Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

[guitarjeff]

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.

Then explain it to me, let's see how you do.

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.

The blur between the two is different, but BOTH have REAL descriptions/qualities that DESCRIBE a real phenomenon, BLUR, get it? Superior is another SUBJECTIVE TERM.

Bokeh is no less a quality than sharpness or distortion.

Ridiculous. Distortion is a quality, it can be measured as oppossed to NO distortion. Now tell me how we measure/define bokeh as anything other than aspects to real blur, to a REAL phenomenon in the real world that we can measure? There is NOTHING outside the descriptions of real blur that is called bokeh, if so, let's hear the descriptions. Smoothness, roundness, these are REAL physical qualities to REAL blur. But you say bokeh is NOT JUST BLUR, so you should be able to describe bokeh beyond just giving me descriptions of different aspects of BLUR.

Tell me what BOKEH is, without explaining it by only giving descriptions of real blur? YOU CAN'T. there is no such thing as BOKEH beyond what blur is, or you could describe this thing beyond blur WITHOUT having to use descriptions of blur, which is a real thing. What part of bokeh is NOT BLUR, or a description of BLUR? There is NONE, that's why no one can tell me, because there is none, meaning bokeh is NOTHING but blur due to dof, there IS NOTHING called bokeh that isn't contained inside blur and described by describing qualities and aspects of that real thing called blur.

You ought to try these things before you rubbish them.

Try waht?

 

[Les Lammers]

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.

It has always existed but wasn't defined or discussed until 1999. I find it amusing.

 

[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.

There is the amount of the blurring and the visual quality of the blurring.

Amount of blur is meaningless. If there is any, it's blur/bokeh as long as it is there because of dof. Visual quality is NOT A THING. "Visual quality" is subjective Visual means visual quality to an individual, which means that's subjective.

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.

It has nothing to do with the quality of the blur. Qualities are descriptions of real aspects, not subjective. You can also use the word quality to mean VALUABLE to you personally, but that is COMPLETELY subjective. several of you are mixing these two meanings up.

If I see a painting and say, "That painting is a quality work of art", then quality in that sense is COMPLETELY subjective. Someone else may completely disagree that it is a quality art work.

Now, if we say, the painting has the quality of being done on canvas, that is NOT SUBJECTIVE. It is either on canvas or it isn't in the real world, it won't be on canvas for one person and not for another.

There is NO definition that means anything if the word quality means as it does in the first instance. Since the first instance is COMPLETELY subjective, then there is nothing real about that meaning, it exists only in the mind. Now, we know you folks don't mean this since you have already claimed that bokeh isn't just in the mind and does not exist in the real world, you claim it is a REAL thing, like we used the word quality in the second instance. Now, lets see how that works. In the second instance, the painting has the quality of being on canvas, you see, that has a REAL description of that aspect and it can be proven measured, it is REAL. Now if your bokeh is the same realness, you too should be able to show me some real aspects about it that are also based on something real, like being on canvas.

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

Correct.

 

[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.

Then explain it to me, let's see how you do.

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.

The blur between the two is different, but BOTH have REAL descriptions/qualities that DESCRIBE a real phenomenon, BLUR, get it? Superior is another SUBJECTIVE TERM.

Bokeh is no less a quality than sharpness or distortion.

Ridiculous. Distortion is a quality, it can be measured as oppossed to NO distortion. Now tell me how we measure/define bokeh as anything other than aspects to real blur, to a REAL phenomenon in the real world that we can measure? There is NOTHING outside the descriptions of real blur that is called bokeh, if so, let's hear the descriptions. Smoothness, roundness, these are REAL physical qualities to REAL blur. But you say bokeh is NOT JUST BLUR, so you should be able to describe bokeh beyond just giving me descriptions of different aspects of BLUR.

Perhaps we're looking at this wrong and instead of abstracting bokeh as a variable quality we look at it as a deviation from natural.

For the sake of argument, lets say that real blur has smooth bokeh? Bokeh would be measured as deviation towards angular. Distortion is only measurable against no distortion, and good smooth bokeh is only measurable against artificial bad angular bokeh. Bokeh would still be the name for the deviation.

You would then discuss bokeh as a description of how far from natural it is in the same way you discuss distortion. That doesn't change the fact that bokeh is still a quality of blur independent from the amount of blur, its just a different way of considering things. Instead of a subjective good/bad bokeh, you have an objective natural/artificial bokeh.

Your opinion on how it looks would still be subjective.

