Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 920
Like?
Re: it really seems like you are willfully misunderstanding. But here's one last shot
In reply to Matthew Miller, 9 months ago

Matthew Miller wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

There are several aspects to bokeh that make it more or less desirable.

To you, or to many? If I like it, and you don't, does that mean there is MORE bokeh for me and less for you? Is it subjective?

Okay, I'm going to try one more thing. No, wait, two things because I have a different point below. But let's start with the first one:

Let's

Bokeh isn't a scale where more of it is good and less of it is bad,

True.

and there's a subjective element to how much there might be.

That is obvious, it's subjective.  You either like it or you don't, or you could be neutral and not see any good or bad in it.

It is a thing which exists, and which can be rated subjectively on a scale from good to bad, not more to less.

Tell me WHAT exists, blur, or  something MORE than just qualities of oof areas?  I say it exists because it IS blur and there are aspects to blurs, some might like those aspects, some might not.  What it is NOT is some thing that is only defined as "The quality" of the oof area.  "The quality" is not a definable thing or you would be able to give me the parameters of it.  here's the big question.  If it is "The quality", how can we know if I am seeing enough of the quality for it to be bokeh?  As i said, there are two meanings to the word, Quality.  One use is this "To me that painting is a quality work of art".  That usage is 100 percent subjective..  The other use is as a description of any definable aspect of an actual thing or phenomenon.  Now, you either have a thrid usage you can define for us all, or you will use one of the two I have already given.  A quality is NOT A THING IN AND OF ITSELF, understand?  Separate it from a physical object or phenomenon, and tell me what a quality is?  YOU CAN'T!!!!

So here's the thing I'm trying. Let's talk about food. Food has flavor.

yeah, though I have tasted food that almost had NO flavor.  But that's beside the point, I'm with ya so far.

Some food has more flavor, some is bland.

STOP THE TAPE.  While some food has more or less flavor--"BLAND" is a SUBJECTIVE word.  Your bland may be my hot and spicy.  Are we still together?  Bland would be a SUBJECTIVE description of a personal opinion that others may not hold.

That basically depends on how much spice is in the food. The amount of flavor is pretty much objective.

Pretty much

However, the taste is a subjective:

That's right, I may find it SUBJECTIVELY BLAND, while you find it doing dances on your tongue.  I am taking this sentence apart very closely, let's continue.

you might like it, I might not.

That's correct, I say hmm, you say Yuk.  Still together here, I am proud of both of us.

But we can both say: wow, this has a strong flavor

STOP THE TAPE!!!!    Strong is also A SUBJECTIVE STATEMENT.  I may eat much stronger food and this food to me DOESN't HAVE a strong flavor.  How could you possibly not understand that saying it is "Strong" is EXACTLY as saying it is "BLAND".  they are both SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS.   Looks like you need to adjust your path to hang with me.  If bland is subjective on one end, "STRONG is subjective on the other, RIGHT???

, or wow, this has a weak flavor, and agree.

STOP THE TAPE!!!    See above.  Weak is SUBJECTIVE, right?  RIGHT!!!

It has NOTHING to do with how out of focus something is. Only the quality of the blur circles (that might not even be circular, but that is another story).

I never said it had anything to do with the amount of blur. The amount of blur is only one QUALITY of the blur, some may like more, some may like less, amount has nothing to do with it's actual existence. If bokeh is a THING, then it is definable with concrete parameters, if it is subjective, then it's not definable.

It is actually the case that there are some pretty well agreed-on concrete parameters which contribute to good bokeh.

Let's hear them.  I hope they won't be like your concrete definuitions of "Strong" and "weak", because you were FLAT OUT wrong about those.  Let's see.

This isn't absolute — it's like saying that clarity is good in diamonds — but generally, people agree.

"Generally" is not definite, if anyone at all can hold a different opinion and you can't show it is ABSOLUTELY wrong, then it is subjective.

Specifically, a slight degree of spherical aberration contributes to smooth transitions ("creamy bokeh") in out of focus areas

You mean in the blur, right, in oof areas.

(and that's typically seen as "good bokeh"),

"Typically" = "generally".  They are both up for OPINION, not anything absolute.  If my chair has the quality of having 90 degree angles in a couple spots, that is not GENERALLY or TYPICALLY.  It has that quality ABSOLUTELY 100 percent, no opinions about it.  Are we still together?  I hope so.

while lenses which overcompensate (forming donut-shaped rings around specular highlights) have busier background blur ("nervous bokeh", generally "bad bokeh")

Busier, Nervous, Generally again?  Anyway, I get what you are saying--Some lenses have different looking BLUR in oof areas, I'm with ya.

This is a real thing.

Yeah, it's REAL BLUR, that's what bokeh is, REAL BLUR, So?  Your point is what?

If we see a duck, and you say, uh, that's not a duck, it's muck.  I say, really?  That looks like a duck.  And you say, well that's a mistake many make, you have to know what to look for to know the difference.  So I Say, "fine, tell what those things are so I will know the difference from now on as well."  And you say "well, it has black wings", I say, so does a certain species of duck, so that can't be the defining difference.  Then after about a dozen claims from you without showing a single thing about a muck that can't also exist in ducks, you go the final, illogical step and say 'A Muck IS THE DIFFERENCE between a duck and a muck" I say, well explain the difference, and you say, no need to, the *difference itself* is actually the muck (the quality itself of the blur is bokeh, sound familiar?)

I'll ask again, Define what bokeh is using definable aspects it has that CANNOT also be aspects of blur.  If you are claiming that bokeh is something more than blur in the real world, YOU MUST BE ABLE say something about that difference that CANNOT be in the definition of blur, can you not understand this obvious concept?  If it is different, then it HAS TO HAVE SOME different aspects or QUALITIES that show it to be a separate thing than just blur.  IF YOU CAN'T, then if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, sounds like a duck, has no definable aspects that a duck cannot have, then IT IS A DUCK, not a muck.

ANYTHING you tell me about bokeh, I CAN USE IN A DESCRIPTION OF THE POSSIBLE QUALITIES of a photo with blur.

You say the bokeh has round circles, I say the BLUR has round circles, You say the bokeh is CHOPPY, I say that blur is choppy. The two words AND THE TWO THINGS ARE ONE AND THe SAME.

SHOW ME how you can describe or use the word BOKEH where I CANNOT change the word to blur and have the meaning be the same?  Can you do this?  i DARE YOU, do it.  If you say "The bokeh has a beautiful smoothness to it". I can say "The blur has a beautiful smoothness to it.  You say that bokeh has a unique angular aspect to it, I can say that blur has a unique angular aspect to it.

Now please define what bokeh is that cannot also be a description of an aspect of blur.  YOU CAN't.  That's why the sillt attempt to get around it by saying the goofy "it's the quality" of the blur.  The blur xan have the same qualities too, understand?  I think you do, the question is, will you be big enough to admit it.

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