Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 867
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
In reply to darngooddesign, 5 months ago

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Ulfric M Douglas wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Bokeh is defined as “the effect of a soft out-of-focus background that you get when shooting a subject, using a fast lens, at the widest aperture, such as f/2.8 or wider.”...

No it isn't.

Bokeh is the quality of the out-of-focus areas in a photograph.

-- hide signature --

Cheksa wrote:
You're evil Ulfric.

Who decides what the quality is? Oh, that must be subjective, unless you can give some concrete qualities of the quality.

Bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the quality of the quality of the blur.

So you mean quality as if I look at a painting and say, " I find that to be a quality work of art", right?  If you mean it that way, bokeh is 100 percent subjective, but then the silly definition going around is meaningless, which is my point.  There is no such thing as a definition with parameters describing a real object or phenomenon that exists only in the mind.

I find the painting to be a "quality" work of art, now ask me to define what I mean by quality so that everyone else will agree that it is a quality work of art.  I CANNOT give you a concrete list that everyone agrees makes this a quality work of art FOR EVERYONE.  When I use quality in this sense, it is COMPLETELY subjective.  The value I place on the painting is completely subjective.

Now, if we say the painting has the quality/aspect of being done on canvas, that is using the word quality in a different way, and a FACTUAL description of some aspect that we can all measure and agree on.  The chair has the quality of being BROWN.  We can all measure the shades and arrive at the same conclusion that the chair is the shade we all agree to call BROWN.  This way of using the word quality is NOT SUBJECTIVE, it is a demonstrable fact that it has the quality of being brown.

So we can say that in the first instance, we can not have a concrete definition for a value judgement an individual places on the painting.  You may NOT find it valuable to you at all, and so we can say that it is completely subjective, we can say that the value of it EXISTS and DOESN'T EXISTS at the same time, since I may feel the value and you don't, so there can be NO real definition that makes that painting valuable to all.

In the second instance, we use the word quality to describe REAL aspects that everyone can agree on, just like we can all agree that the chair has the quality of being brown.  This use is NOT subjective, it can be measured and show to be real for all of us.  It is describable.

Now, when you say that bokeh "IS the quality" of the blur, which use of the word quality are you using?  Surely not the first, the silly definition cannot be a definition if it is talking about complete subjectivity.  You can't have a definition of something that defies defining, understand?    I may find the painting valuable and you may not, there can be no concrete description/definition of why the painting is valuable to me that works for all others.

So you must mean the other, quality as a description of aspects we can all agree on, like the quality of the chair being brown.  Problem here is, you can't describe anything about the bokeh that is also not a description/quality of blur.  Hence, THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME.  Anything you say about bokeh can also be a quality of blur.  I DARE you to tell me a single description/quality about bokeh that cannot be a description of blur as well.  There is not a single aspect we can all agree on that separates bokeh from blur.  They are ONE AND THE SAME.  there can be NOTHING unique about bokeh that separates it from blur.  Round circles, smoothness, choppy, colorless, anything you can say about bokeh can also be a possible description of how blur is in the photo.   The two words mean the exact same thing.  Whether you find the blur/bokeh pleasing or not is completely subjective.

I think I have clearly shown the modern, mystical attempted definition of bokeh to be simply gibberish that can't be rationally defended as being a definition. Bokeh is simply blur due to dof, no artsy, mystical concept there at all.

If it were simply blur, there would just be different amounts of blur, not different kinds of the same amount of blurring.

Wrong, there can be smooth blur or choppy blur, all with the same amount.  this has nothing to do with amount of blur.

But no one is stopping you from just saying, "blur".

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