Reading mode: Light Dark

Is Bokeh over used?

Go to last post
J A C S said:
J A C S said:
They don't need education. You do.
Click to expand...
Careful, the moderators can ban you. ;-)
Click to expand...
They certainly could, but could they teach you to count? Would be more helpful.

If you won't accept the original defintion of bokeh as the quality of the blur, but rather want to argue that that meaning has been commonly replaced by another, why don't you step back moment and look at how many people are disagreeing with you, incl. thumbs-ups?

Or, in other words, you are clearly loosing the popularity contest on what the common usage is ;-)

Time to step back, have a beer or two, and admit that you've been bokeh-ing up the wrong dictionary :-)

Regards, Mike
 
MediaArchivist said:
The English language is rife with other such appropriations.
Click to expand...
To quote James Nicoll

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary.

Regards, Mike
 
gollywop said:
These examples do not support your position.
J A C S said:
The Davinator said:
Some people just like to argue...whether or not if they are wrong....whether or not how ridiculous it makes them look.
Click to expand...
And some like to act as the terminology police regardless of how close-minded this may make them look.

I already gave references to Nikon and Canon pages, where bokeh is clearly used as the blur itself. Here are a few quotes form a Fuji page:

...creates beautiful circular bokeh right to the edge of the image...
Click to expand...
Circular bokeh is precisely the quality that one hopes one's lens is capable of producing. This is a direct reference to the quality of the blur, not the quantity.
gollywop said:
...still shoot with prime lenses for sharp images and strong bokeh...
Click to expand...
This example does not indicate whether bokeh refers to the blur or the quality of the blur. It is useless.
gollywop said:
In both cases, "quality of blur" does not make sense for bokeh.

Also, here:

a unique bokeh effect ... beautiful bokeh part ... the apodization filter smoothes the bokeh's outlines ...
Click to expand...
Once again, it is the smooth quality of the blur to which bokeh (properly used) refers. This example contradicts your position.
gollywop said:
Try replacing "bokeh" with "quality of blur".

Pentax talk about a subtle bokeh effect. Sure they meant subtle quality of blur effect?

Why do not you educate Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Pentax on the proper meaning of the word bokeh?
Click to expand...
They don't need education. You do.
Click to expand...
As you are so keen about educating others, here is a small excercise for you.

1. Please read carefully the OP at https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58745831

2. Please make an effort to understand the question he was asking.

3. Now please read carefully your first reply here and explain in what way your reply answers the OP's question or has anything to do with it?

4. Do the same with all your other posts in this threads.

5. As none of your numerous posts here answers or have anything to do with the OP's questions, please explain what makes you think that this behaviour of yours is not considered highjaking a thread.

6. And last - in view of all that, why do you think that it is the others who need to be educated and not you?

Cheers,

Moti
 
Mike CH said:
J A C S said:
gollywop said:
They don't need education. You do.
Click to expand...
Careful, the moderators can ban you. ;-)
Click to expand...
They certainly could, but could they teach you to count? Would be more helpful.

If you won't accept the original defintion of bokeh as the quality of the blur,
Click to expand...
There is no authority in charge of original definitions. The meaning of bokeh is what people using that word want it to be. I provided many references from the major manufacturers where the usage does not agree with the quality of blur one. So far, you ignored them.
Mike CH said:
but rather want to argue that that meaning has been commonly replaced by another, why don't you step back moment and look at how many people are disagreeing with you, incl. thumbs-ups?
Click to expand...
As soon as you explain to me why the majority is always right, I will start counting.
Mike CH said:
Or, in other words, you are clearly loosing the popularity contest on what the common usage is ;-)
Click to expand...
Wait, you just moved the goalposts. A word can have more than one usage, and often does. Not the word loosing, BTW. ;-) (feel free to hit me back for my grammar).
Mike CH said:
Time to step back, have a beer or two, and admit that you've been bokeh-ing up the wrong dictionary :-)
Click to expand...
What dictionary? You are missing my point. Bokeh is often (enough) used as a substitute for the OOF blur, not the quality nor the quantity of it. One of the many examples: swirly bokeh. It hardly means swirly quality of blur, it rather stands for swirly blur. Dictionaries do not define the usage, they are supposed to reflect it.
 
Last edited:
His first response was a direct answer to the OP's question:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58746913

He also sought to educate further, in this case it was about terminology. That happens on blogs, it's kind of the point. On a photography gear site, one should expect to be corrected if their use of photography gear terms is incorrect.
 
