Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 896
Like?
Re: don't mix bokeh and background blur...
In reply to RusYus, 7 months ago

RusYus wrote:

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,

great, I'll have some.

but quality of the blur is bokeh.

Then define the parameters of that quality so that we all know we are looking at actual bokeh.  Without those defined parameters, we would be all over the place, bokeh would both exist and not exist at the same time, and you think that is REAL?  How do you have a definition of something that can both be there and not be there at the same time?

It is present only when out of focus areas are present (obviously),

Yep, in other words, no such thing as bokeh without blur, NEVER EVER EVER, just as I said, there is no such thing as bokeh beyond blur.  If there is, describe the qualities of the bokeh without simply naming qualities of blur, hint, YOU CAN'T.  Any description you give of bokeh I can say is nothing more that a description/quality that blur can have.

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.

Right.  Taste is not a cake just as "THE quality" is not a real thing or phenomenon in the real world.  No such thing as a thing that is a QUALITY in and of itself.  a quality is, get this, EITHER A DESCRIPTION OF AN ASPECT OF A REAL THING THAT CAN BE DEFINED AND measured, (the chair has the quality of being made of wood), or it is a completely subjective concept, (I find the painting to be a quality example of art, othersmay not.)     If you have any other definition of the word "quality", please paste it here

_______________________________________________

You don't ever say 'this picture has bokeh',

Who doesn't?  I do, al the time.  If I see blur due to the subject focus being a smaller part of the entire frame, I say the photo has bokeh.

as you don't ever say 'this cake has taste'.

Nope, I say this taste good or not, which is completely subjective, meaning there would be NO WAY for me to define for everyone what good tasting cake is.

You say 'this picture has OOF back ground' or 'this picture has NICE bokeh' or 'horrible bokeh'.

Nope, many times I don't put a value on it because I feel neither way, i just see it as bokeh, or neutral.

look at the attached picture carefully, do you see the difference in the blur?

You mean bokeh, not really. I see bokeh exist in all of them, I don't value any of them over the other with a quick glance.  Wonder where you are heading with this.

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.

Ridiculous.  If ther are REAL DIFFERENCES, then they are definable for all.  Any quality perceptions are COMPLETELY subjective, and there would be NOTHING rational about calling THE QUALITY bokeh.  If there is something different in the blur that makes it bokeh AND NOT BLUR, something beyond the blur, then DEFINE IT FOR ME so we can agree on what we are seeing that is beyond the blur.  I am waiting.

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