 

[KariP]

........

Who decides what the quality is? Oh, that must be subjective, unless you can give some concrete qualities of the quality.

I think I have clearly shown the modern, mystical attempted definition of bokeh to be simply gibberish that can't be rationally defended as being a definition. Bokeh is simply blur due to dof, no artsy, mystical concept there at all.

Good question ! What is quality - of anything? Who knows and how - and why is HE entitled to say anything....

What is the definitive moment we/some talk about , the thing that "makes" the image something - or something special

I admire for example Cartier-Bresson and Doisneau - and many others. That is very subjective - i have not found any proofs based on some/any measurable criteria.

In a very logic way : i think they are good photographers because i think they create good images....and some others see their old photos just as unsharp B&W boring snapshots. And i think they are good - no objectivity at all... who could decide they are good ? Who is the supreme photographer's god ?

But how do we define for example "definitive moment in photography" ? It is just random moment (1/250sec) in some very random place anytime - and the subject can be whatever. How can THAT be definitive - and who can tell when that moment comes? Photography is full of good questions!

Here a guy tries to find an answer with a psychological method, in a rather long essay :

Photographic Psychology: The Decisive Moment

And in the end he says: "Although I have attempted in this article to identify the specific psychological elements of the decisive moment, it is very much an artistic, philosophical, and poetic concept that’s not easy to pin down in any specific way. If you examine online photo-sharing groups devoted to DM photography, each group defines it differently. Some have very strict, meticulous criteria (different than what I propose). Some offer a simple definition, such as “Have you been blessed by space and time, to have pressed the shutter release button at exactly the precise moment to get the perfect shot?” Others simply refuse to explain it at all. - See more at: http://truecenterpublishing.com/photopsy/decisive_moment.htm#sthash.VDaMjr8o.dpuf "

Some lenses are used by some photographers - and some see the bokeh results as great - seeing something is a skill. Especially if you see before you push the button. You have it or you can get it by practice. I mean seeing and using a thing like "bokeh" to create better images.

This is a very good project ! just study it ;-) say, next 10 years.







--
Kari
SLR photography started in 1968, Canon DSLR cameras, lenses and now also a Fuji X-E1
60.21 N 24.86 E

 

[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.

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.

To simplify, bokeh is a quality of blur; it is not a separate thing nor is not a quality of the quality of blur. You can't separate it because it is an aspect of blur, therefore you can't describe it without mentioning blur. But since there are variations on the angularity of the blur, which is not due to a variation in the amount of the blur, it requires an additional term to describe that variation. That term is bokeh.

You don't have to use the term as saying "blur" will get your point across, albeit with less precision.

 

[KariP]

That was a typo - good or bad ....

or my english skills . There are criteria for that.

 

[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.

Amount of blur is meaningless. If there is any, it's blur/bokeh as long as it is there because of dof. Visual quality is NOT A THING. "Visual quality" is subjective Visual means visual quality to an individual, which means that's subjective.

Amount of blur is not meaningless term unless "very little blur" is the same to you as "a lot of blur". However if you want to say "the appropriate amount of blur for that depth of field" go right ahead.

 

[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.

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

Of course, there are as many qualities as there are differing aspects to a real thing. I could think of many qualit5ies a chair might have. It could have the quality of being brown, made of wood, has wood grrain, if I thought long enough I could come up with several qualities that chair has that we could all agree on because the qualities are real, demonstrable aspects from one person to another. That's not the same as me saying, "I find that chair to be a quality work of art", quality in that way is 100 percent subjective. You may not feel it is overal a quality work.

See the conflict you have? You want to say that bokeh is NOT JUST in the mind, and describing something only in the mind would be meaningless because there is NO concrete definition for something that is only in the mind, yet you also cannot show bokeh to have qualities like the chair being brown, yet you need to because if you don't, you are back to admitting it is only in the mind and is subjective.

So you are now cornered and need to show bokeh is not in just the mind. So if bokeh is a real thing, guess what? You should be able to describe qualities that it has, that are the same for everyone, like the chair being brown. When I ask you to do this, YOU can't give anything but descriptions (qualities) OF BLUR and BLUR ONLY. In other words, all you are doing is saying bokeh is another word for blur, since you can't give me any real differences between what you call bokeh and what we all call blur.