J A C S said:
Mike CH said:
J A C S said:
gollywop said:
They don't need education. You do.
Click to expand...
Careful, the moderators can ban you. ;-)
Click to expand...
They certainly could, but could they teach you to count? Would be more helpful.

If you won't accept the original defintion of bokeh as the quality of the blur,
Click to expand...
There is no authority in charge of original definitions.
Click to expand...
That is in general not true. You will often find e.g. that there actually are authorities in charge of the meaning of technical terms. Other, normative languages, like French, do it wholesale, and not just in bits.
J A C S said:
The meaning of bokeh is what people using that word want it to be.
Click to expand...
Oh, really? How funny, then, that a lot of people, evidenced by counting, want it to mean, wait for it...

Tada - the quality of the blur

You are slowly, but surely, being hoist by your own petard :-)
J A C S said:
J A C S said:
Or, in other words, you are clearly loosing the popularity contest on what the common usage is ;-)
Click to expand...
Wait, you just moved the goalposts.
Click to expand...
Nope, I just tried to make it obvious to you that you cannot have it both ways.

Saying on one hand that it means what people using it mean it to mean, and on the other hand ignoring a lot of people declaring what it means to them, is - to put it mildly - rather contradictory.

And circumstantial evidence of having painted oneself into a corner ;-)

Regards, Mike
 
J A C S said:
Bokeh is often (enough) used as a substitute for the OOF blur, not the quality nor the quantity of it. One of the many examples: swirly bokeh. It hardly means swirly quality of blur, it rather stands for swirly blur.
Click to expand...
Swirly bokeh is a description of the aesthetics of the blur, exactly what bokeh is. There will be sentences, from time to time, that read well if blur and bokeh are interchanged, but that does not mean they have the same definition. I can substitute "tone" and "sound" from time to time but that does not mean those words have the same definition. I think you have become too hung up on substituting "quality of blur" everywhere "bokeh" is used. A definition of a word isn't always a completely interchangeable concept, you can't necessarily expect to do such a swap. Try substituting the dictionary definition of "color" for every use of the word "color" if you want an easier to understand example.
J A C S said:
Dictionaries do not define the usage, they are supposed to reflect it.
Click to expand...
Dictionaries define the meaning, which implies the usage. Blog postings of a technical nature on a technical blog should reflect the correct definition and usage of technical terms. The penalty for incorrect usage is...

... more blog posts.
 
MediaArchivist said:
techjedi said:
What you have described here is not bokeh.

Bokeh is the quality of out of focus areas, not the presence of them.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people are tossing around the term "bokeh" because it has acquired a buzz as hipster/artsy lingo, like "per se" or "meta".

"Dude, check out the foam on my cappuccino... the bokeh is awesome, per se!"

Then there's the "how dare you tell me how to properly use photography terms" people, who use telephoto to describe any long lens or macro to refer to anything shot closer than three feet. If words don't mean anything in particular, why bother using words at all?
Click to expand...
I guess that I'm not in the crowd that feels the need to be all that precise with terms. I'll use the word "telephoto" for anything that's a much longer focal length than a 50mm equivalant and "wide" for anything that's much wider (I feel that this is reasonable shorthand to talk about focal length even though I know that in a technical sense it's incorrect). I don't however use the word "macro" for any shot taken closer than 3 feet... it's got to do 1:2 at least. Also, I don't use "bokeh" to describe shallow DOF. I look at it this way: if someone is showing off their gutiar amp and they show me how far they can crank it up, I'm not going to say "that's really got tone" when refering to how loud it goes... I'm just going to say that it's really loud. If on the other hand I'm speaking about the quality of the sound (and not the db level) I'll use the word "tone" to describe it.
 
Aaron801 said:
I guess that I'm not in the crowd that feels the need to be all that precise with terms.
Click to expand...
On a blog site about photography, you are swimming with people who do. Correct use of terms is (often) necessary to correctly describe gear, ask questions, and unambiguously answer questions. There is no penalty for incorrect usage, other than possibly being misunderstood; or having others be dismissive of your incorrect gear description, confusing question, or inadequate answer. None of those are fatal.
Aaron801 said:
I'll use the word "telephoto" for anything that's a much longer focal length than a 50mm equivalant and "wide" for anything that's much wider (I feel that this is reasonable shorthand to talk about focal length even though I know that in a technical sense it's incorrect).
Click to expand...
If and when you were to misuse the term "telephoto" in a technical discussion of lens design, your posts would be dismissed or corrected. As it happens, most lenses longer than 50mm (or equivalent) are, in face, telephoto by design. So you may be accidentally correct despite your worst intentions :)
Aaron801 said:
I don't however use the word "macro" for any shot taken closer than 3 feet... it's got to do 1:2 at least.
Click to expand...
Also incorrect, "macro" means 1:1 (or, if you are Tamron, anything you want!).
Aaron801 said:
Also, I don't use "bokeh" to describe shallow DOF. I look at it this way: if someone is showing off their gutiar amp and they show me how far they can crank it up, I'm not going to say "that's really got tone" when refering to how loud it goes... I'm just going to say that it's really loud. If on the other hand I'm speaking about the quality of the sound (and not the db level) I'll use the word "tone" to describe it.
Click to expand...
I think that is the best analogy to help define bokeh: bokeh is to blur what tone is to sound. Bokeh and blur are intrinsically related, but not the same thing. Incorrectly conflating them will not get you arrested, but might read awkward at best and confusing at worst. Neither of which are fatal.
 
Spotted Cow said:
Aaron801 said:
First off, rather than "bokeh," I feel that you really mean shallow depth of field.
Click to expand...
You may find some of the previous posts to the OP...ahem...interesting.
Click to expand...
Though I feel like it using "bokeh" in place of "blur" is a bit of a sloppy use of languge, I also don't feel like the distiction is that important to spend too much energy schooling folks on the differnces between the two words. Basically, if I understand what folks are trying to say, I'm satisfied...
 
Aaron801 said:
MediaArchivist said:
techjedi said:
What you have described here is not bokeh.

Bokeh is the quality of out of focus areas, not the presence of them.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people are tossing around the term "bokeh" because it has acquired a buzz as hipster/artsy lingo, like "per se" or "meta".

"Dude, check out the foam on my cappuccino... the bokeh is awesome, per se!"

Then there's the "how dare you tell me how to properly use photography terms" people, who use telephoto to describe any long lens or macro to refer to anything shot closer than three feet. If words don't mean anything in particular, why bother using words at all?
Click to expand...
I guess that I'm not in the crowd that feels the need to be all that precise with terms. I'll use the word "telephoto" for anything that's a much longer focal length than a 50mm equivalant and "wide" for anything that's much wider (I feel that this is reasonable shorthand to talk about focal length even though I know that in a technical sense it's incorrect). I don't however use the word "macro" for any shot taken closer than 3 feet... it's got to do 1:2 at least. Also, I don't use "bokeh" to describe shallow DOF. I look at it this way: if someone is showing off their gutiar amp and they show me how far they can crank it up, I'm not going to say "that's really got tone" when refering to how loud it goes... I'm just going to say that it's really loud. If on the other hand I'm speaking about the quality of the sound (and not the db level) I'll use the word "tone" to describe it.
Click to expand...
 
i-fDhn536-X3.jpg


Sometimes background blur is the only thing an average person will notice is different between a professional shot and a phone shot, so for a professional portrait I think it's important and pleasing.



5D3_8883-X3.jpg
 
Very true. It appears as though some are simply too lazy to just use the term for what it means...and instead want to change it to suit their lack of understanding. We see it when people talk about "shadow dynamic range" and "highlight dynamic range," etc...nonsensical use from a lack of understanding.

It would be no different than if someone posted asking what the resolution of a certain camera was. We would have replies stating what the rez is....only to find the OP correcting everyone as he was talking about dynamic range. Totally incorrect use of a term. JACS has a long history of arguing about stuff like this....it never goes well for him.
 
Last edited:
MediaArchivist said:
Also incorrect, "macro" means 1:1 (or, if you are Tamron, anything you want!).
Click to expand...
Actually, I've sen lenses labeled as "macro" that are 1:2... Honestly, I think that it's a bit silly becuase if I was wanting to do macro I'd want the real thing and that's 1:1, but I'm just going on how lenses are marketed...
 
The Davinator said:
kodakrome said:
Doug Haag said:
Paul B Jones said:
Bokeh means background blur, not the quality of the blur. Here is how DPR staff use the term in their recent review of Canon's new 35 f/4:

"Background blur, commonly known as 'bokeh' (a Japanese word that roughly translates as 'fuzzy') is a complex characteristic that's hard to define and includes several factors, but shallow depth of field is probably the main one. The quality of bokeh can be subjective, though the hallmarks are smooth transitions from highlights to shadows, with clean out of focus highlights devoid of any onion-ring patterns and as close to circular as the aperture blades will allow."

A couple things to focus (ha ha) on include "'bokeh' (a Japanese word that roughly translates as 'fuzzy')" and "The quality of bokeh can be subjective".

