Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

Started Mar 6, 2014 | Discussions thread
OP guitarjeff Senior Member • Posts: 1,165
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

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.

-- hide signature --

-- hide signature --

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow