Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
RusYus
Senior MemberPosts: 1,241
Like?
Re: don't mix bokeh and background blur...
In reply to guitarjeff, 4 months ago

guitarjeff wrote:

RusYus wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

RusYus wrote:

The fact that there is a cake at the wedding reception is measurable and verifiable, whether YOU like the way it looks or tastes is completely up to you.

that's what bokeh is

OOF background is a fact, and can be predicted (measured) before the shot. Bokeh is how pleasant the qualities of that blur appear to the observer.

Whether someone finds the blur "pleasant" is subjective.

That's the point!

saying this is bokeh is the same thing as saying bokeh is subjective,

'this is bokeh' - does not make sense. its just stating a fact, like 'this cake has some taste'.

if you like the taste of the cake you say its a good cake,

Good cake is completely subjective. You are not saying this about bokeh, are you?

Yes i am. bokeh is completely subjective.

because something completely objective has no concrete definition to all which would mean I am right from the start when i said this silly definitition of bokeh is meaningless.

same with bokeh. It is always present, but whether its good or bad - you decide.

That's my entire point. It is not always present, of course, but if there is blur due to dof, that's bokeh,

no, blur isn't bokeh, blur is cake, but quality of the blur is bokeh. It is present only when out of focus areas are present (obviously), but it is not OOF areas. Back to our example: taste (of the cake that is) is only there when there is cake, but taste isn't the cake. You don't ever say 'this picture has bokeh', as you don't ever say 'this cake has taste'. You say 'this picture has OOF back ground' or 'this picture has NICE bokeh' or 'horrible bokeh'. look at the attached picture carefully, do you see the difference in the blur? guess what - the blur (the amount of it) is THE SAME on all pictures, so if you see any difference - that's the difference in bokeh - quality of blur.

it's the only rational definition of bokeh, because everything outside of blur is subjective. I have waited the entire thread trying to get someone to describe bokeh without describing aspects of blur, and they cannot do it.

which is the same as saying it is NOT REAL and exist only in the mind.

Not sure what you mean here. Is the taste of the cake not real?

The other side cannot say it is NOT real yet then say there is a real definition of it.

Simply put, bokeh IS NOT the quality of the blur, the quality of the blur is completely subjective, which means there is no real definition that explains what it is to everyone.

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