILL WAITING for you to give a description/quality to the supposed bokeh that exist SEPARATE from the blur.

Those are the qualities of the blurring that are not just the blur. An octagon is not subjective when compared to a circle.

They are qualities of the blur, right., They are not BOKEH unless you want to admit that bokeh and blur are one and the same. Are you finally admitting this? They ARE JUST the blur or you could give descriptions of what it is BEYOND the blur.

Yes, bokeh is the quality of the blur. It is not a separate thing.

No it is NOT. Bokeh is not a quality/description of anything outside of the blur, bokeh IS the BLUR, if not, I DARE you to give a description that is not a QUALITY of the actual, real blur. Bokeh IS the blur, not the QUALITY of the blur. If it is the QUALITY, then qualities are descriptions of real aspects, so tel me what the quality is describing? it describes REAL BLUR that has aspects to it.

Again I ask, tell me what bokeh is BEYOND a simple description of real blur? YOU CAN'T, there is NOTHING in the photo called bokeh that is BEYOND a description of blur, if so, let's hear it. I have proven this over and over as you have yet to describe ANYTHING at all that is not a description of real blur. In other words, there is NO REAL actual OBJECT or physical phenomenon called BOKEH that IS NOT THE BLUR, if so, describe it beyond subjectivity.

Whether you LIKE the real thing called BOKEH/Blur is SUBJECTIVE, that's not real, it has no QUALITIES that can be described. The only way you can describe it, and you have proven this for me already, is by describing REAL QUALITIES (round, soft) of real blur, get it?

I get it which is why I've been saying smooth/angular in the face of your "bokeh has no definable parameters" stance.

What you should be getting is that bokeh IS BLUR, there is NOTHING describable about bokeh beyond blur that is NOT subjective. I am still waiting for you to give me a quality of "THE quality" without it also being a description/quality of real blur. You can't, it's that simple.

Why would I give you a quality of the quality when bokeh is the just the quality of the blur?

This sentence is gibberish. You should because YOU are claiming that quality/description is a THING called bokeh in and of itself, yet REAL things can be defined because they have qualities and aspects, that's how we know they are actually real and not subjective, understand? Now, describe your real quality as a thing by giving me a description of it that does not depend on subjectivity nor a description of aspects of blur. Tell me what a QUALITY is without it being connected to a real phenomenon. YOU CAN'T. All you ever do is describe real blur, you have nothing to show that there is ANYTHING about bokeh that IS NOT blur. I'm still waiting.

Whether you like the bokeh is subjective. Whether the bluring is smooth (circle) or angular (octagon) is not. Being smooth/angular is independent of at the amount of blurring.

Look how you have been backed in to the corner. I said long ago that this has NOTHING to do with the amount of blur. Look how you have been chased back to this? Of course whether the blur is octogon or smooth is NOT subjective, because those are QUALITIES/DESCRIPTIONS of REAL BLUR, they are NOT SUBJECTIVE. Now give me a description of or qualities of THE QUALITY, beyond blur, because you are CLAIMING that bokeh is something BEYONG BLUR, you are claiming this, not me. So vfar it has been a hoot watching you scramble from rock to rock trying to avoid what is obvious. You can tell me NOTHING about bokeh that is NOT subjective without using qualities/descriptions of real blur. In other words, you have yet to show me anything that makes bokeh real BEYOND blur, you can describe NOTHING about bokeh without using qualities/descriptions of REAL blur, get it?

Blur having a shape that we describe as round is NOT subjective, it is a quality of that blur.

No one is saying it is anything other than it is the quality of the blur.

It is NOT the quality. A quality is NOT a thing, describe it, you can't. It is not the quality of the blur, it ACTUALLY IS THE BLUR, and that BLUR has aspects and qualities to it in the real physical world, meaning it HAS TO BE ATTACHED to something REAL, uh, LIKE BLUR. A quality of the blur is a DESCRIPTION, NOT A THING.

To simplify, bokeh is a quality of blur;

No it is not. Brown is a quality of a chair. We can measure the shade of brown,w e can all agree to call that shade brown, the brown shade is a real quality of that chair that can be demonstrated. Now, you give me a quality of bokeh that is also the same for everyone like brown is for everyone when describing the chair.

Curves and angles, circles and octagons are the same for everyone.

it is not a separate thing nor is not a quality of the quality of blur. You can't separate it because it is an aspect of blur, therefore you can't describe it without mentioning blur. But since there are variations on the angularity of the blur, which is not due to a variation in the amount of the blur, it requires an additional term to describe that variation. That term is bokeh.

Why would you call differences in angularity of blur bokeh? You can measure differences in angularity, which makes it real. So are you saying that bokeh is measurable, if so, give me the measurements.

Circles rate 1 on the bokeh scale; octagons rate 0 on the bokeh scale.

Feel free to cite the 'Friedman Bokeh Scale' in future conversations.

 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