In order for you to show bokeh has some aspect other than just what blur is, ya gotta describe it in some way that is real, like the chair being brown, yet it needs to be a description that is not just another quality of being BLUR. You can't. There is nothing beyond blur that can be demonstrated to everyone to be bokeh and not just a description/quality of what blur is. Roundness, choppiness, those are descriptions of certain aspects of blur, and if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, sounds like a duck, IT IS A DUCK. So bokeh is NOT the quality of blur, IT IS THE BLUR, because you can't give me any aspects to it that aren't also descriptions of aspects of blur.

 

[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.

To simplify, bokeh is a quality of blur;

No it is not. Brown is a quality of a chair. We can measure the shade of brown,w e can all agree to call that shade brown, the brown shade is a real quality of that chair that can be demonstrated. Now, you give me a quality of bokeh that is also the same for everyone like brown is for everyone when describing the chair.

it is not a separate thing nor is not a quality of the quality of blur. You can't separate it because it is an aspect of blur, therefore you can't describe it without mentioning blur. But since there are variations on the angularity of the blur, which is not due to a variation in the amount of the blur, it requires an additional term to describe that variation. That term is bokeh.

Why would you call differences in angularity of blur bokeh? You can measure differences in angularity, which makes it real. So are you saying that bokeh is measurable, if so, give me the measurements.

You don't have to use the term as saying "blur" will get your point across, albeit with less precision.

 

[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.

There is the amount of the blurring and the visual quality of the blurring.

Amount of blur is meaningless. If there is any, it's blur/bokeh as long as it is there because of dof. Visual quality is NOT A THING. "Visual quality" is subjective Visual means visual quality to an individual, which means that's subjective.

Amount of blur is not meaningless term unless "very little blur" is the same to you as "a lot of blur".

It is EXACTLY the same if you are asking what both are made of. One teaspoon of salt is salt just as a ton of salt is salt.

However if you want to say "the appropriate amount of blur for that depth of field" go right ahead.

 

[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?

Of course, there are as many qualities as there are differing aspects to a real thing. I could think of many qualit5ies a chair might have. It could have the quality of being brown, made of wood, has wood grrain, if I thought long enough I could come up with several qualities that chair has that we could all agree on because the qualities are real, demonstrable aspects from one person to another. That's not the same as me saying, "I find that chair to be a quality work of art", quality in that way is 100 percent subjective. You may not feel it is overal a quality work.

See the conflict you have? You want to say that bokeh is NOT JUST in the mind, and describing something only in the mind would be meaningless because there is NO concrete definition for something that is only in the mind, yet you also cannot show bokeh to have qualities like the chair being brown, yet you need to because if you don't, you are back to admitting it is only in the mind and is subjective.

So you are now cornered and need to show bokeh is not in just the mind. So if bokeh is a real thing, guess what? You should be able to describe qualities that it has, that are the same for everyone, like the chair being brown. When I ask you to do this, YOU can't give anything but descriptions (qualities) OF BLUR and BLUR ONLY. In other words, all you are doing is saying bokeh is another word for blur, since you can't give me any real differences between what you call bokeh and what we all call blur.

In order for you to show bokeh has some aspect other than just what blur is, ya gotta describe it in some way that is real, like the chair being brown, yet it needs to be a description that is not just another quality of being BLUR. You can't. There is nothing beyond blur that can be demonstrated to everyone to be bokeh and not just a description/quality of what blur is. Roundness, choppiness, those are descriptions of certain aspects of blur, and if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, sounds like a duck, IT IS A DUCK. So bokeh is NOT the quality of blur, IT IS THE BLUR, because you can't give me any aspects to it that aren't also descriptions of aspects of blur.

No one is cornered.

Bokeh can be described as smooth or angular, or natural or artificial if you go with my other point that bokeh is the deviation from natural blur. Looking at a photo and seeing that blurred light is octagonal instead of circular is as easily shown as pointing to a bar stool and saying the seat is round.

 

[John Gellings]

I'd rather worry about content and framing... 20 years ago nobody cared about bokeh.

Ummm...we most certainly did. It has been a consideration in lens choice as far back as I can remember. Obviously content and framing are important....but if the out of focus areas are distracting, it's time for a different lens.

I get that. However, I was speaking to those who think Bokeh is a subject to be photographed... the main concern.

 

[guitarjeff]

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,

Good cake is completely subjective. You are not saying this about bokeh, are you? because something completely objective has no concrete definition to all which would mean I am right from the start when i said this silly definitition of bokeh is meaningless.

same with bokeh. It is always present, but whether its good or bad - you decide.

