Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

[guitarjeff]

Both these photos have blurring, but with different qualities.

That's right. The qualities are descriptions of a REAL thing--BLUR. The roundness, smoothness, are descriptions, or QUALITIES, of something REAL, that is BLUR. You are saying that quality ITSELF is a thing, if so, you should be able to give me aspects or QUALITIES of the real thing called quality, BEYOND THE BLUR. The blur is REAL, so the softness, or roundness are DESCRIPTION of a real thing--BLUR. Since you say bokeh is NOT just blur, then you should be able to give me some descriptive qualities of that quality, roundness and smoothness CANNOT BE IT, those are qualities of the BLUR. Tell me what the bokeh is BEYOND THE BLUR, YOU CAN'T, it's that simple.

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.

WRONG. The BLUR has the qualities of being angular or smooth. Are you saying that bokeh equals Blur? That's what I am saying and have been arguing for. You just gave descriptions or QUALITIES of blur. Now will you admit that bokeh IS BLUR. You continue to fail to tell me what it is WITHOUT DESCRIPTIONS OF BLUR. Stop giving me descriptions of blur and tell me what bokeh is BEYOND BLUR. Can you? NO, YOU CAN'T.

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.

Smoothness of what, the BLUR? YEP!!!! you still are giving qualities of BLUR, not something beyond blur. It is you who is saying that bokeh IS NOT just blur, but you continue to fail to describe what it is beyond the blur that you claim it isn't equal to. When will you describe what bokeh is BEYONG BLUR? All you keep doing is giving me qualities of REAL BLUR. Smoothness, agular shape, choppiness, those are qualities of blur. You said bokeh is not the equivalent to blur, yet you can't give me a description of ANYTHING beyond the blur that you can call bokeh.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

Bokeh is defined as “the effect of a soft out-of-focus background that you get when shooting a subject, using a fast lens, at the widest aperture, such as f/2.8 or wider.”...

No it isn't.

Bokeh is the quality of the out-of-focus areas in a photograph.

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

Both these photos have blurring, but with different qualities.

That's right. The qualities are descriptions of a REAL thing--BLUR. The roundness, smoothness, are descriptions, or QUALITIES, of something REAL, that is BLUR. You are saying that quality ITSELF is a thing, if so, you should be able to give me aspects or QUALITIES of the real thing called quality, BEYOND THE BLUR. The blur is REAL, so the softness, or roundness are DESCRIPTION of a real thing--BLUR. Since you say bokeh is NOT just blur, then you should be able to give me some descriptive qualities of that quality, roundness and smoothness CANNOT BE IT, those are qualities of the BLUR. Tell me what the bokeh is BEYOND THE BLUR, YOU CAN'T, it's that simple.

You are correct, bokeh is the name for the quality of the blur.

It is neither good nor bad; its just a more specific term so you don't say things like "I like that blur" because someone might just think you like the amount of the blur instead of how smooth/angular that blur is.

 

[guitarjeff]

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.

You are describing QUALITIES OF THE BLUR, come on, this is obvious. Again, tell me what is real BEYOND THE BLUR. How round a point is is PART OF THE BLUR. I want you to tell me what is REAL BEYOND the blur. You can't, because EVERYTHING beyond the actual blur is SUBJECTIVE, plain and simple. All you are doing above is giving me QUALITIES of the blur. "IS THE QUALITY" is meaninglessa. Tel me what the qualities OF THE QUALITY is, WITHOUT using aspects of a real thing like the blur. YOU CAN'T. There is NOTHING beyond the blur that is NOT SUBJECTIVE!!!! How round a point is is a DESCRIPTION that can be measured of a REAL thing called BLUR, get it?

You can have two lenses that provide the same amount of blurring. One has angular bokeh, the other has smooth bokeh.

Wow, just wow. You mean ANGULAR aspects to the blur? YEP, you HAVE to mean that, if not, tell me WHAT IS ANGULAR BEYOND THE BLUR? YOU CAN'T. You continue to give physical qualities of a real thing called blur. I thought you said bokeh is NOT equivalent to blur, yet I am still waiting for you to describe something other than qualities of real blur. Can you or can't you?

Those are the qualities of the blurring that are not just the blur. An octagon is not subjective when compared to a circle.

They are qualities of the blur, right., They are not BOKEH unless you want to admit that bokeh and blur are one and the same. Are you finally admitting this? They ARE JUST the blur or you could give descriptions of what it is BEYOND the blur.

Whether you LIKE the real thing called BOKEH/Blur is SUBJECTIVE, that's not real, it has no QUALITIES that can be described. The only way you can describe it, and you have proven this for me already, is by describing REAL QUALITIES (round, soft) of real blur, get it?

I get it which is why I've been saying smooth/angular in the face of your "bokeh has no definable parameters" stance.

What you should be getting is that bokeh IS BLUR, there is NOTHING describable about bokeh beyond blur that is NOT subjective. I am still waiting for you to give me a quality of "THE quality" without it also being a description/quality of real blur. You can't, it's that simple.

Whether you like the bokeh is subjective. Whether the bluring is smooth (circle) or angular (octagon) is not. Being smooth/angular is independent of at the amount of blurring.

Look how you have been backed in to the corner. I said long ago that this has NOTHING to do with the amount of blur. Look how you have been chased back to this? Of course whether the blur is octogon or smooth is NOT subjective, because those are QUALITIES/DESCRIPTIONS of REAL BLUR, they are NOT SUBJECTIVE. Now give me a description of or qualities of THE QUALITY, beyond blur, because you are CLAIMING that bokeh is something BEYONG BLUR, you are claiming this, not me. So vfar it has been a hoot watching you scramble from rock to rock trying to avoid what is obvious. You can tell me NOTHING about bokeh that is NOT subjective without using qualities/descriptions of real blur. In other words, you have yet to show me anything that makes bokeh real BEYOND blur, you can describe NOTHING about bokeh without using qualities/descriptions of REAL blur, get it?

Blur having a shape that we describe as round is NOT subjective, it is a quality of that blur.

 

[guitarjeff]

Both these photos have blurring, but with different qualities.

That's right. The qualities are descriptions of a REAL thing--BLUR. The roundness, smoothness, are descriptions, or QUALITIES, of something REAL, that is BLUR. You are saying that quality ITSELF is a thing, if so, you should be able to give me aspects or QUALITIES of the real thing called quality, BEYOND THE BLUR. The blur is REAL, so the softness, or roundness are DESCRIPTION of a real thing--BLUR. Since you say bokeh is NOT just blur, then you should be able to give me some descriptive qualities of that quality, roundness and smoothness CANNOT BE IT, those are qualities of the BLUR. Tell me what the bokeh is BEYOND THE BLUR, YOU CAN'T, it's that simple.

You are correct, bokeh is the name for the quality of the blur.

It is neither good nor bad; its just a more specific term so you don't say things like "I like that blur" because someone might just think you like the amount of the blur instead of how smooth/angular that blur is.

Bokeh and blur are one and the same, yep. Bokeh just sounds more mystical, artsy but it IS blur, there is nothing that can be described about it that is not subjective beyond the blur. Whether we like the various qualities of that blur are up to us subjectively.

 

[guitarjeff]

Bokeh is defined as “the effect of a soft out-of-focus background that you get when shooting a subject, using a fast lens, at the widest aperture, such as f/2.8 or wider.”...

No it isn't.

Bokeh is the quality of the out-of-focus areas in a photograph.

 

[Les Lammers]

I agree. This is a recently invented term and PP can cure almost anything.

 

[RusYus]

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.

That's the point!

saying this is bokeh is the same thing as saying bokeh is subjective,

'this is bokeh' - does not make sense. its just stating a fact, like 'this cake has some taste'.

if you like the taste of the cake you say its a good cake, same with bokeh. It is always present, but whether its good or bad - you decide.

which is the same as saying it is NOT REAL and exist only in the mind.

Not sure what you mean here. Is the taste of the cake not real?

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

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.

You are describing QUALITIES OF THE BLUR, come on, this is obvious. Again, tell me what is real BEYOND THE BLUR. How round a point is is PART OF THE BLUR. I want you to tell me what is REAL BEYOND the blur. You can't, because EVERYTHING beyond the actual blur is SUBJECTIVE, plain and simple. All you are doing above is giving me QUALITIES of the blur. "IS THE QUALITY" is meaninglessa. Tel me what the qualities OF THE QUALITY is, WITHOUT using aspects of a real thing like the blur. YOU CAN'T. There is NOTHING beyond the blur that is NOT SUBJECTIVE!!!! How round a point is is a DESCRIPTION that can be measured of a REAL thing called BLUR, get it?

You can have two lenses that provide the same amount of blurring. One has angular bokeh, the other has smooth bokeh.

Wow, just wow. You mean ANGULAR aspects to the blur? YEP, you HAVE to mean that, if not, tell me WHAT IS ANGULAR BEYOND THE BLUR? YOU CAN'T. You continue to give physical qualities of a real thing called blur. I thought you said bokeh is NOT equivalent to blur, yet I am still waiting for you to describe something other than qualities of real blur. Can you or can't you?

I said that bokeh is not just the blur because two lenses can display different bokeh even if they have the same amount of blurring. It is the style, the smooth/angular quality of the blur, not the amount of the blur. If it were only the blur, the only difference in bokeh would be how much is being blurred, not what that blurring looks like.

Those are the qualities of the blurring that are not just the blur. An octagon is not subjective when compared to a circle.

They are qualities of the blur, right., They are not BOKEH unless you want to admit that bokeh and blur are one and the same. Are you finally admitting this? They ARE JUST the blur or you could give descriptions of what it is BEYOND the blur.

Yes, bokeh is the quality of the blur. It is not a separate thing.

Whether you LIKE the real thing called BOKEH/Blur is SUBJECTIVE, that's not real, it has no QUALITIES that can be described. The only way you can describe it, and you have proven this for me already, is by describing REAL QUALITIES (round, soft) of real blur, get it?

I get it which is why I've been saying smooth/angular in the face of your "bokeh has no definable parameters" stance.

What you should be getting is that bokeh IS BLUR, there is NOTHING describable about bokeh beyond blur that is NOT subjective. I am still waiting for you to give me a quality of "THE quality" without it also being a description/quality of real blur. You can't, it's that simple.

Why would I give you a quality of the quality when bokeh is the just the quality of the blur?

Whether you like the bokeh is subjective. Whether the bluring is smooth (circle) or angular (octagon) is not. Being smooth/angular is independent of at the amount of blurring.

Look how you have been backed in to the corner. I said long ago that this has NOTHING to do with the amount of blur. Look how you have been chased back to this? Of course whether the blur is octogon or smooth is NOT subjective, because those are QUALITIES/DESCRIPTIONS of REAL BLUR, they are NOT SUBJECTIVE. Now give me a description of or qualities of THE QUALITY, beyond blur, because you are CLAIMING that bokeh is something BEYONG BLUR, you are claiming this, not me. So vfar it has been a hoot watching you scramble from rock to rock trying to avoid what is obvious. You can tell me NOTHING about bokeh that is NOT subjective without using qualities/descriptions of real blur. In other words, you have yet to show me anything that makes bokeh real BEYOND blur, you can describe NOTHING about bokeh without using qualities/descriptions of REAL blur, get it?

Blur having a shape that we describe as round is NOT subjective, it is a quality of that blur.

No one is saying it is anything other than it is the quality of the blur.

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

Both these photos have blurring, but with different qualities.

That's right. The qualities are descriptions of a REAL thing--BLUR. The roundness, smoothness, are descriptions, or QUALITIES, of something REAL, that is BLUR. You are saying that quality ITSELF is a thing, if so, you should be able to give me aspects or QUALITIES of the real thing called quality, BEYOND THE BLUR. The blur is REAL, so the softness, or roundness are DESCRIPTION of a real thing--BLUR. Since you say bokeh is NOT just blur, then you should be able to give me some descriptive qualities of that quality, roundness and smoothness CANNOT BE IT, those are qualities of the BLUR. Tell me what the bokeh is BEYOND THE BLUR, YOU CAN'T, it's that simple.

You are correct, bokeh is the name for the quality of the blur.

It is neither good nor bad; its just a more specific term so you don't say things like "I like that blur" because someone might just think you like the amount of the blur instead of how smooth/angular that blur is.

Bokeh and blur are one and the same, yep. Bokeh just sounds more mystical, artsy but it IS blur, there is nothing that can be described about it that is not subjective beyond the blur.

There is the amount of the blurring and the visual quality of the blurring. They are not separate, nor are they exactly the same. You can either just say "blur" or come up with your own less-artsy term for the quality of the blur.

Whether we like the various qualities of that blur are up to us subjectively.

Correct.

 

[John Motts]

Just bugs me because I see so many people give that silly definition that sounds so cool, but it's simply gibberish. Bokeh is blur due to dof, if you like the bokeh, great, if you don't, then it's bad bokeh to you, but it still either exists or it doesn't exist.

It probably seems gibberish to you because you don't understand it.

If you compare the out of focus areas of an image shot with a cheap zoom lens with those from a real quality prime, obviously at the same aperture, there really is no question that the quality of the bokeh on the prime is far superior.

Bokeh is no less a quality than sharpness or distortion.

You ought to try these things before you rubbish them.

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

Bokeh is defined as “the effect of a soft out-of-focus background that you get when shooting a subject, using a fast lens, at the widest aperture, such as f/2.8 or wider.”...

No it isn't.

Bokeh is the quality of the out-of-focus areas in a photograph.

 

[LaFonte]

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.

i think you are trying to point at the linguistic falacy of saying a 'lens has bokeh', but I think people are more or less use it together with good, nice, smooth or ugly as 'this lens has ugly bokeh' where it makes sense. The bokeh is the understanding of the formation of blur, which can be pleasant or not, not of its quantity which can be a lot or a little.

 

[LaFonte]

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.

Were the honorable folks from the theoretical linguistic society kicked out of their web server and they migrated here?

 

[LaFonte]

Just bugs me because I see so many people give that silly definition that sounds so cool, but it's simply gibberish. Bokeh is blur due to dof, if you like the bokeh, great, if you don't, then it's bad bokeh to you, but it still either exists or it doesn't exist.

It probably seems gibberish to you because you don't understand it.

If you compare the out of focus areas of an image shot with a cheap zoom lens with those from a real quality prime, obviously at the same aperture, there really is no question that the quality of the bokeh on the prime is far superior.

Bokeh is no less a quality than sharpness or distortion.

You ought to try these things before you rubbish them.

Maybe we should call it swag of the lens now? To move forward, you know....

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

Both these photos have blurring, but with different qualities.

That's right. The qualities are descriptions of a REAL thing--BLUR. The roundness, smoothness, are descriptions, or QUALITIES, of something REAL, that is BLUR. You are saying that quality ITSELF is a thing, if so, you should be able to give me aspects or QUALITIES of the real thing called quality, BEYOND THE BLUR. The blur is REAL, so the softness, or roundness are DESCRIPTION of a real thing--BLUR. Since you say bokeh is NOT just blur, then you should be able to give me some descriptive qualities of that quality, roundness and smoothness CANNOT BE IT, those are qualities of the BLUR. Tell me what the bokeh is BEYOND THE BLUR, YOU CAN'T, it's that simple.

You are correct, bokeh is the name for the quality of the blur.

It is neither good nor bad; its just a more specific term so you don't say things like "I like that blur" because someone might just think you like the amount of the blur instead of how smooth/angular that blur is.

Bokeh and blur are one and the same, yep. Bokeh just sounds more mystical, artsy but it IS blur, there is nothing that can be described about it that is not subjective beyond the blur. Whether we like the various qualities of that blur are up to us subjectively.

Are there different qualities of blur, from angular to smooth, which are independent from the amount of blur?

It really doesn't sound any more artsy to me then translucent does. I suppose if it were an English word it would sound less mystical.

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

Just bugs me because I see so many people give that silly definition that sounds so cool, but it's simply gibberish. Bokeh is blur due to dof, if you like the bokeh, great, if you don't, then it's bad bokeh to you, but it still either exists or it doesn't exist.

It probably seems gibberish to you because you don't understand it.

If you compare the out of focus areas of an image shot with a cheap zoom lens with those from a real quality prime, obviously at the same aperture, there really is no question that the quality of the bokeh on the prime is far superior.

Bokeh is no less a quality than sharpness or distortion.

You ought to try these things before you rubbish them.

Maybe we should call it swag of the lens now? To move forward, you know....

Man, that new 56mm f1.2 has good swagger.

 

[tko]

So, do we go around throwing out every word in the dictionary that isn't defined by measurable parameters?

Happy? Pretty? Sad, beautiful, sexy, good, evil, right, wrong, fun, art. A great photo, an artistic photo, a pretty photo.

None of these are measurable, yet we all pretty much know what they mean, and use them everyday with no controversy.

Bokeh is very well defined. Not only it how out of focus the background is, but it is how smooth and pleasing the transitions are. I'm sure if someone was bored enough they could come up w/a way of measuring the blur quality.

I'm always amazed when newbies step and try to redesign words that have been in common use for years. A photographer should have some qualities of the artist in his soul. I feel sorry for you if the only concepts that exist in your mind are those that can be measured, weighed, and counted.

Have a nice day.

A quality is an aspect of something. An aspect or quality of something has definable parameters. Never have accepted the artsy definition thrown around because a definition has to be definite, or it isn't definition.

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

So, do we go around throwing out every word in the dictionary that isn't defined by measurable parameters?

Don't forget X-Trans Sensor.

Happy? Pretty? Sad, beautiful, sexy, good, evil, right, wrong, fun, art. A great photo, an artistic photo, a pretty photo.

None of these are measurable, yet we all pretty much know what they mean, and use them everyday with no controversy.

Bokeh is very well defined. Not only it how out of focus the background is, but it is how smooth and pleasing the transitions are. I'm sure if someone was bored enough they could come up w/a way of measuring the blur quality.

I'm always amazed when newbies step and try to redesign words that have been in common use for years. A photographer should have some qualities of the artist in his soul. I feel sorry for you if the only concepts that exist in your mind are those that can be measured, weighed, and counted.

Have a nice day.

A quality is an aspect of something. An aspect or quality of something has definable parameters. Never have accepted the artsy definition thrown around because a definition has to be definite, or it isn't definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

 

[guitarjeff]

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.

You are describing QUALITIES OF THE BLUR, come on, this is obvious. Again, tell me what is real BEYOND THE BLUR. How round a point is is PART OF THE BLUR. I want you to tell me what is REAL BEYOND the blur. You can't, because EVERYTHING beyond the actual blur is SUBJECTIVE, plain and simple. All you are doing above is giving me QUALITIES of the blur. "IS THE QUALITY" is meaninglessa. Tel me what the qualities OF THE QUALITY is, WITHOUT using aspects of a real thing like the blur. YOU CAN'T. There is NOTHING beyond the blur that is NOT SUBJECTIVE!!!! How round a point is is a DESCRIPTION that can be measured of a REAL thing called BLUR, get it?

You can have two lenses that provide the same amount of blurring. One has angular bokeh, the other has smooth bokeh.

Wow, just wow. You mean ANGULAR aspects to the blur? YEP, you HAVE to mean that, if not, tell me WHAT IS ANGULAR BEYOND THE BLUR? YOU CAN'T. You continue to give physical qualities of a real thing called blur. I thought you said bokeh is NOT equivalent to blur, yet I am still waiting for you to describe something other than qualities of real blur. Can you or can't you?

I said that bokeh is not just the blur because two lenses can display different bokeh even if they have the same amount of blurring.

Come on. The two lenses show different qualities OF BLUR, it is still a description OF BLUR, Blur has definable qualities, which two different lenses show, but the defines qualities have ZERO qualities BEYOND being blur. You CONTINUE to give qualities/descriptions OF BLUR. because two lenses have different aspects OF BLUR, there is STILL nothing outside that blur that is NOT SUBJECTIVE. if so, TELL ME what they are without using DESCRIPTIONS of blur.

It is the style, the smooth/angular quality of the blur, not the amount of the blur. If it were only the blur, the only difference in bokeh would be how much is being blurred, not what that blurring looks like.

"Smooth" and "Angular" are describing WHAT???? that's right. aspects of the BLUR. They do not describe ANYTHING out side of the real blur. STILL WAITING for you to give a description/quality to the supposed bokeh that exist SEPARATE from the blur.

Those are the qualities of the blurring that are not just the blur. An octagon is not subjective when compared to a circle.

They are qualities of the blur, right., They are not BOKEH unless you want to admit that bokeh and blur are one and the same. Are you finally admitting this? They ARE JUST the blur or you could give descriptions of what it is BEYOND the blur.

Yes, bokeh is the quality of the blur. It is not a separate thing.

No it is NOT. Bokeh is not a quality/description of anything outside of the blur, bokeh IS the BLUR, if not, I DARE you to give a description that is not a QUALITY of the actual, real blur. Bokeh IS the blur, not the QUALITY of the blur. If it is the QUALITY, then qualities are descriptions of real aspects, so tel me what the quality is describing? it describes REAL BLUR that has aspects to it.

Again I ask, tell me what bokeh is BEYOND a simple description of real blur? YOU CAN'T, there is NOTHING in the photo called bokeh that is BEYOND a description of blur, if so, let's hear it. I have proven this over and over as you have yet to describe ANYTHING at all that is not a description of real blur. In other words, there is NO REAL actual OBJECT or physical phenomenon called BOKEH that IS NOT THE BLUR, if so, describe it beyond subjectivity.

Whether you LIKE the real thing called BOKEH/Blur is SUBJECTIVE, that's not real, it has no QUALITIES that can be described. The only way you can describe it, and you have proven this for me already, is by describing REAL QUALITIES (round, soft) of real blur, get it?

I get it which is why I've been saying smooth/angular in the face of your "bokeh has no definable parameters" stance.

What you should be getting is that bokeh IS BLUR, there is NOTHING describable about bokeh beyond blur that is NOT subjective. I am still waiting for you to give me a quality of "THE quality" without it also being a description/quality of real blur. You can't, it's that simple.

Why would I give you a quality of the quality when bokeh is the just the quality of the blur?

This sentence is gibberish. You should because YOU are claiming that quality/description is a THING called bokeh in and of itself, yet REAL things can be defined because they have qualities and aspects, that's how we know they are actually real and not subjective, understand? Now, describe your real quality as a thing by giving me a description of it that does not depend on subjectivity nor a description of aspects of blur. Tell me what a QUALITY is without it being connected to a real phenomenon. YOU CAN'T. All you ever do is describe real blur, you have nothing to show that there is ANYTHING about bokeh that IS NOT blur. I'm still waiting.

Whether you like the bokeh is subjective. Whether the bluring is smooth (circle) or angular (octagon) is not. Being smooth/angular is independent of at the amount of blurring.

Look how you have been backed in to the corner. I said long ago that this has NOTHING to do with the amount of blur. Look how you have been chased back to this? Of course whether the blur is octogon or smooth is NOT subjective, because those are QUALITIES/DESCRIPTIONS of REAL BLUR, they are NOT SUBJECTIVE. Now give me a description of or qualities of THE QUALITY, beyond blur, because you are CLAIMING that bokeh is something BEYONG BLUR, you are claiming this, not me. So vfar it has been a hoot watching you scramble from rock to rock trying to avoid what is obvious. You can tell me NOTHING about bokeh that is NOT subjective without using qualities/descriptions of real blur. In other words, you have yet to show me anything that makes bokeh real BEYOND blur, you can describe NOTHING about bokeh without using qualities/descriptions of REAL blur, get it?

Blur having a shape that we describe as round is NOT subjective, it is a quality of that blur.

No one is saying it is anything other than it is the quality of the blur.

It is NOT the quality. A quality is NOT a thing, describe it, you can't. It is not the quality of the blur, it ACTUALLY IS THE BLUR, and that BLUR has aspects and qualities to it in the real physical world, meaning it HAS TO BE ATTACHED to something REAL, uh, LIKE BLUR. A quality of the blur is a DESCRIPTION, NOT A THING.