Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
Matthew Miller
Senior MemberPosts: 1,251Gear list
Like?
Re: actually, the first part of your quoted definition is wrong
In reply to guitarjeff, 9 months ago

guitarjeff wrote:

Appearance OF A THING in and of itself IS An ACTUAL THING, it IS NOT subjective. Whether you like it is the subjective part. You say "Appearance of the blur" "THE BLUR" is the part that matters, you just said it yourself but you are putting a false meaning to the work appearance as if only appearance is a definable thing, and this is wrong. You have to define what is appearing, and what is appearing, as you just said, IS BLUR, the BLUR is appearing, and that's the only part of it that CAN BE defined. So if bokeh is a REAL thing, then it IS BLUR, that's what APPEARS, the blur. The blur is the only possible, ACTUAL thing that makes an appearance, so we can define that THING as blur, that's exactly what it is. Bokeh is blur, the bokeh, MAKES AN APPEARANCE in the photo, you decide whether you like that bokeh, not whether it actually exists or not.

Saying things in capital letters doesn't make them any more accurate.

Simply put, bokeh is the pleasing or aesthetic quality of out-of-focus blur in a photograph.

Or it is the not-pleasing aesthetic quality.

So the bokeh is there whether someone likes it or not? YEP, and what is actually there that can be defined? BLUR (BOKEH)

A rock can have many qualities. Some of these relate to appearance. It can be shiny, it can be dull; it can be gray, or it can be red. Others are about other things: the rock can be brittle or not, it can be of different weights, it can be porous or solid. It can have different mineral composition. It could be valuable, or not. All of these things are "actually there", and only some of them are the aesthetic qualities.

But you are saying "YEP, and what is actually there that can be defined? IT IS A ROCK."

That's not helpful.

In actuality, it turns out that we have a term that applies to the appearance of out-of-focus blur. That term is "bokeh".

If it is , meaning it has a REAL existence, then you have to be able to define the parameters. A chair is a real thing, and we can all measure it, see it. touch it and agree

Right, so, we can actually define the parameters that go into bokeh. Just like we can have definitions for different colors of rocks.

about it's qualities, it's size is a quality, it's color, it's texture. There can be no disagreements, it's a REAL, actual thing, and because it is real it can be precisely defined. Now, please define bokeh for me. The only real thing you can show is real IS THE BLUR, that's what bokeh is, the blur.

"Good bokeh" or "bad bokeh" are subjective to a degree, although there are certain aspects which are generally agreed to be one or the other.

Yep, good or bad to someone exists only in their mind, that's subjective, that has nothing to do with whether the bokeh actually exists or not.

Correct. Just like someone might think a certain rock is pretty and someone else might not. There's general agreement that certain rocks (rubies, say) are prettier than others, but even then not everyone agrees.

If Bokeh "is" the quality, then is it a sliding scale, meaning one person can say there is bokeh in a photo while another says there is none at all? Saying bokeh is the quality is not a definition at all. That's why I define it as simply the blur due to shallow depth of field.

That's fine, although don't put too much emphasis on "shallow". And, again, it is a word specifically referring to the appearance of the blur, not the existence.

The appearance of the blur makes it a real thing. The decision whether you like it's appearance or not is SUBJECTIVE.

This is also true. I'm not sure why you are so angry about it.

Nope, I have clearly and logically shown you that either something is real or it isn't. Saying it is THE QUALITY of blur is gibberish. A quality is an aspect, like something being brown, or red, that's a quality. The quality itself is not a THING.

???

Right, it's true that you can't, like, pick up and hold bokeh. It's not that kind of thing. It is still "a thing". The appearance of rocks is also "a thing".

-- hide signature --

Matthew Miller « http://mattdm.org/ »

 Matthew Miller's gear list:Matthew Miller's gear list
Pentax K-5 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 40mm F2.8 Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited
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