Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

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

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign 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.

Its the way the way the out of focus area is rendered by the camera/lens combination. This does not change regardless of who is looking at the photo.

In what WAY does it have to be to be called bokeh? You said "THE WAY" and that impliues parameters, something definable, so now go on and define this real thing called quality for us. How big is it, how soft, how bright.... Not sure why you are having such trouble understanding that a quality is a description of a real thing and NOT In ITSELF a real thing.

There IS NO SUCH THING as a quality by itself. There is no such REAL OBJECT or phenomenon that is a quality apart from a description of a REAL thing or phenomenon. Read this sentence ovcer and over. It is a fact, not opinion.

That's like saying the color blue is not a thing because one person might consider it cool and the other warm.

The color blue IS NOT A THING.  It is a description of an object or a phenomenon.  Tell me, what is blue beyond a real object?

RusYus Senior Member • Posts: 1,523
don't mix bokeh and background blur...
1

The fact that there is a cake at the wedding reception is measurable and verifiable, whether YOU like the way it looks or tastes is completely up to you.

that's what bokeh is

OOF background is a fact, and can be predicted (measured) before the shot. Bokeh is how pleasant the qualities of that blur appear to the observer.

OP guitarjeff Senior Member • Posts: 1,165
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

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.

warm

  1. of or at a fairly or comfortably high temperature."a warm September evening"

Warm is a subjective concept.

Absolutely correct.  Warm is subjective, an objects real temperature is a real quality of that object.   Whether we find it warm or not is subjective.

OP guitarjeff Senior Member • Posts: 1,165
Re: don't mix bokeh and background blur...

RusYus wrote:

The fact that there is a cake at the wedding reception is measurable and verifiable, whether YOU like the way it looks or tastes is completely up to you.

that's what bokeh is

OOF background is a fact, and can be predicted (measured) before the shot. Bokeh is how pleasant the qualities of that blur appear to the observer.

Whether someone finds the blur "pleasant" is subjective.  saying this is bokeh is the same thing as saying bokeh is subjective, which is the same as saying it is NOT REAL and exist only in the mind.

DarnGoodPhotos Senior Member • Posts: 6,813
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign 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.

Its the way the way the out of focus area is rendered by the camera/lens combination. This does not change regardless of who is looking at the photo.

In what WAY does it have to be to be called bokeh? You said "THE WAY" and that impliues parameters, something definable, so now go on and define this real thing called quality for us. How big is it, how soft, how bright.... Not sure why you are having such trouble understanding that a quality is a description of a real thing and NOT In ITSELF a real thing.

There IS NO SUCH THING as a quality by itself. There is no such REAL OBJECT or phenomenon that is a quality apart from a description of a REAL thing or phenomenon. Read this sentence ovcer and over. It is a fact, not opinion.

That's like saying the color blue is not a thing because one person might consider it cool and the other warm.

The color blue IS NOT A THING. It is a description of an object or a phenomenon. Tell me, what is blue beyond a real object?

I changed over to blue paint because its not as vague. I can buy blue paint that is made up of specific ingredients which yield a specific color. I can buy a lens that yields a specific style of out of focus blurring. Bokeh is the style of blurring; the style changes depending on the lens used.

Just because that color blue can be considered warm or cool or that style of blurring can be considered soft or angular does not change the fact that those things exist.

 DarnGoodPhotos's gear list:DarnGoodPhotos's gear list
Canon G7 X II Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
DarnGoodPhotos Senior Member • Posts: 6,813
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?
1

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

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.

warm

  1. of or at a fairly or comfortably high temperature."a warm September evening"

Warm is a subjective concept.

Absolutely correct. Warm is subjective, an objects real temperature is a real quality of that object. Whether we find it warm or not is subjective.

Yet warm is in the dictionary which means that something does not need to have concrete parameters to be definable.