That's my entire point. It is not always present, of course, but if there is blur due to dof, that's bokeh, it's the only rational definition of bokeh, because everything outside of blur is subjective. I have waited the entire thread trying to get someone to describe bokeh without describing aspects of blur, and they cannot do it.

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?

The other side cannot say it is NOT real yet then say there is a real definition of it.

Simply put, bokeh IS NOT the quality of the blur, the quality of the blur is completely subjective, which means there is no real definition that explains what it is to everyone.

 

[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.

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.

To simplify, bokeh is a quality of blur;

No it is not. Brown is a quality of a chair. We can measure the shade of brown,w e can all agree to call that shade brown, the brown shade is a real quality of that chair that can be demonstrated. Now, you give me a quality of bokeh that is also the same for everyone like brown is for everyone when describing the chair.

Curves and angles, circles and octagons are the same for everyone.

it is not a separate thing nor is not a quality of the quality of blur. You can't separate it because it is an aspect of blur, therefore you can't describe it without mentioning blur. But since there are variations on the angularity of the blur, which is not due to a variation in the amount of the blur, it requires an additional term to describe that variation. That term is bokeh.

Why would you call differences in angularity of blur bokeh? You can measure differences in angularity, which makes it real. So are you saying that bokeh is measurable, if so, give me the measurements.

Circles rate 1 on the bokeh scale; octagons rate 0 on the bokeh scale.

Feel free to cite the 'Friedman Bokeh Scale' in future conversations.

 

[KariP]

"To simplify, bokeh is a quality of blur;

No it is not. Brown is a quality of a chair. We can measure the shade of brown,w e can all agree to call that shade brown, the brown shade is a real quality of that chair that can be demonstrated. Now, you give me a quality of bokeh that is also the same for everyone like brown is for everyone when describing the chair.-- "

Brown is just a description of a group of colors - there are thousand of different "browns" - some of them more like disgusting and some pleasing - beautiful even . And you can make a "brown" color (paint) in many ways by blending greens and reds and other stuff. Just try.

And we do NOT see the colors in a same way - not even if we belong to this same species, humans . Some of us males have a genetic green/red deficiency and they do NOT see the same "quality" - hey might claim that your "brown" (you say it is objective ) is more like green. And they know what they see and say YOU are wrong.

I'm looking at my chair that is a well known modernistic "design icon" - hell, it looks good and it is red - the color looks very good in this home against that background. My subjective vision is the whole truth about this. A beautiful HIGH QUALITY chair - and you can not argue. You can NOT see it. I can.

Some people see bokeh pleasing - some do not. We have to start measuring our brain waves if we want to measure this... ;-)

Kari
SLR photography started in 1968, Canon DSLR cameras, lenses and now also a Fuji X-E1
60.21 N 24.86 E

 

[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.

Amount of blur is meaningless. If there is any, it's blur/bokeh as long as it is there because of dof. Visual quality is NOT A THING. "Visual quality" is subjective Visual means visual quality to an individual, which means that's subjective.

Amount of blur is not meaningless term unless "very little blur" is the same to you as "a lot of blur".

It is EXACTLY the same if you are asking what both are made of. One teaspoon of salt is salt just as a ton of salt is salt.

However if you want to say "the appropriate amount of blur for that depth of field" go right ahead.

We're discussing how much blur and what the blur is made of.

 

[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.

--
Cheksa wrote:
You're evil Ulfric.

Who decides what the quality is? Oh, that must be subjective, unless you can give some concrete qualities of the quality.

Bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the quality of the quality of the blur.

So you mean quality as if I look at a painting and say, " I find that to be a quality work of art", right? If you mean it that way, bokeh is 100 percent subjective, but then the silly definition going around is meaningless, which is my point. There is no such thing as a definition with parameters describing a real object or phenomenon that exists only in the mind.

I find the painting to be a "quality" work of art, now ask me to define what I mean by quality so that everyone else will agree that it is a quality work of art. I CANNOT give you a concrete list that everyone agrees makes this a quality work of art FOR EVERYONE. When I use quality in this sense, it is COMPLETELY subjective. The value I place on the painting is completely subjective.

Now, if we say the painting has the quality/aspect of being done on canvas, that is using the word quality in a different way, and a FACTUAL description of some aspect that we can all measure and agree on. The chair has the quality of being BROWN. We can all measure the shades and arrive at the same conclusion that the chair is the shade we all agree to call BROWN. This way of using the word quality is NOT SUBJECTIVE, it is a demonstrable fact that it has the quality of being brown.

So we can say that in the first instance, we can not have a concrete definition for a value judgement an individual places on the painting. You may NOT find it valuable to you at all, and so we can say that it is completely subjective, we can say that the value of it EXISTS and DOESN'T EXISTS at the same time, since I may feel the value and you don't, so there can be NO real definition that makes that painting valuable to all.

In the second instance, we use the word quality to describe REAL aspects that everyone can agree on, just like we can all agree that the chair has the quality of being brown. This use is NOT subjective, it can be measured and show to be real for all of us. It is describable.

Now, when you say that bokeh "IS the quality" of the blur, which use of the word quality are you using? Surely not the first, the silly definition cannot be a definition if it is talking about complete subjectivity. You can't have a definition of something that defies defining, understand? I may find the painting valuable and you may not, there can be no concrete description/definition of why the painting is valuable to me that works for all others.

So you must mean the other, quality as a description of aspects we can all agree on, like the quality of the chair being brown. Problem here is, you can't describe anything about the bokeh that is also not a description/quality of blur. Hence, THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. Anything you say about bokeh can also be a quality of blur. I DARE you to tell me a single description/quality about bokeh that cannot be a description of blur as well. There is not a single aspect we can all agree on that separates bokeh from blur. They are ONE AND THE SAME. there can be NOTHING unique about bokeh that separates it from blur. Round circles, smoothness, choppy, colorless, anything you can say about bokeh can also be a possible description of how blur is in the photo. The two words mean the exact same thing. Whether you find the blur/bokeh pleasing or not is completely subjective.

I think I have clearly shown the modern, mystical attempted definition of bokeh to be simply gibberish that can't be rationally defended as being a definition. Bokeh is simply blur due to dof, no artsy, mystical concept there at all.

If it were simply blur, there would just be different amounts of blur, not different kinds of the same amount of blurring.

Wrong, there can be smooth blur or choppy blur, all with the same amount. this has nothing to do with amount of blur.

But no one is stopping you from just saying, "blur".

 

[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,

Good cake is completely subjective. You are not saying this about bokeh, are you?

Yes i am. bokeh is completely subjective.

because something completely objective has no concrete definition to all which would mean I am right from the start when i said this silly definitition of bokeh is meaningless.

same with bokeh. It is always present, but whether its good or bad - you decide.

That's my entire point. It is not always present, of course, but if there is blur due to dof, that's bokeh,

no, blur isn't bokeh, blur is cake, but quality of the blur is bokeh. It is present only when out of focus areas are present (obviously), but it is not OOF areas. Back to our example: taste (of the cake that is) is only there when there is cake, but taste isn't the cake. You don't ever say 'this picture has bokeh', as you don't ever say 'this cake has taste'. You say 'this picture has OOF back ground' or 'this picture has NICE bokeh' or 'horrible bokeh'. look at the attached picture carefully, do you see the difference in the blur? guess what - the blur (the amount of it) is THE SAME on all pictures, so if you see any difference - that's the difference in bokeh - quality of blur.

it's the only rational definition of bokeh, because everything outside of blur is subjective. I have waited the entire thread trying to get someone to describe bokeh without describing aspects of blur, and they cannot do it.

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?

The other side cannot say it is NOT real yet then say there is a real definition of it.

Simply put, bokeh IS NOT the quality of the blur, the quality of the blur is completely subjective, which means there is no real definition that explains what it is to everyone.

 

[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.

--
Cheksa wrote:
You're evil Ulfric.

Who decides what the quality is? Oh, that must be subjective, unless you can give some concrete qualities of the quality.

Bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the quality of the quality of the blur.

So you mean quality as if I look at a painting and say, " I find that to be a quality work of art", right? If you mean it that way, bokeh is 100 percent subjective, but then the silly definition going around is meaningless, which is my point. There is no such thing as a definition with parameters describing a real object or phenomenon that exists only in the mind.

That is not how I mean't it.

I think I have clearly shown the modern, mystical attempted definition of bokeh to be simply gibberish that can't be rationally defended as being a definition. Bokeh is simply blur due to dof, no artsy, mystical concept there at all.

If it were simply blur, there would just be different amounts of blur, not different kinds of the same amount of blurring.

Wrong, there can be smooth blur or choppy blur, all with the same amount. this has nothing to do with amount of blur.

Exactly my point. But instead of saying smooth blur others choose to say smooth bokeh, or whether they like that bokeh. All these terms describe the visual quality of the blur.