Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
KariP
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,451Gear list
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, interesting - brown olor is not "quality"
In reply to guitarjeff, 4 months ago

"To simplify, bokeh is a quality of blur;

No it is not. Brown is a quality of a chair. We can measure the shade of brown,w e can all agree to call that shade brown, the brown shade is a real quality of that chair that can be demonstrated. Now, you give me a quality of bokeh that is also the same for everyone like brown is for everyone when describing the chair.-- "

Brown is just  a description of a group of colors - there are thousand of different "browns" - some of them more like disgusting and some pleasing - beautiful even .  And you can make a "brown" color (paint) in many ways by blending greens and reds and other stuff. Just try.

And we do NOT see the colors in a same way - not even if we belong to this same species, humans . Some of us  males have a genetic green/red deficiency and they do NOT see the same "quality" - hey might claim that your "brown" (you say it is objective ) is more like green. And they know what they see and say YOU are wrong.

I'm looking at my chair that is a well known modernistic "design icon" - hell, it looks good and it is red - the color looks very good in this home against that background. My subjective vision is the whole truth about this. A beautiful HIGH QUALITY chair - and you can not argue.  You can NOT see it. I can.

Some people see bokeh pleasing  - some do not. We have to start measuring our brain waves if we want to measure this... 

Kari
SLR photography started in 1968, Canon DSLR cameras, lenses and now also a Fuji X-E1
60.21 N 24.86 E

 KariP's gear list:KariP's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 7D Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
darngooddesign
Senior MemberPosts: 1,128Gear list
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
In reply to guitarjeff, 4 months ago

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Both these photos have blurring, but with different qualities.

That's right. The qualities are descriptions of a REAL thing--BLUR. The roundness, smoothness, are descriptions, or QUALITIES, of something REAL, that is BLUR. You are saying that quality ITSELF is a thing, if so, you should be able to give me aspects or QUALITIES of the real thing called quality, BEYOND THE BLUR. The blur is REAL, so the softness, or roundness are DESCRIPTION of a real thing--BLUR. Since you say bokeh is NOT just blur, then you should be able to give me some descriptive qualities of that quality, roundness and smoothness CANNOT BE IT, those are qualities of the BLUR. Tell me what the bokeh is BEYOND THE BLUR, YOU CAN'T, it's that simple.

You are correct, bokeh is the name for the quality of the blur.

It is neither good nor bad; its just a more specific term so you don't say things like "I like that blur" because someone might just think you like the amount of the blur instead of how smooth/angular that blur is.

Bokeh and blur are one and the same, yep. Bokeh just sounds more mystical, artsy but it IS blur, there is nothing that can be described about it that is not subjective beyond the blur.

There is the amount of the blurring and the visual quality of the blurring.

Amount of blur is meaningless. If there is any, it's blur/bokeh as long as it is there because of dof. Visual quality is NOT A THING. "Visual quality" is subjective Visual means visual quality to an individual, which means that's subjective.

Amount of blur is not meaningless term unless "very little blur" is the same to you as "a lot of blur".

It is EXACTLY the same if you are asking what both are made of. One teaspoon of salt is salt just as a ton of salt is salt.

However if you want to say "the appropriate amount of blur for that depth of field" go right ahead.

We're discussing how much blur and what the blur is made of.

 darngooddesign's gear list:darngooddesign's gear list
Canon PowerShot S90 Canon PowerShot S100 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 846
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
In reply to darngooddesign, 4 months ago

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Ulfric M Douglas wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Bokeh is defined as “the effect of a soft out-of-focus background that you get when shooting a subject, using a fast lens, at the widest aperture, such as f/2.8 or wider.”...

No it isn't.

Bokeh is the quality of the out-of-focus areas in a photograph.

-- hide signature --

Cheksa wrote:
You're evil Ulfric.

Who decides what the quality is? Oh, that must be subjective, unless you can give some concrete qualities of the quality.

Bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the quality of the quality of the blur.

So you mean quality as if I look at a painting and say, " I find that to be a quality work of art", right?  If you mean it that way, bokeh is 100 percent subjective, but then the silly definition going around is meaningless, which is my point.  There is no such thing as a definition with parameters describing a real object or phenomenon that exists only in the mind.

I find the painting to be a "quality" work of art, now ask me to define what I mean by quality so that everyone else will agree that it is a quality work of art.  I CANNOT give you a concrete list that everyone agrees makes this a quality work of art FOR EVERYONE.  When I use quality in this sense, it is COMPLETELY subjective.  The value I place on the painting is completely subjective.

Now, if we say the painting has the quality/aspect of being done on canvas, that is using the word quality in a different way, and a FACTUAL description of some aspect that we can all measure and agree on.  The chair has the quality of being BROWN.  We can all measure the shades and arrive at the same conclusion that the chair is the shade we all agree to call BROWN.  This way of using the word quality is NOT SUBJECTIVE, it is a demonstrable fact that it has the quality of being brown.

So we can say that in the first instance, we can not have a concrete definition for a value judgement an individual places on the painting.  You may NOT find it valuable to you at all, and so we can say that it is completely subjective, we can say that the value of it EXISTS and DOESN'T EXISTS at the same time, since I may feel the value and you don't, so there can be NO real definition that makes that painting valuable to all.

In the second instance, we use the word quality to describe REAL aspects that everyone can agree on, just like we can all agree that the chair has the quality of being brown.  This use is NOT subjective, it can be measured and show to be real for all of us.  It is describable.

Now, when you say that bokeh "IS the quality" of the blur, which use of the word quality are you using?  Surely not the first, the silly definition cannot be a definition if it is talking about complete subjectivity.  You can't have a definition of something that defies defining, understand?    I may find the painting valuable and you may not, there can be no concrete description/definition of why the painting is valuable to me that works for all others.

So you must mean the other, quality as a description of aspects we can all agree on, like the quality of the chair being brown.  Problem here is, you can't describe anything about the bokeh that is also not a description/quality of blur.  Hence, THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME.  Anything you say about bokeh can also be a quality of blur.  I DARE you to tell me a single description/quality about bokeh that cannot be a description of blur as well.  There is not a single aspect we can all agree on that separates bokeh from blur.  They are ONE AND THE SAME.  there can be NOTHING unique about bokeh that separates it from blur.  Round circles, smoothness, choppy, colorless, anything you can say about bokeh can also be a possible description of how blur is in the photo.   The two words mean the exact same thing.  Whether you find the blur/bokeh pleasing or not is completely subjective.

I think I have clearly shown the modern, mystical attempted definition of bokeh to be simply gibberish that can't be rationally defended as being a definition. Bokeh is simply blur due to dof, no artsy, mystical concept there at all.

If it were simply blur, there would just be different amounts of blur, not different kinds of the same amount of blurring.

Wrong, there can be smooth blur or choppy blur, all with the same amount.  this has nothing to do with amount of blur.

But no one is stopping you from just saying, "blur".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
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
darngooddesign
Senior MemberPosts: 1,128Gear list
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
In reply to guitarjeff, 4 months ago

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Ulfric M Douglas wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Bokeh is defined as “the effect of a soft out-of-focus background that you get when shooting a subject, using a fast lens, at the widest aperture, such as f/2.8 or wider.”...

No it isn't.

Bokeh is the quality of the out-of-focus areas in a photograph.

-- hide signature --

Cheksa wrote:
You're evil Ulfric.

Who decides what the quality is? Oh, that must be subjective, unless you can give some concrete qualities of the quality.

Bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the quality of the quality of the blur.

So you mean quality as if I look at a painting and say, " I find that to be a quality work of art", right? If you mean it that way, bokeh is 100 percent subjective, but then the silly definition going around is meaningless, which is my point. There is no such thing as a definition with parameters describing a real object or phenomenon that exists only in the mind.

That is not how I mean't it.

I think I have clearly shown the modern, mystical attempted definition of bokeh to be simply gibberish that can't be rationally defended as being a definition. Bokeh is simply blur due to dof, no artsy, mystical concept there at all.

If it were simply blur, there would just be different amounts of blur, not different kinds of the same amount of blurring.