 DarnGoodPhotos's gear list:DarnGoodPhotos's gear list
Canon G7 X II Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
SaltLakeGuy
SaltLakeGuy Forum Pro • Posts: 13,653
Actually it is the "Character"
1

of the out of focus components viewable in the frame. Sometimes the elements can have unpleasant characteristics such as not presents as a perfectly out of focus circular subject and instead have octagonal character, which is less pleasing and the results of a non circular aperture blade arrangement. There can be specular highlights which are annoying and also not pleasing. So in he end when someone says it has "Nice Bokeh" one should assume it means that the out of focus portion of the frame presents itself in a smooth not busy but nicely blurred form in which out of focus subject do not have erratic edges but rather are very smooth and others with circular presentation and not angular.

 SaltLakeGuy's gear list:SaltLakeGuy's gear list
Sony RX10 IV Epson Stylus Pro 3880 +8 more
DarnGoodPhotos Senior Member • Posts: 6,813
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

In other words, definitions are definite, they have to be, if they are not definite then they are not definitions.

Not necessarily. "Warm" has a definition despite the fact that someone from the equator assigns a different temperature range to warm than someone from the arctic does.

Hilarious. Warm is not a quality, it is a subjective description of temperature. You said it yourself, since every person might have a different SUBJECTIVE FEELING about what warm is, it is a subjective term. The temperature of an object is a QUALITY of it. Whether someone perceives it as warm is subjective.

Nice try, though.

I was arguing that something does not have to be definite to have a definition.

 DarnGoodPhotos's gear list:DarnGoodPhotos's gear list
Canon G7 X II Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
OP guitarjeff Senior Member • Posts: 1,165
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign 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.

Its the way the way the out of focus area is rendered by the camera/lens combination. This does not change regardless of who is looking at the photo.

In what WAY does it have to be to be called bokeh? You said "THE WAY" and that impliues parameters, something definable, so now go on and define this real thing called quality for us. How big is it, how soft, how bright.... Not sure why you are having such trouble understanding that a quality is a description of a real thing and NOT In ITSELF a real thing.

There IS NO SUCH THING as a quality by itself. There is no such REAL OBJECT or phenomenon that is a quality apart from a description of a REAL thing or phenomenon. Read this sentence ovcer and over. It is a fact, not opinion.

That's like saying the color blue is not a thing because one person might consider it cool and the other warm.

The color blue IS NOT A THING. It is a description of an object or a phenomenon. Tell me, what is blue beyond a real object?

I changed over to blue paint because its not as vague. I can buy blue paint that is made up of specific ingredients which yield a specific color. I can buy a lens that yields a specific style of out of focus blurring. Bokeh is the style of blurring.

Just because that color blue can be considered warm or cool or that style of blurring can be considered soft or angular does not change the fact that those things exist.

Saying bokeh is a "Style" implies definable parameters, so now I ask for those parameters.   "Style of blurring" is the important part, "OF BLURRING", and the blurring is the only REAL thing that can be definitely defined as existing beyond subjectivity.

OP guitarjeff Senior Member • Posts: 1,165
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

In other words, definitions are definite, they have to be, if they are not definite then they are not definitions.

Not necessarily. "Warm" has a definition despite the fact that someone from the equator assigns a different temperature range to warm than someone from the arctic does.

Hilarious. Warm is not a quality, it is a subjective description of temperature. You said it yourself, since every person might have a different SUBJECTIVE FEELING about what warm is, it is a subjective term. The temperature of an object is a QUALITY of it. Whether someone perceives it as warm is subjective.

Nice try, though.

I was arguing that something does not have to be definite to have a definition.

Then explain one, because warm is not a definition, it is a subjective term.  Adefinition describes something real.

OP guitarjeff Senior Member • Posts: 1,165
Re: Actually it is the "Character"
1

SaltLakeGuy wrote:

of the out of focus components viewable in the frame. Sometimes the elements can have unpleasant characteristics such as not presents as a perfectly out of focus circular subject and instead have octagonal character, which is less pleasing and the results of a non circular aperture blade arrangement. There can be specular highlights which are annoying and also not pleasing. So in he end when someone says it has "Nice Bokeh" one should assume it means that the out of focus portion of the frame presents itself in a smooth not busy but nicely blurred form in which out of focus subject do not have erratic edges but rather are very smooth and others with circular presentation and not angular.

