Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

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

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

What a long post about something you don't understand or grasp.

And I notice you offer no explanation for your statement, noted. And long post? I have seen far far longer.

Put simply, like it or not, bokeh, IS the quality of the out of focus areas.'

Wrong. Like it or not, 2 plus 2 DOES NOT equal 5. Your statement has no meaning. If it IS the quality, then define that quality for me? YOU CAN'T

You cannot measure bokeh quantitatively in a way that everyone would come up with the exact same value if performing the measurement the same

Uh, yeah, so?

-- hide signature --

without defining how you want to measure it, with what tools, and in such a way that it is not subjective.

Way out in left field here.  It's simple.  Bokeh is blur.  There is NO PART of bokeh that cannot be said to be an aspect of blur.  If bokeh is anything beyond blur, you would be able to describe it and show that this aspect is NOT an aspect of blur.  If it looks like a duck thing, ya know?

Then again: Photography is more an expression of ART than science for a lot of people with camera and lens tools to achieve artistic vision or expression.

I agree.

Bokeh is a term to help identify a characteristic of an image or lens that you are talking about.

Right, and the word blur can be used instead.

There are several aspects to bokeh that make it more or less desirable.

To you, or to many? If I like it, and you don't, does that mean there is MORE bokeh for me and less for you? Is it subjective?

Yes. Like art and what people like/don't like about art, it is definitely subjective.

Whether you like it or not is subjective, not it's existence.  It's there for all or there for none.

It has NOTHING to do with how out of focus something is. Only the quality of the blur circles (that might not even be circular, but that is another story).

I never said it had anything to do with the amount of blur. The amount of blur is only one QUALITY of the blur, some may like more, some may like less, amount has nothing to do with it's actual existence. If bokeh is a THING, then it is definable with concrete parameters, if it is subjective, then it's not definable.

Revisit your definition of a "thing". Bokeh as used in photography labels characteristic of an image or characteristics of a lens design.

Agree, it's the same thing as blur, like i said.

Before you can measure something like "quality" of x in such a fashion that people can measure it the same way or get the exact same value, you have to define what you are measuring and how.

If my table has the quality of having a couple 90 degree angles, that's true for everyone everywhere.  We can build math from the ground up, and call hwat we were calling 90 degrees 180, but the real distance around the angle would be the same.

That doesn't keep people from using the word quality in a phrase that communicates constructive meaning to others.

This is way off in left field.  Bokeh is blur.

Here's the thing: If I said a lens had "good, smooth bokeh as opposed to harsh looking bokeh" and toss in a couple of examples, a lot of people would know what I'm talking about.

Maybe most would agree, some might not.

If someone said a lens "emphasized good bokeh over sharpness", that too would have constructive meaning.

It would be just as constructive if they said it emphasized good blur, they are the same thing.  See how this has gone way out in left field because of the refusal of so many to just admit bokeh is lur, nothing subjective about it's existence in this case, the subjective part is whether you like it or not.

Bokeh characteristic is a strong consideration in lens design and is not meaningless gibberish.

The definition given is meaningless gibberish.  Bokeh is NOT the quality of the blur.  It IS BLUR.  There is no aspect or quality of bokeh that cannot also be aquality or aspect of blur, they are the same thing.

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