Wrong, there can be smooth blur or choppy blur, all with the same amount. this has nothing to do with amount of blur.

Exactly my point. But instead of saying smooth blur others choose to say smooth bokeh, or whether they like that bokeh. All these terms describe the visual quality of the blur.

 darngooddesign's gear list:darngooddesign's gear list
Canon PowerShot S90 Canon PowerShot S100 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 846
Like?
Re: Who is a good photographer - and what is the definitive moment...good questions
In reply to KariP, 4 months ago

KariP wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

........

Who decides what the quality is? Oh, that must be subjective, unless you can give some concrete qualities of the quality.

I think I have clearly shown the modern, mystical attempted definition of bokeh to be simply gibberish that can't be rationally defended as being a definition. Bokeh is simply blur due to dof, no artsy, mystical concept there at all.

Good question ! What is quality - of anything? Who knows and how - and why is HE entitled to say anything....

Absolutely correct.  Either quality is completely subjective, "I think the painting is overall is a quality work of art" Others may not, which means completely in the mind.  And the other is quality as a description of something concrete that can be measured, the chair has the quality of being brown.  Saying bokeh "IS THE QUALITY" is simply meaningless gibberish.

What is the definitive moment we/some talk about , the thing that "makes" the image something - or something special

I admire for example Cartier-Bresson and Doisneau - and many others. That is very subjective - i have not found any proofs based on some/any measurable criteria.

Great example.  It is valuable to you subjectively, no way to have a definition of what that value is that everyone could measure and agree on, so the other side can't mean "Is the quality" in this way, or they would be admitting that it exist only in the mind.  Yet when we ask them to define it in the real world for all to agree on all they can do is gives qualities/descriptions of differing kinds of blur, which is all still, BLUR.  If bokeh is anything beyond blur they should be able to give a concrete set of parametrs that explain what is is for all and it would clearly show it is something MORE than blur, but they can't, which makes the so called definition nothing but gibberish.

In a very logic way : i think they are good photographers because i think they create good images....and some others see their old photos just as unsharp B&W boring snapshots. And i think they are good - no objectivity at all... who could decide they are good ? Who is the supreme photographer's god ?

But how do we define for example "definitive moment in photography" ? It is just random moment (1/250sec) in some very random place anytime - and the subject can be whatever. How can THAT be definitive - and who can tell when that moment comes? Photography is full of good questions!

Here a guy tries to find an answer with a psychological method, in a rather long essay :

Photographic Psychology: The Decisive Moment

And in the end he says: "Although I have attempted in this article to identify the specific psychological elements of the decisive moment, it is very much an artistic, philosophical, and poetic concept that’s not easy to pin down in any specific way. If you examine online photo-sharing groups devoted to DM photography, each group defines it differently. Some have very strict, meticulous criteria (different than what I propose). Some offer a simple definition, such as “Have you been blessed by space and time, to have pressed the shutter release button at exactly the precise moment to get the perfect shot?” Others simply refuse to explain it at all. - See more at: http://truecenterpublishing.com/photopsy/decisive_moment.htm#sthash.VDaMjr8o.dpuf "

Some lenses are used by some photographers - and some see the bokeh results as great - seeing something is a skill. Especially if you see before you push the button. You have it or you can get it by practice. I mean seeing and using a thing like "bokeh" to create better images.

This is a very good project ! just study it say, next 10 years.

-- hide signature --

Kari
SLR photography started in 1968, Canon DSLR cameras, lenses and now also a Fuji X-E1
60.21 N 24.86 E

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
darngooddesign
Senior MemberPosts: 1,128Gear list
Like?
Good conversation guys, I'm out.
In reply to guitarjeff, 4 months ago

Oh yeah… GuitarJeff is wrong.

 darngooddesign's gear list:darngooddesign's gear list
Canon PowerShot S90 Canon PowerShot S100 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 846
Like?
Re: plain silly and not logical
In reply to tko, 4 months ago

tko wrote:

So, do we go around throwing out every word in the dictionary that isn't defined by measurable parameters?

