Bokeh = out-of-focus blur

[Brev00]

The word "bokeh" was intoduced to the English language in 1997 by Photo Techniques magazine. Mike Johnston, the editor at the time says this about it:

"Bokeh" simply means blur, specifically out-of-focus blur (as opposed to the kinds caused by subject or camera movement). It includes, but is not limited to, out-of-focus highlights. Source - theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/what-is-bokeh

The idea that "bokeh" only refers to the quality of the blur, and not it's quantity or even its existence seems to stem from an early misconception by Harold Merklinger, but the fact is that it was originally intended to simply mean out of focus blur as opposed to other kinds of blur which is also how the word is used in Japanese.

Insisting that bokeh only means the quality of the blur serves no purpose, as the word bokeh itself tells us nothing about the quality of the bokeh without a preceding adjective, and if we can't use the word bokeh to describe the existence of the blur we are left with no English word to do so, which is the whole reason the word was introduced to English in the first place.

If you want to say "This photo has a lot of bokeh", or "How do I get more bokeh?" those are perfectly valid uses of the word and everyone will understand what you mean, but some pedant will invariably pop up

Since pedant comes from the Italian pedante meaning teacher, I will accept that as a compliment.

 

[MediaArchivist]

The word "bokeh" was intoduced to the English language in 1997 by Photo Techniques magazine. Mike Johnston, the editor at the time says this about it:

It would appear that Mike Johnston was the one who misunderstood?

"Bokeh" simply means blur, specifically out-of-focus blur (as opposed to the kinds caused by subject or camera movement). It includes, but is not limited to, out-of-focus highlights. Source - theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/what-is-bokeh

That is the source that identifies Johnston's misunderstanding. The article links to the original at LL: http://luminous-landscape.com/bokeh/ which is a HTML version of the original article and has recently been put behind a paywall. The original has been scanned and is available here (PDF): http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf

The idea that "bokeh" only refers to the quality of the blur, and not it's quantity or even its existence seems to stem from an early misconception by Harold Merklinger,

I can't write on his behalf, but I can quote from his original article:

"The camera functions very much like a painter having access to set of round brushes of all sizes.

...

Bokeh, the quality of the out-of-focus image, is determined by the set of brushes: the circles of confusion characteristic of the lens, its aperture and how far out-of-focus it is."

Insisting that bokeh only means the quality of the blur serves no purpose, as the word bokeh itself tells us nothing about the quality of the bokeh without a preceding adjective,

The word "tone" as applied to sound or color is a similar concept to the word "bokeh" applied to blur. In that sense, you are correct that one can construct sentences that serve no purpose if one wishes to:

• I want more bokeh!
• This guitar needs more tone, don't you think?
• Can you add some tone to the model's cheeks?

"I don't like the bokeh in this picture" is not the same thing as saying "I don't like the areas in this photo that are not in focus." The former is referring to the bokeh explicitly, while the latter could be referring to having too much of the picture out of focus, or the wrong parts out of focus.

"I enjoy exploring the differences in the bokeh of these two 35/1.4 lenses, particularly with different backgrounds." Both lenses ought to produce the same sheer amount of blur with similar settings for similar scenes, so good or bad in not (necessarily) implied here, just an exploration of an artistic concept.

and if we can't use the word bokeh to describe the existence of the blur we are left with no English word to do so, which is the whole reason the word was introduced to English in the first place.

How about "blur"?

If you want to say "This photo has a lot of bokeh", or "How do I get more bokeh?" those are perfectly valid uses of the word and everyone will understand what you mean,

I disagree. I also don't think that "telephoto" means the same thing as "long", and I might correct such usage if I was to read that on a photography gear blog.

but some pedant will invariably pop up and tell you that bokeh means the quality of the blur, not the blur itself. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with pedantry, but I do think that if you are going to be pedantic you should at least be correct.

Indeed.

 

[lumigraphics]

I'm of a practical bent. I just think that bokeh is a more useful word if it means quality of OOF blur, rather than simply the blur itself. If I want to say blur, that's the word I'll use.

 

[Pixel Pooper]

The word "bokeh" was intoduced to the English language in 1997 by Photo Techniques magazine. Mike Johnston, the editor at the time says this about it:

It would appear that Mike Johnston was the one who misunderstood?

"Bokeh" simply means blur, specifically out-of-focus blur (as opposed to the kinds caused by subject or camera movement). It includes, but is not limited to, out-of-focus highlights. Source - theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/what-is-bokeh

That is the source that identifies Johnston's misunderstanding. The article links to the original at LL: http://luminous-landscape.com/bokeh/ which is a HTML version of the original article and has recently been put behind a paywall. The original has been scanned and is available here (PDF): http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf

Merklingers artice that you liked to is one of three original articles. The other two do not appear to be available online.

 

[Pixel Pooper]

and if we can't use the word bokeh to describe the existence of the blur we are left with no English word to do so, which is the whole reason the word was introduced to English in the first place.

How about "blur"?

Bokeh refers to out of focus blur specifically.

If you want to say "This photo has a lot of bokeh", or "How do I get more bokeh?" those are perfectly valid uses of the word and everyone will understand what you mean,

I disagree. I also don't think that "telephoto" means the same thing as "long", and I might correct such usage if I was to read that on a photography gear blog.

Telephoto is a technical term but bokeh is not, so bokeh unlike telephoto is defined by common usage. Ironically, I see people corrected for using bokeh correctly far more often that I see people corrected for using telephoto incorrectly.

 

[J A C S]

"I enjoy exploring the differences in the bokeh of these two 35/1.4 lenses, particularly with different backgrounds." Both lenses ought to produce the same sheer amount of blur with similar settings for similar scenes, so good or bad in not (necessarily) implied here, just an exploration of an artistic concept.

Blur does not have an amount either.

 

[The Davinator]

"I enjoy exploring the differences in the bokeh of these two 35/1.4 lenses, particularly with different backgrounds." Both lenses ought to produce the same sheer amount of blur with similar settings for similar scenes, so good or bad in not (necessarily) implied here, just an exploration of an artistic concept.

Blur does not have an amount either.

And the dumb statement of the day award goes to.....

 

[J A C S]

"I enjoy exploring the differences in the bokeh of these two 35/1.4 lenses, particularly with different backgrounds." Both lenses ought to produce the same sheer amount of blur with similar settings for similar scenes, so good or bad in not (necessarily) implied here, just an exploration of an artistic concept.

Blur does not have an amount either.

And the dumb statement of the day award goes to.....

To you. As usual, you proclaim yourself a winner all the time without having an idea what you are talking about; and this is one of those cases.

 

[antoineb]

"Bokeh" refers NOT to "blur", but to the QUALITY of the oof blur.

"Good bokeh" means that the oof blur is pleasing to the eye. If we used your attempted definition, it would mean nothing.

Not sure why you feel the need to waste everyone's time spreading this btw?

In English, words are defined by common usage, not by any committee, nor by Wikipedia.

My own personal experience of seeing the word “bokeh” used on this website and elsewhere suggests that a suitable defnition is “blur in the out-of-focus parts of an image”, or simply “out-of-focus blur”.

Both the phrases “quality of bokeh” and “amount of bokeh” make perfect sense to me. Why rule out the latter meaning, as many would like to do (e.g. in this thread)?

What would be gained by limiting the use of the word bokeh only to those situations where it means “quality of bokeh”? It would allow “quality of bokeh” to be shortened to just “bokeh”, but little more than that. What is the hardship in saying “quality of bokeh” if that is what you mean?

In any event, it seems to me that common usage has already established the use of bokeh in both qualitative and quantitative situations and it is going to be very diffcult to change that. Such change will be particularly difficult because it is not really changing the meaning of the word bokeh, but instead, limiting the range of circumstances in which it may be used. English speakers are not used to doing that sort of thing. It is very common indeed for words to be used in circumstances beyond those for which they were originally intended. If it makes sense in a wider range of circumstances, why try to limit its use?

 

[peripheralfocus]

Merklingers artice that you liked to is one of three original articles. The other two do not appear to be available online.

Of the other two articles, one is by Oren Grad, and it's specifically on the terminology surrounding bokeh. I don't have the text of it, unfortunately, so I don't know exactly what it says -- from descriptions, I gather that it's mostly about all the various types of bokeh that Japanese photographers have identified over the years, from hanzatsu (complex) to kani no yoi bokeh. The latter is apparently 'bokeh that gives a good feeling', which is a stark contrast to the feeling I get from these threads.

In any case, Grad's article wouldn't settle this argument, which is moot. The common meaning of the term will ultimately be determined by its everyday use, and nobody on these forums can control that. To my eye, it's rather more clear than blurry where that definition is going.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

In the native American Dakota language, bokeh means a firearms misfire or hang fire, particularly where you pull a gun's trigger and the round does not go off right away. This is usually not a problem with modern ammunition, where a misfire is simply a dud, but bokeh can be dangerous with antique firearms.

I see that this term can be useful in photography, especially amongst my fellow Americans who shoot headshots with their big gun lenses. "This lens has bad bokeh" could mean that it frequently fails to lock auto focus.

Since we are already broadening definitions, I thought I'd broaden it a bit more.

 

[The Davinator]

Agreed. Appears some lazy people refuse to accept the meanings of a word and instead want to redefine everything to suit their lack of umderstanding.

Another "me too" post followed by insults.

If someone came to me and started talking about "highlight dynamic range" .....I would correct them. If they insisted to use the term in the incorrect manner, I would say exactly what I said above. Correcting misinformation is not an insult....at least it isn't to those who understand the correct information.

As it appears no one agres with you...it is pretty evident to see which side of the equation you are on.

 

[The Davinator]

"I enjoy exploring the differences in the bokeh of these two 35/1.4 lenses, particularly with different backgrounds." Both lenses ought to produce the same sheer amount of blur with similar settings for similar scenes, so good or bad in not (necessarily) implied here, just an exploration of an artistic concept.

Blur does not have an amount either.

And the dumb statement of the day award goes to.....

To you. As usual, you proclaim yourself a winner all the time without having an idea what you are talking about; and this is one of those cases.

As I studied optics in university as a personal interest, and have read countless books on Japanese photography as well as speaking to many Japanese photographers...you are in no position to really debate with me at all.

And yes...you've lost...again

 

[Hen3ry]

In the native American Dakota language, bokeh means a firearms misfire or hang fire, particularly where you pull a gun's trigger and the round does not go off right away. This is usually not a problem with modern ammunition, where a misfire is simply a dud, but bokeh can be dangerous with antique firearms.

I see that this term can be useful in photography, especially amongst my fellow Americans who shoot headshots with their big gun lenses. "This lens has bad bokeh" could mean that it frequently fails to lock auto focus.

Since we are already broadening definitions, I thought I'd broaden it a bit more.

Dang! Got it in one, Mark! That's why I have so mny pictures of my left foot as I lower the camera. LOL.

 

[Hen3ry]

But make sure the hairy bits don't get tangled in your teeth.

Mutton came into English as "mouton", meaning sheep, from French, then got misused by the elite (to make them feel superior to their underlings) to mean only sheep meat. So the upper class ate mutton and the slaves at the bottom of the table ate sheep. ("Mutton" has now been imported back into French, I understand.)

And they can stop using "thug" meaning some kind of general criminal tough because that is wrong at the source. Stop using it under threat of being taken care of by the proud thuggee of India, the stranglers. That's where English got the word from, then changed the meaning.

Don't mention Germany, that's not what it is called. And so it goes for thousands of words and names of things and actions and events and whatever.

Bokeh has been imported into English and has developed into meaning "the appearance of the out of focus areas" in photographs. As such, there is good and poor bokeh.

There is some argument about the spelling -- on the first import, "boke". Anyone with any knowledge of phonetic spelling knows that is correct, but in English, it can be spelled differently because English spelling is nonsensical with its remnant "e" endings for words rationalized to mean designating the sound used for the previous vowel. Like in "people" for example (tongue in cheek, folks).

--
Geoffrey Heard
Down and out in Rabaul in the South Pacific
http://rabaulpng.com/we-are-all-traveling-throug/i-waited-51-years-for-tavur.html

 

[J A C S]

Agreed. Appears some lazy people refuse to accept the meanings of a word and instead want to redefine everything to suit their lack of umderstanding.

Another "me too" post followed by insults.

If someone came to me and started talking about "highlight dynamic range" .....I would correct them. If they insisted to use the term in the incorrect manner, I would say exactly what I said above. Correcting misinformation is not an insult....at least it isn't to those who understand the correct information.

You did not correct me, the whole point of this post was trolling.

As it appears no one agres with you...it is pretty evident to see which side of the equation you are on.

What do you know about equations? Say something about film or VHS tapes.

None of your fans dared to ask why blur did not have amount because they did not want to reveal that they did not know what that even meant.

 

[tony field]

In English, words are defined by common usage, not by any committee, nor by Wikipedia.

My own personal experience of seeing the word “bokeh” used on this website and elsewhere suggests that a suitable defnition is “blur in the out-of-focus parts of an image”, or simply “out-of-focus blur”.

Both the phrases “quality of bokeh” and “amount of bokeh” make perfect sense to me. Why rule out the latter meaning, as many would like to do (e.g. in this thread)?

Completely agree. When the English speaking world adopts a word to represent a concept, a lot is lost in translation. We assign our own meaning, by variable convention ... all the new meaning does is approximate (hopefully) the original word from which is is derived.

in the interests of useful conversation, its is good to clarify, the precise meanings intended since qualitative words like "bokeh" require additional additional description to identify what is meant.

It is much like our conversational use of "aperture" ... we have to be careful to clearly specify "which version" of the word we refer to - even though there are clearly specified definitions which many folks abuse.

sometimes we can determine the implied meaning of such words in context .... sometimes not.

 

[J A C S]

"I enjoy exploring the differences in the bokeh of these two 35/1.4 lenses, particularly with different backgrounds." Both lenses ought to produce the same sheer amount of blur with similar settings for similar scenes, so good or bad in not (necessarily) implied here, just an exploration of an artistic concept.

Blur does not have an amount either.

And the dumb statement of the day award goes to.....

To you. As usual, you proclaim yourself a winner all the time without having an idea what you are talking about; and this is one of those cases.

As I studied optics in university as a personal interest, and have read countless books on Japanese photography as well as speaking to many Japanese photographers...you are in no position to really debate with me at all.

LOL! Personal interest. Reminds of this:

Watch people that barely made it through high school math battle it out with physicists and real life rocket scientists.

 

[tony field]

"I enjoy exploring the differences in the bokeh of these two 35/1.4 lenses, particularly with different backgrounds." Both lenses ought to produce the same sheer amount of blur with similar settings for similar scenes, so good or bad in not (necessarily) implied here, just an exploration of an artistic concept.

Blur does not have an amount either.

And the dumb statement of the day award goes to.....

To you. As usual, you proclaim yourself a winner all the time without having an idea what you are talking about; and this is one of those cases.

As I studied optics in university as a personal interest, and have read countless books on Japanese photography as well as speaking to many Japanese photographers...you are in no position to really debate with me at all.

LOL! Personal interest. Reminds of this:

Watch people that barely made it through high school math battle it out with physicists and real life rocket scientists.

just to inform you .... I is a pfysicst I actually passed Phys 201 with flying colours and my working with four rockets from the hobby shop that actually flew when I was a teenager means I qualify on both grounds. Sometimes I will argue in both areas (with incredible knowledge ) but for some reason, nobody listens

 

[J A C S]

LOL! Personal interest. Reminds of this:

Watch people that barely made it through high school math battle it out with physicists and real life rocket scientists.

just to inform you .... I is a pfysicst I actually passed Phys 201 with flying colours and my working with four rockets from the hobby shop that actually flew when I was a teenager means I qualify on both grounds. Sometimes I will argue in both areas (with incredible knowledge ) but for some reason, nobody listens

Maybe people listen but find nothing wrong with it?

Just want to emphasize that I had one person in mind only with that remark.