That's all good, but it is still subjective.  I may find aspects of the bokeh pleasing and you may not, that means it is subjective and not real.  You trying to say that because most people might find something pleasing doesn't mean that it then becomes real.  It has to be definable in a concrete way for it to be actually real.

OP guitarjeff Senior Member • Posts: 1,165
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

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.

warm

  1. of or at a fairly or comfortably high temperature."a warm September evening"

Warm is a subjective concept.

Absolutely correct. Warm is subjective, an objects real temperature is a real quality of that object. Whether we find it warm or not is subjective.

Yet warm is in the dictionary which means that something does not need to have concrete parameters to be definable.

The dictionary is a man made object, and it does not have only real objects in it.  You are trying to say that the dictionary can make something real or not because of whether it in the dictionary or not.

Like I said, warm is SUBJECTIVE.  To deny this is almost insanity.   Temperature is NOT subjective, warm IS subjective.  The dictionary describes IN GENERAL what many might call warm, it does NOT give a concrete description of WARMTH.  Not sure how you can not see this obvious truth.

DarnGoodPhotos Senior Member • Posts: 6,813
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign 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.

Its the way the way the out of focus area is rendered by the camera/lens combination. This does not change regardless of who is looking at the photo.

In what WAY does it have to be to be called bokeh? You said "THE WAY" and that impliues parameters, something definable, so now go on and define this real thing called quality for us. How big is it, how soft, how bright.... Not sure why you are having such trouble understanding that a quality is a description of a real thing and NOT In ITSELF a real thing.

There IS NO SUCH THING as a quality by itself. There is no such REAL OBJECT or phenomenon that is a quality apart from a description of a REAL thing or phenomenon. Read this sentence ovcer and over. It is a fact, not opinion.

That's like saying the color blue is not a thing because one person might consider it cool and the other warm.

The color blue IS NOT A THING. It is a description of an object or a phenomenon. Tell me, what is blue beyond a real object?

I changed over to blue paint because its not as vague. I can buy blue paint that is made up of specific ingredients which yield a specific color. I can buy a lens that yields a specific style of out of focus blurring. Bokeh is the style of blurring.

Just because that color blue can be considered warm or cool or that style of blurring can be considered soft or angular does not change the fact that those things exist.

Saying bokeh is a "Style" implies definable parameters, so now I ask for those parameters.

From Wiki: Bokeh characteristics may be quantified by examining the image's circle of confusion. In out-of-focus areas, each point of light becomes an image of the aperture, generally a more or less round disc. Depending how a lens is corrected for spherical aberration, the disc may be uniformly illuminated, brighter near the edge, or brighter near the center. Lenses that are poorly corrected for spherical aberration will show one kind of disc for out-of-focus points in front of the plane of focus, and a different kind for points behind. This may actually be desirable, as blur circles that are dimmer near the edges produce less-defined shapes which blend smoothly with the surrounding image. Lens manufacturers including Nikon, Minolta, and Sony make lenses designed with specific controls to change the rendering of the out-of-focus areas.

"Style of blurring" is the important part, "OF BLURRING", and the blurring is the only REAL thing that can be definitely defined as existing beyond subjectivity.

Not necessarily. Two lenses can produce the same amount of blurring with different styles of bokeh.

 DarnGoodPhotos's gear list:DarnGoodPhotos's gear list
Canon G7 X II Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
DarnGoodPhotos Senior Member • Posts: 6,813
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

In other words, definitions are definite, they have to be, if they are not definite then they are not definitions.

Not necessarily. "Warm" has a definition despite the fact that someone from the equator assigns a different temperature range to warm than someone from the arctic does.

Hilarious. Warm is not a quality, it is a subjective description of temperature. You said it yourself, since every person might have a different SUBJECTIVE FEELING about what warm is, it is a subjective term. The temperature of an object is a QUALITY of it. Whether someone perceives it as warm is subjective.

Nice try, though.

I was arguing that something does not have to be definite to have a definition.

Then explain one, because warm is not a definition, it is a subjective term. Adefinition describes something real.

Warm is not a definition, warm has a definition.

 DarnGoodPhotos's gear list:DarnGoodPhotos's gear list
Canon G7 X II Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
OP guitarjeff Senior Member • Posts: 1,165
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign 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.

Its the way the way the out of focus area is rendered by the camera/lens combination. This does not change regardless of who is looking at the photo.

In what WAY does it have to be to be called bokeh? You said "THE WAY" and that impliues parameters, something definable, so now go on and define this real thing called quality for us. How big is it, how soft, how bright.... Not sure why you are having such trouble understanding that a quality is a description of a real thing and NOT In ITSELF a real thing.

There IS NO SUCH THING as a quality by itself. There is no such REAL OBJECT or phenomenon that is a quality apart from a description of a REAL thing or phenomenon. Read this sentence ovcer and over. It is a fact, not opinion.

That's like saying the color blue is not a thing because one person might consider it cool and the other warm.

The color blue IS NOT A THING. It is a description of an object or a phenomenon. Tell me, what is blue beyond a real object?

I changed over to blue paint because its not as vague. I can buy blue paint that is made up of specific ingredients which yield a specific color. I can buy a lens that yields a specific style of out of focus blurring. Bokeh is the style of blurring.

Just because that color blue can be considered warm or cool or that style of blurring can be considered soft or angular does not change the fact that those things exist.

Saying bokeh is a "Style" implies definable parameters, so now I ask for those parameters.

From Wiki: Bokeh characteristics may be quantified by examining the image's circle of confusion. In out-of-focus areas, each point of light becomes an image of the aperture, generally a more or less round disc. Depending how a lens is corrected for spherical aberration, the disc may be uniformly illuminated, brighter near the edge, or brighter near the center. Lenses that are poorly corrected for spherical aberration will show one kind of disc for out-of-focus points in front of the plane of focus, and a different kind for points behind. This may actually be desirable, as blur circles that are dimmer near the edges produce less-defined shapes which blend smoothly with the surrounding image. Lens manufacturers including Nikon, Minolta, and Sony make lenses designed with specific controls to change the rendering of the out-of-focus areas.

"Style of blurring" is the important part, "OF BLURRING", and the blurring is the only REAL thing that can be definitely defined as existing beyond subjectivity.

Not necessarily. Two lenses can produce the same amount of blurring with different styles of bokeh.

Different "Styles"?   Styles have parameters.  There are style of houses, and style of many different real objects.   Saying bokeh "IS" the quality is the same as saying STYLE is a real thing beyond a physical object, which of course, it ISN'T.  Tell me what a STYLE is beyond a physical object?  YOU CAN"T!!!!!   Style is real only in as much as it describes a real object or phenomenon.

The above explanation that bokeh is subjective as seen in the simple statement "This may actually be desirable"  proves my point.

carlk Forum Pro • Posts: 15,940
Re: In focus area: IQ. >> Out of focus area: Bokeh.

guitarjeff wrote:

carlk wrote:

You say IQ of the picture is good/bad and Bokeh of the picture is good/bad. Simple as that.

I can live with that. The bokeh (blur is pleasing or not to individuals, that's subjective. the blurs existence in the photo is not subjective, that's a real thing. And if bokeh is to be a real thing, then the only thing it can be beyond subjective is the blur. Simple as that. Made even shorter, --there is no REAL part of bokeh, beyond subjective, OTHER THAN BLUR.

Exactly.  It's the same as you can't have an objective or quantitative definition of IQ other than perhaps sharpness.

 carlk's gear list:carlk's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EOS 7D Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM +6 more
DarnGoodPhotos Senior Member • Posts: 6,813
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign 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.

Its the way the way the out of focus area is rendered by the camera/lens combination. This does not change regardless of who is looking at the photo.

In what WAY does it have to be to be called bokeh? You said "THE WAY" and that impliues parameters, something definable, so now go on and define this real thing called quality for us. How big is it, how soft, how bright.... Not sure why you are having such trouble understanding that a quality is a description of a real thing and NOT In ITSELF a real thing.

There IS NO SUCH THING as a quality by itself. There is no such REAL OBJECT or phenomenon that is a quality apart from a description of a REAL thing or phenomenon. Read this sentence ovcer and over. It is a fact, not opinion.

That's like saying the color blue is not a thing because one person might consider it cool and the other warm.

The color blue IS NOT A THING. It is a description of an object or a phenomenon. Tell me, what is blue beyond a real object?

I changed over to blue paint because its not as vague. I can buy blue paint that is made up of specific ingredients which yield a specific color. I can buy a lens that yields a specific style of out of focus blurring. Bokeh is the style of blurring.

Just because that color blue can be considered warm or cool or that style of blurring can be considered soft or angular does not change the fact that those things exist.

Saying bokeh is a "Style" implies definable parameters, so now I ask for those parameters.

From Wiki: Bokeh characteristics may be quantified by examining the image's circle of confusion. In out-of-focus areas, each point of light becomes an image of the aperture, generally a more or less round disc. Depending how a lens is corrected for spherical aberration, the disc may be uniformly illuminated, brighter near the edge, or brighter near the center. Lenses that are poorly corrected for spherical aberration will show one kind of disc for out-of-focus points in front of the plane of focus, and a different kind for points behind. This may actually be desirable, as blur circles that are dimmer near the edges produce less-defined shapes which blend smoothly with the surrounding image. Lens manufacturers including Nikon, Minolta, and Sony make lenses designed with specific controls to change the rendering of the out-of-focus areas.

"Style of blurring" is the important part, "OF BLURRING", and the blurring is the only REAL thing that can be definitely defined as existing beyond subjectivity.

Not necessarily. Two lenses can produce the same amount of blurring with different styles of bokeh.

Different "Styles"? Styles have parameters. There are style of houses, and style of many different real objects. Saying bokeh "IS" the quality is the same as saying STYLE is a real thing beyond a physical object, which of course, it ISN'T. Tell me what a STYLE is beyond a physical object? YOU CAN"T!!!!! Style is real only in as much as it describes a real object or phenomenon.

Bokeh's parameters are how round the points of light are, how evenly they are illuminated. Differences in those parameters produce different styles of bokeh. Bokeh is not the amount of blurring as you can have different styles of bokeh wight he same amount of blurring.

The above explanation that bokeh is subjective as seen in the simple statement "This may actually be desirable" proves my point.

It doesn't actually. The phrase "shallow depth of field may actually be desirable" is not proof that shallow depth of field does not exist.

FWIW I'm enjoying this conversation.

 DarnGoodPhotos's gear list:DarnGoodPhotos's gear list
Canon G7 X II Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
OP guitarjeff Senior Member • Posts: 1,165
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

In other words, definitions are definite, they have to be, if they are not definite then they are not definitions.

Not necessarily. "Warm" has a definition despite the fact that someone from the equator assigns a different temperature range to warm than someone from the arctic does.

Hilarious. Warm is not a quality, it is a subjective description of temperature. You said it yourself, since every person might have a different SUBJECTIVE FEELING about what warm is, it is a subjective term. The temperature of an object is a QUALITY of it. Whether someone perceives it as warm is subjective.

Nice try, though.

I was arguing that something does not have to be definite to have a definition.

Then explain one, because warm is not a definition, it is a subjective term. Adefinition describes something real.

Warm is not a definition, warm has a definition.

No, what is in the dictionary describes what PEOPLE may find as warm, it does not define warm as a real OBJECT.  in other words, what is in the dictionary is an explanation that warm is a subjective term.   Give me the parameters that mean WARM, can you or not?   Warm is subjective, It is stunning that you will not admit this obvious truth.  Warm is an OPINION.  You can describe someone as having an opinion, but warm is a CHANGING description depending on who is doing the describing.

The dictionary only says that there is a word called warm, and explains it as being subjective.  Saying the word warm exists is not a definition with concrete parameters.  So the best you can do here is say the word "Bokeh" exists, but you cannot tell me what it actually is BEYOND blur due to dof.   Blur is the ONLY real thing that can be called blur, there is NOTHING else in the photo beyond the blur that IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!!