Why would you do that?

Happy? Pretty? Sad, beautiful, sexy, good, evil, right, wrong, fun, art. A great photo, an artistic photo, a pretty photo.

Nothing wrong at all with the dictionary explaining terms which are subjective.  If I feel a certain way but don't know what to call it, one of these explanations might help me understand a word that might better describe it.  All words in the dictionary need not define ACTUAL things or phenomenon.

None of these are measurable, yet we all pretty much know what they mean, and use them everyday with no controversy.

Yep, no need for controversy.

Bokeh is very well defined.

Yep, and the only rational definition is "blur in a photo due to a dof that doesn't encompass the entire frame."  Saying it is THE QUALITY of blur is meaningless nonsense.

Not only it how out of focus the background is, but it is how smooth and pleasing the transitions are.

You mean how smooth the BLUR is.  Whether it's pleasing or not is completely subjective.

I'm sure if someone was bored enough they could come up w/a way of measuring the blur quality.

Really?  I would love to see that.

I'm always amazed when newbies step and try to redesign words that have been in common use for years.

Newbie?  I have been a member of dpr for a couple years or more.  I redefined nothing, I gave a completely logical explanation of why it is silly gibberish to say that bokeh IS THE QUALITY of the blur.  Quality is not a THING in the real world.  It is either a decription of real aspects, or it  can be used in a completely subjective way that can't be defined for everyone to agree with.

A photographer should have some qualities of the artist in his soul. I feel sorry for you if the only concepts that exist in your mind are those that can be measured, weighed, and counted.

Have a nice day.

Ridiculous, we are talking about whether a definition is rational or not.  A concept does not have to be measured to be a concept.  The point stands, the defintion going around is not a definition at all. it's meaningless drivel.

A quality is an aspect of something. An aspect or quality of something has definable parameters. Never have accepted the artsy definition thrown around because a definition has to be definite, or it isn't definition.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 846
Like?
Re: Good conversation guys, I'm out.
In reply to darngooddesign, 4 months ago

darngooddesign wrote:

Oh yeah… GuitarJeff is wrong.

But you just can't define how, lol.:-D

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
darngooddesign
Senior MemberPosts: 1,128Gear list
Like?
Re: Good conversation guys, I'm out.
In reply to guitarjeff, 4 months ago

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

Oh yeah… GuitarJeff is wrong.

But you just can't define how, lol.:-D

.5 on the Friedman Bokeh Scale.

 darngooddesign's gear list:darngooddesign's gear list
Canon PowerShot S90 Canon PowerShot S100 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Les Lammers
Senior MemberPosts: 2,198Gear list
Like?
Re: Good conversation guys, I'm out.
In reply to guitarjeff, 4 months ago

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

Oh yeah… GuitarJeff is wrong.

But you just can't define how, lol.:-D

I had it but the words have escaped me. Maybe the Bokeh Man is responsible.

 Les Lammers's gear list:Les Lammers's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X10 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jmczaja
Forum MemberPosts: 56Gear list
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
In reply to guitarjeff, 4 months ago

First, i think bokeh is a silly word and i personally never use it!

Can we just make this easy and say bokeh is a TYPE of blur caused by a camera lens' ability to render out of focus areas (DOF)?

Kinda like.. Fuzz or overdrive is a type of 'distortion' coming from a guitar amp.

 jmczaja's gear list:jmczaja's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,346Gear list
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
In reply to guitarjeff, 4 months ago

guitarjeff wrote:

slimandy wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

Bokeh is absolutely definable as the out of focus areas caused by depth of field.

No it isn't. It is the quality of the blur.

Then give us the parameters of that thing, if you can't, then it is subjective, which isn't real. If bokeh is real, then it is definable, understand? A quality is an aspect of something definable. Saying a real thing is THE QUALITY is ABSOLUTE GIBBERISH and meaningless.

Bokeh IS subjective.

You can have more or less, which is user controlled.

No, you can have more or less blur but not more or less bokeh,

Define it then, so we can all agree what bokeh actually is, since you are saying it is REAL. If you CAN'T define it, it isn't real. What is the only REAL thing in the photo you can define? YOU GOT IT, BLUR. How you get it, using distance and all that is meaningless. Subject distance alters dof, so the blur is still thaqt which is not in the dof, it matters not how you got the depth of field, distance, aperture, whatever, it's still blur due to dof.

It's the aesthetic quality of the blur.

and the amount of blur is not just governed by depth of field. A longer lens will give more blur for the same framing and same depth of field.

Meaningless. Whatever is out of focus and not be subject movement or camera shake, or focus errors is blur because of the dof.

That's not the point. That might be where you are confused. If you use a longer lens and frame your subject the same way you will get more BG blur even with the same DoF.

You can have good and bad, which is a characteristic of the lens. For example, I think this is bad bokeh, like someone blurred an area and then ran a really harsh sharpness filter in photoshop. While good/bad is subjective if most people consider the quality of bokeh from this lens to be unpleasant you can then objectively say that the lens provides bad bokeh.

I agree this is bad, but it is subjective and some people might like it.

When people say a photo has nice bokeh, they are referring to a combination of how much and how good the quality of the bokeh is to them.

They are not quite accurate then. They should only be referring aesthetic quality of the blur. Shallower DoF may affect the quality of the bokeh by giving more blur but so will other factors such as narrow field of view.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bokeh

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 846
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, interesting - brown olor is not "quality"
In reply to KariP, 4 months ago

KariP wrote:

"To simplify, bokeh is a quality of blur;

No it is not. Brown is a quality of a chair. We can measure the shade of brown,w e can all agree to call that shade brown, the brown shade is a real quality of that chair that can be demonstrated. Now, you give me a quality of bokeh that is also the same for everyone like brown is for everyone when describing the chair.-- "

Brown is just a description of a group of colors - there are thousand of different "browns" - some of them more like disgusting and some pleasing - beautiful even . And you can make a "brown" color (paint) in many ways by blending greens and reds and other stuff. Just try.

What we call brown matters not. the point is, we can all see the shades and agree to call it brown. Human beings see the same shades and can differentiate them, that's all that matters.

And we do NOT see the colors in a same way - not even if we belong to this same species, humans . Some of us males have a genetic green/red deficiency and they do NOT see the same "quality" - hey might claim that your "brown" (you say it is objective ) is more like green. And they know what they see and say YOU are wrong.

We know how the eye cones work, how they capture the visible light spectrum. color isn't something that is arbitrary light at certain wave lengths that even if we were totally blind we could measure.
but there are some people out there who are color blind for whom green and red can be confused as each other. but this is a abnormality in the functioning of the eye.  Really, are you going to go this far in to saying bokeh is something different than blur, really?

I'm looking at my chair that is a well known modernistic "design icon" - hell, it looks good and it is red - the color looks very good in this home against that background. My subjective vision is the whole truth about this. A beautiful HIGH QUALITY chair - and you can not argue. You can NOT see it. I can.

Our eyes, for what we are talking about operate the same if we are both healthy.  this is meaningless stuff here.  Our value of something is COMPLETELY subjective, the tiny differences in shades that two healthy eyes see is meaningless to talk about in this debate.

Some people see bokeh pleasing - some do not. We have to start measuring our brain waves if we want to measure this...

That is thier value of it, completely subjective.

Kari
SLR photography started in 1968, Canon DSLR cameras, lenses and now also a Fuji X-E1
60.21 N 24.86 E

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 846
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
In reply to slimandy, 4 months ago

slimandy wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

slimandy wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

Bokeh is absolutely definable as the out of focus areas caused by depth of field.

No it isn't. It is the quality of the blur.

Then give us the parameters of that thing, if you can't, then it is subjective, which isn't real. If bokeh is real, then it is definable, understand? A quality is an aspect of something definable. Saying a real thing is THE QUALITY is ABSOLUTE GIBBERISH and meaningless.

Bokeh IS subjective.

Then the definition going around is meaningless, like I said.

You can have more or less, which is user controlled.

No, you can have more or less blur but not more or less bokeh,

Define it then, so we can all agree what bokeh actually is, since you are saying it is REAL. If you CAN'T define it, it isn't real. What is the only REAL thing in the photo you can define? YOU GOT IT, BLUR. How you get it, using distance and all that is meaningless. Subject distance alters dof, so the blur is still thaqt which is not in the dof, it matters not how you got the depth of field, distance, aperture, whatever, it's still blur due to dof.

It's the aesthetic quality of the blur.

Then give me the parameters of that quality so we can agree we are actually both looking at bokeh.  Or are you saying hthat it can both exist and not exist at the same time?

and the amount of blur is not just governed by depth of field. A longer lens will give more blur for the same framing and same depth of field.

Meaningless. Whatever is out of focus and not be subject movement or camera shake, or focus errors is blur because of the dof.

That's not the point. That might be where you are confused. If you use a longer lens and frame your subject the same way you will get more BG blur even with the same DoF.

No confusion, it's still blur, and the frame has something in focus and the rest of it is blurred.  Your statement is only meaningful if you are comparing against another lens, why do that?    If I only look at the longer fl pic, the blur is still there because of dof.  Whatever tha blurry stuff is is still blur not caused by camera shake or subject movement.

You can have good and bad, which is a characteristic of the lens. For example, I think this is bad bokeh,

YOU THINK it's bad bokeh?  That would prove it's subjective.  I may not feel it's bad bokeh.  If it is bad bokeh FOR ALL humanity, then you need to define in a concrete way what bad bokeh is, with actual measurements.  And even then all huans may not agree on the value.

like someone blurred an area and then ran a really harsh sharpness filter in photoshop. While good/bad is subjective if most people consider the quality of bokeh from this lens to be unpleasant you can then objectively say that the lens provides bad bokeh.

I agree this is bad, but it is subjective and some people might like it.

When people say a photo has nice bokeh, they are referring to a combination of how much and how good the quality of the bokeh is to them.

They are not quite accurate then. They should only be referring aesthetic quality of the blur. Shallower DoF may affect the quality of the bokeh by giving more blur but so will other factors such as narrow field of view.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bokeh

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 846
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
In reply to darngooddesign, 4 months ago

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Both these photos have blurring, but with different qualities.

That's right. The qualities are descriptions of a REAL thing--BLUR. The roundness, smoothness, are descriptions, or QUALITIES, of something REAL, that is BLUR. You are saying that quality ITSELF is a thing, if so, you should be able to give me aspects or QUALITIES of the real thing called quality, BEYOND THE BLUR. The blur is REAL, so the softness, or roundness are DESCRIPTION of a real thing--BLUR. Since you say bokeh is NOT just blur, then you should be able to give me some descriptive qualities of that quality, roundness and smoothness CANNOT BE IT, those are qualities of the BLUR. Tell me what the bokeh is BEYOND THE BLUR, YOU CAN'T, it's that simple.

You are correct, bokeh is the name for the quality of the blur.

It is neither good nor bad; its just a more specific term so you don't say things like "I like that blur" because someone might just think you like the amount of the blur instead of how smooth/angular that blur is.

Bokeh and blur are one and the same, yep. Bokeh just sounds more mystical, artsy but it IS blur, there is nothing that can be described about it that is not subjective beyond the blur. Whether we like the various qualities of that blur are up to us subjectively.

Are there different qualities of blur, from angular to smooth, which are independent from the amount of blur?

Of course, there are as many qualities as there are differing aspects to a real thing. I could think of many qualit5ies a chair might have. It could have the quality of being brown, made of wood, has wood grrain, if I thought long enough I could come up with several qualities that chair has that we could all agree on because the qualities are real, demonstrable aspects from one person to another. That's not the same as me saying, "I find that chair to be a quality work of art", quality in that way is 100 percent subjective. You may not feel it is overal a quality work.

See the conflict you have? You want to say that bokeh is NOT JUST in the mind, and describing something only in the mind would be meaningless because there is NO concrete definition for something that is only in the mind, yet you also cannot show bokeh to have qualities like the chair being brown, yet you need to because if you don't, you are back to admitting it is only in the mind and is subjective.

