Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 847
Like?
Re: actually, the first part of your quoted definition is wrong
In reply to Matthew Miller, 4 months ago

Matthew Miller wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

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

Said goodbye to the thread a while ago, but I might as well have a little more fun.   I don't use the capital letters to be more accurate, that has nothing to do with size of letters.  I use them to emphasize, and they do just that and that's my personal style of debating.

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.

Exactly what I have been saying.

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

That's not helpful.

It is if someone needed that info.  Not sure why you mention it, though.

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

That's correct, same word I use to define oof areas due to shallow dof.  This is the definition of bokeh that is factually correct.  We agree.

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.

Then PLEASE DO SO.  I hope you are going to say oof areas, or blur, because that's what it is.

Just like we can have definitions for different colors of rocks.

Right.  So far we are pretty spot on together.

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.

Yep  You appear to be substantiating my arguments.  I agree.

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.

Angry? That's a false assumption on your part.  I have enjoyed the thread and had good laughs all the way through it.  I think a few have said they have enjoyed it.  So, no anger here.

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".

Again, I agree.  It is a phenomenon, it is oof area due to the subject being in a shallower dof than the area of the frame. one and the same.  Looks like we pretty much agree on the main points, not sure why i even replied, probably because the thread has been so enjoyable.  Thanks for participating.

-- hide signature --

Matthew Miller « http://mattdm.org/ »

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