A real object has qualities, meaning you can describe it, measure it, agree with others that it has certain qualities.  The chair has the qualoty of being brown, made of oak, and so on and so forth.

Now, you give me the descriptive qualities of "IS THE QUALITY"   You can't, there is no thing called a quality as an object or phenomenon.  Saying bokeh IS THE QUALITY and then not being able to describe concrete aspects of that real thing like I can describe qualities or aspects of a chair shows clearly that saying bokeh IS THE QUALITY is a meaningless, gibberish statement.

OP guitarjeff Senior Member • Posts: 1,165
Re: In focus area: IQ. >> Out of focus area: Bokeh.
1

carlk wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

carlk wrote:

You say IQ of the picture is good/bad and Bokeh of the picture is good/bad. Simple as that.

I can live with that. The bokeh (blur is pleasing or not to individuals, that's subjective. the blurs existence in the photo is not subjective, that's a real thing. And if bokeh is to be a real thing, then the only thing it can be beyond subjective is the blur. Simple as that. Made even shorter, --there is no REAL part of bokeh, beyond subjective, OTHER THAN BLUR.

Exactly. It's the same as you can't have an objective or quantitative definition of IQ other than perhaps sharpness.

Right on brother.  It is amazing to watch folks who want this esoteric, mystical concept of bokeh try to hang on to a gibberish definition that isn't a definition at all.

It is obvious that this silly definition was put forth in order to make the word bokeh some mystical thing that only great photogs can understand.  Can't you just see some geeks sitting at a Starbucks saying, "doesn't the word bokeh sound so cool and artsy, like some mystical concept?"  And his friend saying, "yeah, sounds good, but it's just the Japanese word for blur" and the other geek says, "oh man, we can't have such a cool sounding word that rolls off your tongue simply mean something boring like blur, we want it to be a mystical term".

DarnGoodPhotos Senior Member • Posts: 6,813
Re: Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

guitarjeff wrote:

In other words, definitions are definite, they have to be, if they are not definite then they are not definitions.

Not necessarily. "Warm" has a definition despite the fact that someone from the equator assigns a different temperature range to warm than someone from the arctic does.

Hilarious. Warm is not a quality, it is a subjective description of temperature. You said it yourself, since every person might have a different SUBJECTIVE FEELING about what warm is, it is a subjective term. The temperature of an object is a QUALITY of it. Whether someone perceives it as warm is subjective.

Nice try, though.

I was arguing that something does not have to be definite to have a definition.

Then explain one, because warm is not a definition, it is a subjective term. Adefinition describes something real.

Warm is not a definition, warm has a definition.

Warm is subjective, It is stunning that you will not admit this obvious truth. Warm is an OPINION.

This is what I said previously and it pretty much states that warm is a subjective term.

"Warm" has a definition despite the fact that someone from the equator assigns a different temperature range to warm than someone from the arctic does.

The dictionary only says that there is a word called warm, and explains it as being subjective. Saying the word warm exists is not a definition with concrete parameters. So the best you can do here is say the word "Bokeh" exists, but you cannot tell me what it actually is BEYOND blur due to dof. Blur is the ONLY real thing that can be called blur, there is NOTHING else in the photo beyond the blur that IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!!

Both these photos have blurring, but with different qualities.

A real object has qualities, meaning you can describe it, measure it, agree with others that it has certain qualities. The chair has the qualoty of being brown, made of oak, and so on and so forth.

Bokeh has the qualities of being angular or smooth.

Now, you give me the descriptive qualities of "IS THE QUALITY" You can't, there is no thing called a quality as an object or phenomenon. Saying bokeh IS THE QUALITY and then not being able to describe concrete aspects of that real thing like I can describe qualities or aspects of a chair shows clearly that saying bokeh IS THE QUALITY is a meaningless, gibberish statement.

Smoothness.

 DarnGoodPhotos's gear list:DarnGoodPhotos's gear list
Canon G7 X II Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads