How about a definition for a returning.......

By H.H. Nasse (Carl Zeiss camera lens division):

http://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeiss.com%2Fc12567a8003b8b6f%2Fembedtitelintern%2Fcln_35_bokeh_en%2F%24file%2Fcln35_bokeh_en.pdf&ei=R6SLT8ykBYTDswa04PytCw&usg=AFQjCNEPURbJMjJZA5ccH8jsIE033LpCyg

(link to PDF)

Deleted1929 said:

Deleted1929 said:

the new hot word for...out of focus background

Click to expand...

It is not the word for the out of focus background, it is simply a term for the quality of the out of focus blur.

Click to expand...

Talk about splitting hairs....you say it's not the word for out of focus background and then go on to say "a term for the quality of the out of focus blur"...you must be in marketing ....out of focus is out of focus thats all there is too it. Quality is purely subjective and does not effect focus in any way, shape or form.....it's still just out of focus.
--
The very last thing you do.... release the shutter.

Bruce McL said:

You believe in what you are doing, I'll give you that. "How much of the image can I make out of focus and still have people take me seriously?" is not a question I would care to ask.

Click to expand...

You're not thinking about the whole point of having shallow focus, having a 'blurry' background draws us in to detail in our intended suject. The examples shown by T3 demonstrate this well. Taking pictures that are back to foreground sharp often look confusing to the eye, the subject lost in a morass of super sharp extraneous detail. So it's not about 'how much can I make unsharp' but more about how can I draw in the viewers eye to my intended subject.

Sort of neat having another Japanese word coming into English. What was the last one, 'kamikaze?'

English, if nothing else, is pretty efficient. Here, happily replacing 'controlled blur' with the shorter 'bokeh.'

Sort of like 'gay' is a much shorter way of saying 'homosexual.'

Well, sjgcit is not splitting hairs - he is absolutely right, and may be you should read carefully what he wrote and you quoted yourself.

OOF part of the i,age is just that - no short word for it. But that OOF part can be more or less pleasant: if it is pleasant, it is said to have a good bokeh (though the qualifier can be varied according to each one writing ability). If the OOF part is harsh or strange, it is said to have un unpleasant bokeh .

Now you are absolutely right in saying that pleasant or unpleasant is subjective. It is, and very likely some will find a "lovely bokeh" where others don't. just yesterday I was browsing through posts, and one claimed exactly that, while I saw nothing remarkable at all.

In fact, one is in his/her right not to want OOF parts in the picture, and in some cases I think that a focussed background is a plus.
--
Antonio

http://ferrer.smugmug.com/

I see a lot of people talking about (the effect of) depth of field and then mixed with bokeh. Two terms are inter-related, but are different.

Bokeh refers to the out of focus area, but like some people specifically pointed out, we judge bokeh by its quality.

The effect of depth of field can "bring out" the main subject. Usually we want to recede the out-of-focus area with a simple bokeh (but your style may vary).

Everyone has their own style, so it is subjective like many have already mentioned. I am going to use some specific examples to explain the two.

Usually I'll choose a depth of field just enough to cover the entire main subject. The simplest example is a close-up shot of a bee on a flower. If I want to show bee as the main subject, I'll use an aperture that's just great enough to cover the bee, but shallow enough the flower will be out of focus. If I want to show bee's eyes as the subject, I'll use a much shallower DoF which will blur out everything except bee's eyes.

Another purpose of shallow depth of field is to create a 3D feeling out of the 2D medium (i.e., photo). An "effective" use of shallow depth of field will make the main subject pop out of the screen, or photo paper. Too shallow of a DoF will look awful (if you photo has only 10% of the area in focus, there is something wrong with your composition), and too great of a DoF will make the entire photo 2D and lack of a central figure.

I mentioned this because I realize older school of thought is to make everything in focus. That's not the modern trend.

Since there is quite a lot more area "out-of-focus" in modern way of shooting, therefore, the bokeh quality will be very important. Since the entire purpose of creating out-of-focus area is to emphasize the in-focus area, so usually (and I say usually) out-of-focus area (i.e., "bokeh") should be minimalist in approach (less is more). This is one school of approach, because like many people mentioned, it's highly subjective.

The more objective quality I usually look for in bokeh is this: 1) quality of light spheres, 2) how smooth is the out-of-focus rendering by the lens, 3) are there chromatic aberrations in the bokeh area. As you see, bokeh's quality is completely tied to the lens, and nothing to do with sensor (though DoF ties to sensor size and focal length).