So you are now cornered and need to show bokeh is not in just the mind. So if bokeh is a real thing, guess what? You should be able to describe qualities that it has, that are the same for everyone, like the chair being brown. When I ask you to do this, YOU can't give anything but descriptions (qualities) OF BLUR and BLUR ONLY. In other words, all you are doing is saying bokeh is another word for blur, since you can't give me any real differences between what you call bokeh and what we all call blur.

In order for you to show bokeh has some aspect other than just what blur is, ya gotta describe it in some way that is real, like the chair being brown, yet it needs to be a description that is not just another quality of being BLUR. You can't. There is nothing beyond blur that can be demonstrated to everyone to be bokeh and not just a description/quality of what blur is. Roundness, choppiness, those are descriptions of certain aspects of blur, and if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, sounds like a duck, IT IS A DUCK. So bokeh is NOT the quality of blur, IT IS THE BLUR, because you can't give me any aspects to it that aren't also descriptions of aspects of blur.

No one is cornered.

Bokeh can be described as smooth or angular, or natural or artificial

So can blur, sounds like they are the same thing, uh, unless you can show me what bokeh is that blur cannot be.

if you go with my other point that bokeh is the deviation from natural blur. Looking at a photo and seeing that blurred light is octagonal instead of circular is as easily shown as pointing to a bar stool and saying the seat is round.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 846
Like?
Re: don't mix bokeh and background blur...
In reply to RusYus, 4 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
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 846
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
In reply to darngooddesign, 4 months ago

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Ulfric M Douglas wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Bokeh is defined as “the effect of a soft out-of-focus background that you get when shooting a subject, using a fast lens, at the widest aperture, such as f/2.8 or wider.”...

No it isn't.

Bokeh is the quality of the out-of-focus areas in a photograph.

-- hide signature --

Cheksa wrote:
You're evil Ulfric.

Who decides what the quality is? Oh, that must be subjective, unless you can give some concrete qualities of the quality.

Bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the quality of the quality of the blur.

So you mean quality as if I look at a painting and say, " I find that to be a quality work of art", right? If you mean it that way, bokeh is 100 percent subjective, but then the silly definition going around is meaningless, which is my point. There is no such thing as a definition with parameters describing a real object or phenomenon that exists only in the mind.

That is not how I mean't it.

I think I have clearly shown the modern, mystical attempted definition of bokeh to be simply gibberish that can't be rationally defended as being a definition. Bokeh is simply blur due to dof, no artsy, mystical concept there at all.

If it were simply blur, there would just be different amounts of blur, not different kinds of the same amount of blurring.

Wrong, there can be smooth blur or choppy blur, all with the same amount. this has nothing to do with amount of blur.

Exactly my point. But instead of saying smooth blur others choose to say smooth bokeh, or whether they like that bokeh. All these terms describe the visual quality of the blur.

No, it's my point.  I am the one that claims bokeh and blur are THE EXACT SAME THING.  You cannot describe ANY ASPECT OF BOKEH, THAT IS ALSO NOT A DESCRIPTION/quality of blur.  Still waiting for a SINGLE definition of bokeh that is somehow beyond blur, that there is something called bokeh that is not blur.  Still waiting.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 846
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
In reply to jmczaja, 4 months ago

jmczaja wrote:

First, i think bokeh is a silly word and i personally never use it!

Can we just make this easy and say bokeh is a TYPE of blur caused by a camera lens' ability to render out of focus areas (DOF)?

Kinda like.. Fuzz or overdrive is a type of 'distortion' coming from a guitar amp.

Not bad.  Mine is very direct

Bokeh is that part of a photo that is outside the confines of the dof.  So simple. same for everyone everywhere at all times, no debates, no misunderstandings, no silly, artsy definitions that SOUND as cool as the word.

Whether you like that part of the photo is completely subjective.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 846
Like?
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
In reply to guitarjeff, 4 months ago

It's been fun guys, but the thread has gone on too long as I am missing all the good Fuji postings.  It has been entertaining for sure, thanks for participating.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads