Reading mode: Light Dark

The Bokeh Bouquet..

Go to last post
Limburger said:
Limburger wrote:
Limburger said:
schmegg wrote:
Limburger said:
Shannon Rawls wrote:

Technically, sovern is correct. Actually.

Now just because people have transformed the term bokeh to blur doesn't mean we redefine the word to accommodate our lack of proper word choice.

Reminds me of flat panel TV vs flat screen TV.

Either way, he's rightv about the proper usage of the word "bokeh"
Click to expand...
Not sure he is to be perfectly honest.

Bokeh is a Japanese word meaning roughly "blur quality".

Nowhere does this imply that it has anything particular to do with "points of light" as Sovern claims. Anything beyond the original meaning of the word is a translative derivation and therefore open to debate.

Whilst it's true that the way in which "points of light" in the background are blurred has an effect on the "blur quality", it is certainly not a given that the "blur quality" is purely dependent upon the way "points of light" are rendered. "Blur quality" is equally dependant on the way mid-tones and shadows are rendered.

So no - he's not strictly correct at all - just pedantic. :-)
Click to expand...
Bokeh means haze in Japanese and in photography became a word for the quality of the out of focus bits.
Click to expand...
boke .. means (roughly) "blur" or "haze".

bokeaji .. means (roughly) "blur quality".

Take your pick - neither translation means "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light". :-)
Limburger said:
The lights mentioned (bokeh balls) is just a quick way to "measure" the bokeh. Bokeh does affect all out of focus bits not just lights.

Bad bokeh (50mm1.8II) are pentagrams (basicly not round and therefor no balls) and good bokeh gives you round bokeh balls.
Click to expand...
Hehe - funny old discussion that goes round and round from time to time.

Personally, I'm not going to be drawn into exactly what defines "good" and "bad" bokeh. :-)
 
Last edited:
schmegg said:
schmegg wrote:
schmegg said:
Limburger wrote:
schmegg said:
schmegg wrote:
schmegg said:
Shannon Rawls wrote:

Technically, sovern is correct. Actually.

Now just because people have transformed the term bokeh to blur doesn't mean we redefine the word to accommodate our lack of proper word choice.

Reminds me of flat panel TV vs flat screen TV.

Either way, he's rightv about the proper usage of the word "bokeh"
Click to expand...
Not sure he is to be perfectly honest.

Bokeh is a Japanese word meaning roughly "blur quality".

Nowhere does this imply that it has anything particular to do with "points of light" as Sovern claims. Anything beyond the original meaning of the word is a translative derivation and therefore open to debate.

Whilst it's true that the way in which "points of light" in the background are blurred has an effect on the "blur quality", it is certainly not a given that the "blur quality" is purely dependent upon the way "points of light" are rendered. "Blur quality" is equally dependant on the way mid-tones and shadows are rendered.

So no - he's not strictly correct at all - just pedantic. :-)
Click to expand...
Bokeh means haze in Japanese and in photography became a word for the quality of the out of focus bits.
Click to expand...
boke .. means (roughly) "blur" or "haze".

bokeaji .. means (roughly) "blur quality".

Take your pick - neither translation means "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light". :-)
schmegg said:
The lights mentioned (bokeh balls) is just a quick way to "measure" the bokeh. Bokeh does affect all out of focus bits not just lights.

Bad bokeh (50mm1.8II) are pentagrams (basicly not round and therefor no balls) and good bokeh gives you round bokeh balls.
Click to expand...
Hehe - funny old discussion that goes round and round from time to time.

Personally, I'm not going to be drawn into exactly what defines "good" and "bad" bokeh. :-)
Click to expand...
It's a matter of taste, like cheese or wine.

Some may like pentagram shaped lights, good or bad I don't care but at least people notice :)

BTW I am not telling what is good or bad but what is considered good and bad.

Perfection (I mentioned before in other threads) can choke the fun.

We're even adding vignetting and noise into pictures "for a retro look", and we call that progression LOL.

And for the translations,it's what it has become, not the 101 translation. Even on that subject people argue. More LOL.

So after spending a 4K or so we get some software to make that 4K look like $250.

We do that because good crap is hard to find.
 
Last edited:
Limburger said:
Limburger wrote:
Limburger said:
schmegg wrote:
Limburger said:
Shannon Rawls wrote:

Technically, sovern is correct. Actually.

Now just because people have transformed the term bokeh to blur doesn't mean we redefine the word to accommodate our lack of proper word choice.

Reminds me of flat panel TV vs flat screen TV.

Either way, he's rightv about the proper usage of the word "bokeh"
Click to expand...
Not sure he is to be perfectly honest.

Bokeh is a Japanese word meaning roughly "blur quality".

Nowhere does this imply that it has anything particular to do with "points of light" as Sovern claims. Anything beyond the original meaning of the word is a translative derivation and therefore open to debate.

Whilst it's true that the way in which "points of light" in the background are blurred has an effect on the "blur quality", it is certainly not a given that the "blur quality" is purely dependent upon the way "points of light" are rendered. "Blur quality" is equally dependant on the way mid-tones and shadows are rendered.

So no - he's not strictly correct at all - just pedantic. :-)
Click to expand...
Bokeh means haze in Japanese and in photography became a word for the quality of the out of focus bits.

The lights mentioned (bokeh balls) is just a quick way to "measure" the bokeh. Bokeh does affect all out of focus bits not just lights.

Bad bokeh (50mm1.8II) are pentagrams (basicly not round and therefor no balls) and good bokeh gives you round bokeh balls.
Click to expand...
Limburger said:
Lens design (aperture blades and handling of aberations) and distance of subject have an effect on the bokeh.The aberations if not handled correctly ends up in bokeh-fringing if I understood correctly.

I agree, the definition is not totally correct if not totally wrong.
Click to expand...
Agreed. In English, Bokeh was first used by photographers to describe the OOF circles mostly produced by high-lights, and whether these were pleasant or not. They are usually considered better if you can't make out the number of aperture blades, and if they are not too sharp, but nice and 'soft'.

Many now use the term to simply describe background blur which I find a shame. Language evolves (except Latin and ancient Greek) ;-)
 
Forrest41926 said:
Forrest wrote:

LesliWithHummingbirdMoth.jpg


I can't not show this one...!
Click to expand...
Is that for real? Fabulous moment :-)
 
Sovern said:
Sovern wrote:
Sovern said:
amosf wrote:
Sovern said:
Sovern wrote:

I'm not seeing much if any bokeh in these images but more background blur.

This also goes to show that theres much more to an image than background blur/bokeh. Choice of backdrop is much more important.
Click to expand...
lol. Time to read the definition again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
Click to expand...
Here you go taken from your wiki source.

"the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light"

"Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it is often associated with such areas."

Background blur and bokeh are two separate things its a common misunderstanding to think that background blur is = to bokeh.
Click to expand...
*facepalm*


Do you not understand that when they're talking about points of light they're talking about circles of confusion?


There is literally no difference between the out-of-focus circles of confusion from a point light source and anything else other than the fact that it is distinct from it's surroundings. A point light source and a non-point light source background are rendered in the exact same way.
 
Last edited:
schmegg said:
schmegg wrote:
schmegg said:
Shannon Rawls wrote:

Technically, sovern is correct. Actually.

Now just because people have transformed the term bokeh to blur doesn't mean we redefine the word to accommodate our lack of proper word choice.

Reminds me of flat panel TV vs flat screen TV.

Either way, he's rightv about the proper usage of the word "bokeh"
Click to expand...
Not sure he is to be perfectly honest.

Bokeh is a Japanese word meaning roughly "blur quality".

Nowhere does this imply that it has anything particular to do with "points of light" as Sovern claims. Anything beyond the original meaning of the word is a translative derivation and therefore open to debate.

Whilst it's true that the way in which "points of light" in the background are blurred has an effect on the "blur quality", it is certainly not a given that the "blur quality" is purely dependent upon the way "points of light" are rendered. "Blur quality" is equally dependant on the way mid-tones and shadows are rendered.

So no - he's not strictly correct at all - just pedantic. :-)
Click to expand...
Essential reading for anyone who wants to express an opinion on this topic:

Loading…

www.zeiss.com

You could skip straight to pages 25 and 37 for some key points but ideally you should read the whole thing.
 
Steve Balcombe said:
Steve Balcombe wrote:
Steve Balcombe said:
schmegg wrote:
Steve Balcombe said:
Shannon Rawls wrote:

Technically, sovern is correct. Actually.

Now just because people have transformed the term bokeh to blur doesn't mean we redefine the word to accommodate our lack of proper word choice.

Reminds me of flat panel TV vs flat screen TV.

Either way, he's rightv about the proper usage of the word "bokeh"
Click to expand...
Not sure he is to be perfectly honest.

Bokeh is a Japanese word meaning roughly "blur quality".

Nowhere does this imply that it has anything particular to do with "points of light" as Sovern claims. Anything beyond the original meaning of the word is a translative derivation and therefore open to debate.

Whilst it's true that the way in which "points of light" in the background are blurred has an effect on the "blur quality", it is certainly not a given that the "blur quality" is purely dependent upon the way "points of light" are rendered. "Blur quality" is equally dependant on the way mid-tones and shadows are rendered.

So no - he's not strictly correct at all - just pedantic. :-)
Click to expand...
Essential reading for anyone who wants to express an opinion on this topic:

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b8b6f/embedtitelintern/cln_35_bokeh_en/$file/cln35_bokeh_en.pdf

You could skip straight to pages 25 and 37 for some key points but ideally you should read the whole thing.
Click to expand...
Good read.

Take home message:

Bokeh is the quality of the rendition of the out-of-focus circles of confusion. It is not a measure of the amount of blur. It does not just apply to point light sources. All out-of-focus areas are affected by the quality by which a lens renders those out-of-focus circles of confusion.

A lot of photographers, in here in particular, should probably go back and read up on some basic optical theory.
 
Last edited:
taken at f1.2
taken at f1.2
 
Limburger said:
Limburger wrote:

. . . Bad bokeh (50mm1.8II) are pentagrams (basicly not round and therefor no balls) and good bokeh gives you round bokeh balls . . .
Click to expand...



This is a common misconception about the EF 50mm f/1.8 it doesn't ALWAYS have a bad bokeh.

When the 50mm f/1.8 is wide open at f/1.8 the aperture blades are fully retracted, and the bokeh is perfectly circular because it comes from the smooth round interior of the lens.

Bokeh Test of Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
 
Sovern said:
Sovern wrote:

I'm not seeing much if any bokeh in these images but more background blur.

This also goes to show that theres much more to an image than background blur/bokeh. Choice of backdrop is much more important.
Click to expand...
Most of the images I've seen in this thread so far are nice, but they really haven't dealt with any of the more serious situations for bokeh. A bird that is isolated against a background that is 10x as far from the camera as the bird is not pushing the bokeh. Pushing the bokeh is when you have a bunch of branches crossing each other only twice as far away as the bird; that's when bokeh can get really ugly, and even the best telephotos are poor at this, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAC
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top