I am going to keep this post short, so I'll just say look for bokeh that is buttery smooth, no complex pattern, round light spheres and no "doughnut" rings around the light spheres. If your lens can do that, it's a winner. What you look for in specs are 1) number of aperture blades, and/or whether 2) the blades are rounded. Usually German lens makers prefer to use many aperture blades to make the light spheres round (method 1), while Japanese lens makers prefer to use circular aperture diaphragm method (method 2).

It just so happens that "bokeh" is not controlled blur. Read the posts above. "Bokeh" is the quality of the OOF part of the image, be it controlled or not. There can be a pleasant bokeh or an unpleasant one. Or so-so. And yes - good or bad bokeh is to a large degree subjective
--
Antonio

http://ferrer.smugmug.com/

That was not short - but is was quite good!
--
Antonio

http://ferrer.smugmug.com/

I recall back in the 80s (I think ... might have been 90s) Minolta releasing a portrait lens with adjustable bokeh (although it wasn't called that then in English). As well as rings for focus and aperture, it had an additional control that affected the bokeh characteristics (no idea how it worked - sorry).

I also recall an article at the time commenting that the quality-of-the-out-of-focus-areas was much more important to Japanese than Western photographers, so the lens was really aimed at the Japanese market. Whichever journalist wrote the article missed a chance to scoop Mike Johnston to coining "bokeh" in English by 20 years or so ...

Thanks! I am glad it's informational.

Bokeh is very subjective, so I hope people don't find what I wrote as the dictating rule, but I aim to make it easy to understand, so I have to use very specific examples. The subjectivity and varying definition of a good bokeh maybe also make it totally difficult to define it.

I think the easiest way to know it is just keep viewing people's photos. A sense of "what's a bokeh" or "what's a good bokeh" will eventually forming.

The meaning of words is defined by the way people use them, and, perhaps, with bokeh I am a little out of step.

However, I find it useful to make a distinction between a defocused background (landscape, building, crowd etc.) and the quality of the blurring of small objects - such as leaves, flowers etc - that can either be distracting or enhance the "isolation" of the main subject.

Ronald Rosenwald said:

photography aficianado..... have been "out of the loop" for a number of years and am returning to the hobby now that some serious health issues are dealt with...... just what the hell is "BOKEH"? ( spelling?) I see the mention of the term in several threads, as I struggle to reaquaint myself to the hobby and the digital world, and it appears to be used in several different contexts....what is it? is it contageous? does it refer to the equipment. just the lens, or to the actual image taken and printed? Is there any firm agreement on what it really is? Just wondering???

Click to expand...

A lot more than 20 years ago, we (the photographers I hung around with) referred to it in conversation, as "SOFA", for Soft Out of Focus Area..

Later, Bokeh, when I first heard the word, was used to infer (or imply, I forget which) that a lens had a "Special (good) quality" about the soft out of focus area.

A shot had "Bokeh" or it didn't, there was no such thing as "good Bokeh" or "Bad Bokeh".

After a couple of decades of being bandied about by folks that didn't have a clue to what it actually means, the word tends to be miss-used quite a bit.

If a lens gives a harsh, nasty look to the out of focus areas in a shot, it doesn't have "bad bokeh".. it just doesnt have Bokeh...

If a lens gives you a soft, gentle, easy to look at out of focus area, without any harsh areas, the lens has "Bokeh" (NOT good Bokeh, just Bokeh.)

Bokeh is NOT something you get from a camera, it is something you get from a lens.

The term has simply been "corrupted by over-use".

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Connecticut

I figured out why I cant lose weight! The only exercise Im good at is CHEWING

Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does

In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.
Oscar Wilde

An image can have narrow depth of field and still have bad bokeh. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/syf0n/4453750366/ for an example. The out of focus highlights are oddly shaped and have harsh edges. .

This particular shot was made using a CCTV lens on a m43 camera and has unusually bad bokeh. Mirror lenses have doughnut shaped highlights that tend to be very distracting too. But even normal lenses with the same focal length and aperture can have different bokeh. Good bokeh will show out of focus highlights as round disks with soft edges. Bad bokeh is oddly shaped and gets brighter towards the edges.

While I prefer defining bokeh as the quality of out of focus areas the meaning is shifting to shallow depth of field which is too bad. If bokeh is just another word for “shallow DOF” we need another word to use when referring to the quality of out of focus areas.

Nice photos, T3. I think those are shot with your Canon, isn't it? Those are Canon bokeh.

I agree with your it's the language. Language is a professional skill, so people can communicate their concept across to other people. It adds value to the end product, in this case, photos. A talented artist who doesn't speak the language of art is not going to be discovered. When someone asks the artist why the photo is good, and you just say, "Because it's good," is not very convincing.

citizenlouie said:

Nice photos, T3. I think those are shot with your Canon, isn't it? Those are Canon bokeh.

Click to expand...

Yes, those were shot on Canon equipment. You have a good eye.

jack1000 said:

I recall back in the 80s (I think ... might have been 90s) Minolta releasing a portrait lens with adjustable bokeh (although it wasn't called that then in English). As well as rings for focus and aperture, it had an additional control that affected the bokeh characteristics (no idea how it worked - sorry).

I also recall an article at the time commenting that the quality-of-the-out-of-focus-areas was much more important to Japanese than Western photographers, so the lens was really aimed at the Japanese market. Whichever journalist wrote the article missed a chance to scoop Mike Johnston to coining "bokeh" in English by 20 years or so ...

Click to expand...

You might be referring to the 135 STF. It is a special lens. Word is that Minolta were the first to obsess over out of focus quality and this was the culmination of that obsession. Sony still sells it in the alpha mount.

http://www.the135stf.net/index.html
--
Zeiss taste...Beercan budget!

maybe ... interesting link.

that site says the STF came out in 1999, and I was absolutely convinced there was a much earlier lens with out-of-focus control ... unless my memory is playing tricks on me!

Alpha Jack said:

You might be referring to the 135 STF. It is a special lens. Word is that Minolta were the first to obsess over out of focus quality and this was the culmination of that obsession. Sony still sells it in the alpha mount.

http://www.the135stf.net/index.html
--
Zeiss taste...Beercan budget!

Click to expand...

jack1000 said:

jack1000 said:

You might be referring to the 135 STF. It is a special lens. Word is that Minolta were the first to obsess over out of focus quality and this was the culmination of that obsession. Sony still sells it in the alpha mount.

Click to expand...

maybe ... interesting link.

that site says the STF came out in 1999, and I was absolutely convinced there was a much earlier lens with out-of-focus control ... unless my memory is playing tricks on me!

Click to expand...

...is the Canon 135 / 2.8 Soft Focus released in 1987:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_135mm_lens

jack1000 said:

maybe ... interesting link.

that site says the STF came out in 1999, and I was absolutely convinced there was a much earlier lens with out-of-focus control ... unless my memory is playing tricks on me!

Click to expand...

You might be thinking of the Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus lens. It was introduced in 1987. But its special control wasn't to control the out-of-focus area. It was to control the overall softness of the image (to give a diffused look to your pictures). I still have this lens. It had a ring which you could set to zero (no soft focus), one, or two (max soft focus). I bought it used a while back (in the film days). I never used the soft focus feature much, but at the zero setting it's a very nice, sharp portrait lens.



The interesting thing about this lens (aside from the soft focus feature) is that the front ring of the lens (that protrusion you see at the front) is a ring of rubber, which acts as a sort of bumper for the lens. I always thought that was a neat little detail, to have a rubber bumper at the front of the lens, to protect it from knocks.

Great Bustard said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

The term comes from the Japanese word boke (暈け or ボケ), which means "blur" or "haze", or boke-aji (ボケ味), the "blur quality". The Japanese term boke is also used in the sense of a mental haze or senility.[9] The term bokashi (暈かし) is related, meaning intentional blurring or gradation.

The English spelling bokeh was popularized in 1997 in Photo Techniques magazine, when Mike Johnston, the editor at the time, commissioned three papers on the topic for the March/April 1997 issue; he altered the spelling to suggest the correct pronunciation to English speakers, saying "it is properly pronounced with bo as in bone and ke as in Kenneth, with equal stress on either syllable" .[4] The spellings bokeh and boke have both been in use at least since 1996, when Merklinger had suggested "or Bokeh if you prefer."[10] The term bokeh has appeared in photography books at least since 1998.[5] It is sometimes pronounced ˈboʊkə (boke-uh).[2]

Click to expand...

Back in 1965 when I did a photographic course in the Royal Australian Air Force, it was one of the terms, amongst many others, we had to learn regarding photography. Although not used a lot we were aware that bokeh described the blur that was achieved when using selective DOF.

There was always discussion as when to try to get everything in focus or just the main subject.

We looked for attractive bokeh in portraits, and usually was able to get it from the couple of lenses used on the 5x4 Linholf when it was available. The interchangeable twin lens Mamiyas with the longer lenses also produced attractive bokeh at wider apertures.

The term was certainly used well before the 90s, but since then has become well used, if not well understood.
--
Regards,
Peter.
http://gowerphotos.tripod.com