Mic drop.

--
Paul B Jones
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulbjones/sets
Click to expand...
Please contact Wikipedia and send them a "take down" notice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh You can tell them that the good folks at DPR have spoken and they (Wikipedia) have posted incorrect information. That's a really terrible situation because more people go to Wikipedia to check the definition of words than stumble upon lens reviews on DPR.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia is not a solid reference because on that website you can find bad information, wrong information, and misinformation. Anyone can post information on Wikipedia, and posters are not always experts.

This is from Harvard's website:

..."when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays."
Click to expand...
Fine...Webster and other dictionaries say you're wrong as well. Anything else?
Click to expand...
I'm wrong about Wikipedia being an unreliable source of information? Nah!
 
kodakrome said:
The Davinator said:
kodakrome said:
Doug Haag said:
Paul B Jones said:
Bokeh means background blur, not the quality of the blur. Here is how DPR staff use the term in their recent review of Canon's new 35 f/4:

"Background blur, commonly known as 'bokeh' (a Japanese word that roughly translates as 'fuzzy') is a complex characteristic that's hard to define and includes several factors, but shallow depth of field is probably the main one. The quality of bokeh can be subjective, though the hallmarks are smooth transitions from highlights to shadows, with clean out of focus highlights devoid of any onion-ring patterns and as close to circular as the aperture blades will allow."

A couple things to focus (ha ha) on include "'bokeh' (a Japanese word that roughly translates as 'fuzzy')" and "The quality of bokeh can be subjective".

Mic drop.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
gollywop said:
kodakrome said:
The Davinator said:
kodakrome said:
Doug Haag said:
Paul B Jones said:
Bokeh means background blur, not the quality of the blur. Here is how DPR staff use the term in their recent review of Canon's new 35 f/4:

"Background blur, commonly known as 'bokeh' (a Japanese word that roughly translates as 'fuzzy') is a complex characteristic that's hard to define and includes several factors, but shallow depth of field is probably the main one. The quality of bokeh can be subjective, though the hallmarks are smooth transitions from highlights to shadows, with clean out of focus highlights devoid of any onion-ring patterns and as close to circular as the aperture blades will allow."

A couple things to focus (ha ha) on include "'bokeh' (a Japanese word that roughly translates as 'fuzzy')" and "The quality of bokeh can be subjective".

Mic drop.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
gollywop said:
kodakrome said:
The Davinator said:
kodakrome said:
Doug Haag said:
Paul B Jones said:
Bokeh means background blur, not the quality of the blur. Here is how DPR staff use the term in their recent review of Canon's new 35 f/4:

"Background blur, commonly known as 'bokeh' (a Japanese word that roughly translates as 'fuzzy') is a complex characteristic that's hard to define and includes several factors, but shallow depth of field is probably the main one. The quality of bokeh can be subjective, though the hallmarks are smooth transitions from highlights to shadows, with clean out of focus highlights devoid of any onion-ring patterns and as close to circular as the aperture blades will allow."

A couple things to focus (ha ha) on include "'bokeh' (a Japanese word that roughly translates as 'fuzzy')" and "The quality of bokeh can be subjective".

Mic drop.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
kodakrome said:
gollywop said:
kodakrome said:
The Davinator said:
kodakrome said:
Doug Haag said:
Paul B Jones said:
Bokeh means background blur, not the quality of the blur. Here is how DPR staff use the term in their recent review of Canon's new 35 f/4:

"Background blur, commonly known as 'bokeh' (a Japanese word that roughly translates as 'fuzzy') is a complex characteristic that's hard to define and includes several factors, but shallow depth of field is probably the main one. The quality of bokeh can be subjective, though the hallmarks are smooth transitions from highlights to shadows, with clean out of focus highlights devoid of any onion-ring patterns and as close to circular as the aperture blades will allow."

A couple things to focus (ha ha) on include "'bokeh' (a Japanese word that roughly translates as 'fuzzy')" and "The quality of bokeh can be subjective".

Mic drop.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Is strong bokeh over rated?
Replies
18
Views
351
GonnaSnap
G
Richard Murdey
TTartisan 75mm F2 Z-mount mini review
Replies
12
Views
175
Peteo
Peteo
B
Way back in '95 (just purchased 7Artisans 35mm f0.95)
Replies
0
Views
1
Bassam Guy
B
T
What focus stacking parameters (# of photos, distance factor) to use Canon R5?
Replies
9
Views
112
JustUs7
J
B
NeokinOhhh!
Replies
4
Views
310
backsidewalkaround
B

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