Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

[Jeff Seltzer]

Thank you for the example.

 

[KariP]

There are piles of books about aesthetics and beauty and whatever...

In a GOOD photograph the bokeh can make the final touch - but there is no idea in talking about nice or in someway measurable "great and high quality " bokeh without something, that makes the bokeh worth looking at. Perhaps there are photographers who shoot just bokeh - an exhibition could be great !

I have some lenses that give better results than the others ... some of my photos are better than the others. I have seen better days ...

 

[guitarjeff]

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.

Bokeh comes from the Japanese word boke. It became popular in the U.S. in the late 1990's when some photography magazine started using it to describe the quality of the out of focus areas of a picture.

Yeo, the problem is they attempted to give it a definition and obviously wanted to make it artsy and sound COOOOL, BOKEH, they couldn't just let it mean what it obviously does, blur due to shallow dof. I believe they wanted some mysterious meaning and that's why the silly definbition that isn't a definition at all.

If the out of focus areas look good you'd say it had good bokeh if the out of focus areas looked bad, you say the picture had bad bokeh or the lens produced bad bokeh.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, and that's the way it should obviously be. Whether you like the EXISTING BOKEH, or not has nothing to do with it's actual existence.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. It's simply a descriptive term.

I, personally, always thought it sounded a little effeminate.

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.

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

You can have more or less, which is user controlled.

No, you can have more or less blur but not more or less bokeh, and the amount of blur is not just governed by depth of field. A longer lens will give more blur for the same framing and same depth of field.

I was talking about when describing a single lens, but changing lenses is a user controlled action.

When people say a photo has nice bokeh, they are referring to a combination of how much and how good the quality of the bokeh is to them.

They are not quite accurate then. They should only be referring aesthetic quality of the blur. Shallower DoF may affect the quality of the bokeh by giving more blur but so will other factors such as narrow field of view.

I agree that people should be more specific, but they aren't always. Similarly, if you say that you feel good/bad you are also combining a lot of factors into one description.

 

[guitarjeff]

There is good bokeh or bad bokeh. Not more or less bokeh, though evidently, if everything is in focus, there is nothing to judge. Yes it is true that it comes from the word for blur, but it is a photographic term used to discuss what that blur looks like, not how much there is.

Right on the nose. Amount of blur (bokeh) has nothing to do with it's actual existence . Either something is real or it isn't, if it's subjective then it only exist in the mind. When I see bokeh circles, THAT'S NOT SUBJECTIVE, the bokeh is a REAL phenonmenon, not subjective at all. Whether we like it or not, that's subjective.

More specific adjectives that besides "good" or "bad" might be neutral, smooth, hard edged, doubled, nervous, etc. There is also "onion" bokeh, describing apparent concentric rings in an image. If you are using, say a Petzval lens or something similarly uncorrected you would see "swirly" bokeh.

Yep, lot's of different qualities and aspects to bokeh, (blur due to dof). Whether we like it or not is the subjective part.

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

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.

 

[carlk]

You can have more or less, which is user controlled.

No, you can have more or less blur but not more or less bokeh, and the amount of blur is not just governed by depth of field. A longer lens will give more blur for the same framing and same depth of field.

You can have better or worse bokeh but you do not have more or less of it.

It should be very clear to you from all the comments bokeh describes quality, but not amount, of out of focus area.

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

You can have more or less, which is user controlled.

No, you can have more or less blur but not more or less bokeh, and the amount of blur is not just governed by depth of field. A longer lens will give more blur for the same framing and same depth of field.

You can have better or worse bokeh but you do not have more or less of it.

It should be very clear to you from all the comments bokeh describes quality, but not amount, of out of focus area.

You are correct.

 

[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.”

The above isn't strictly correct, and that's what's tripping you up.

Nope, the above IS correct

Bokeh is visual quality of the out of focus blur in any situation. You just can't see it very easily when there isn't much. (Narrow aperture, or not shooting a subject.)

i agree with this first part. It is the blur due to shallow dof.

No; it is the appearance of the blur, not the existence of it.

Appearance OF A THING in and of itself IS An ACTUAL THING, it IS NOT subjective. Whether you like it is the subjective part. You say "Appearance of the blur" "THE BLUR" is the part that matters, you just said it yourself but you are putting a false meaning to the work appearance as if only appearance is a definable thing, and this is wrong. You have to define what is appearing, and what is appearing, as you just said, IS BLUR, the BLUR is appearing, and that's the only part of it that CAN BE defined. So if bokeh is a REAL thing, then it IS BLUR, that's what APPEARS, the blur. The blur is the only possible, ACTUAL thing that makes an appearance, so we can define that THING as blur, that's exactly what it is. Bokeh is blur, the bokeh, MAKES AN APPEARANCE in the photo, you decide whether you like that bokeh, not whether it actually exists or not.

Simply put, bokeh is the pleasing or aesthetic quality of out-of-focus blur in a photograph.

Or it is the not-pleasing aesthetic quality.

So the bokeh is there whether someone likes it or not? YEP, and what is actually there that can be defined? BLUR (BOKEH)

This above is the gibberish part. A "THING" cannot be an aesthetic opinion, if it were, then you could say a thing exists for one person if he likes it,and doesn't exist for someone else if they don't. To say it is subjective is really saying nothing about it at all that could be considered a definition.

Bokeh isn't subjective. It just is.

If it is , meaning it has a REAL existence, then you have to be able to define the parameters. A chair is a real thing, and we can all measure it, see it. touch it and agree about it's qualities, it's size is a quality, it's color, it's texture. There can be no disagreements, it's a REAL, actual thing, and because it is real it can be precisely defined. Now, please define bokeh for me. The only real thing you can show is real IS THE BLUR, that's what bokeh is, the blur.

"Good bokeh" or "bad bokeh" are subjective to a degree, although there are certain aspects which are generally agreed to be one or the other.

Yep, good or bad to someone exists only in their mind, that's subjective, that has nothing to do with whether the bokeh actually exists or not.

If Bokeh "is" the quality, then is it a sliding scale, meaning one person can say there is bokeh in a photo while another says there is none at all? Saying bokeh is the quality is not a definition at all. That's why I define it as simply the blur due to shallow depth of field.

That's fine, although don't put too much emphasis on "shallow". And, again, it is a word specifically referring to the appearance of the blur, not the existence.

The appearance of the blur makes it a real thing. The decision whether you like it's appearance or not is SUBJECTIVE.

People who say that a photograph taken wide open with a fast lens "has bokeh" are, strictly speaking, misusing the term (because it implies that photographs where the bokeh is less apparent do not have any, which is not usually the case except when the entire photo is completely in focus).

Then we can discuss whether we actually like the bokeh (the blur due to dof), or not. We can decide whether we like the various "Qualities" of the bokeh (blur due to dof) or not, but there will be no argument on whether the bokeh actually exists or not, it will have a concrete definition. In other words, the definition will be definite.

That is already the case.

Not according to many. Saying it IS the quality is meaningless and subjective, that does not define a real thing. Either bokeh is real or it isn't.

So the standard attempt at a definition appears to be gibberish. Isn't bokeh simply the Japanese word for blur?

It is derived from the Japanese word for blur, but has its own meaning. Kind of like how "hardware" in German means computer hardware, and a hardware store selling hammers, hinges, and lumber is therefore pretty funny.

Anyway, I have set the photography world straight and saved the day for logically minded folks.

Or..... you have made a up a problem, and then declared that the thing which was already solved is the solution. Which puts us right where we started, except for maybe you will read this and come out a step ahead.

 

[guitarjeff]

Bokeh is the quality of out of focus rendering. As this is completely opinion based, there is no firm definition.

There we have it. The above is simply NOT a definition. Definitions are definite.

Great photos, by the way.

I for one prefer a softer smoother rendering, others prefer the squashed onion look of the old Jupiter lenses. But either way it is up to each person and of course much to do with the kind of shot you are taking. My all time favorite lens is the Leica 35mm Summicron. It is known as the king of Bokeh for a reason...IMHO.


Leica Summicron at f2.0


35mm Summicron wide open

 

[guitarjeff]

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

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

 

[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.”

i agree with this first part. It is the blur due to shallow dof.

Not really. The blur you get has to do with focal length, distance to subject, distance to Bg etc. just as much as it does DoF. You can get more blur with a longer lens even if DoF stays the same. Some people confuse the extra blur with bokeh.

Bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the amount. For example, is the blur soft or fuzzy; how have highlights been treated? You can't really define it as some people like one look more than another.

Simply put, bokeh is the pleasing or aesthetic quality of out-of-focus blur in a photograph.

That's a better way of looking at it but I'm still not sure you have a good understanding of what it means. It has nothing to do with DoF other than you will get more blur with shallower DoF all other things being equal, but that is the amount of blur, not the quality.

 

[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.”

The above isn't strictly correct, and that's what's tripping you up.

Nope, the above IS correct

Bokeh is visual quality of the out of focus blur in any situation. You just can't see it very easily when there isn't much. (Narrow aperture, or not shooting a subject.)

i agree with this first part. It is the blur due to shallow dof.

No; it is the appearance of the blur, not the existence of it.

Appearance OF A THING in and of itself IS An ACTUAL THING, it IS NOT subjective. Whether you like it is the subjective part. You say "Appearance of the blur" "THE BLUR" is the part that matters, you just said it yourself but you are putting a false meaning to the work appearance as if only appearance is a definable thing, and this is wrong. You have to define what is appearing, and what is appearing, as you just said, IS BLUR, the BLUR is appearing, and that's the only part of it that CAN BE defined. So if bokeh is a REAL thing, then it IS BLUR, that's what APPEARS, the blur. The blur is the only possible, ACTUAL thing that makes an appearance, so we can define that THING as blur, that's exactly what it is. Bokeh is blur, the bokeh, MAKES AN APPEARANCE in the photo, you decide whether you like that bokeh, not whether it actually exists or not.

Simply put, bokeh is the pleasing or aesthetic quality of out-of-focus blur in a photograph.

Or it is the not-pleasing aesthetic quality.

So the bokeh is there whether someone likes it or not? YEP, and what is actually there that can be defined? BLUR (BOKEH)

This above is the gibberish part. A "THING" cannot be an aesthetic opinion, if it were, then you could say a thing exists for one person if he likes it,and doesn't exist for someone else if they don't. To say it is subjective is really saying nothing about it at all that could be considered a definition.

Bokeh isn't subjective. It just is.

If it is , meaning it has a REAL existence, then you have to be able to define the parameters. A chair is a real thing, and we can all measure it, see it. touch it and agree about it's qualities, it's size is a quality, it's color, it's texture. There can be no disagreements, it's a REAL, actual thing, and because it is real it can be precisely defined. Now, please define bokeh for me. The only real thing you can show is real IS THE BLUR, that's what bokeh is, the blur.

"Good bokeh" or "bad bokeh" are subjective to a degree, although there are certain aspects which are generally agreed to be one or the other.

Yep, good or bad to someone exists only in their mind, that's subjective, that has nothing to do with whether the bokeh actually exists or not.

If Bokeh "is" the quality, then is it a sliding scale, meaning one person can say there is bokeh in a photo while another says there is none at all? Saying bokeh is the quality is not a definition at all. That's why I define it as simply the blur due to shallow depth of field.

That's fine, although don't put too much emphasis on "shallow". And, again, it is a word specifically referring to the appearance of the blur, not the existence.

The appearance of the blur makes it a real thing. The decision whether you like it's appearance or not is SUBJECTIVE.

People who say that a photograph taken wide open with a fast lens "has bokeh" are, strictly speaking, misusing the term (because it implies that photographs where the bokeh is less apparent do not have any, which is not usually the case except when the entire photo is completely in focus).

Then we can discuss whether we actually like the bokeh (the blur due to dof), or not. We can decide whether we like the various "Qualities" of the bokeh (blur due to dof) or not, but there will be no argument on whether the bokeh actually exists or not, it will have a concrete definition. In other words, the definition will be definite.

That is already the case.

Not according to many. Saying it IS the quality is meaningless and subjective, that does not define a real thing. Either bokeh is real or it isn't.

So the standard attempt at a definition appears to be gibberish. Isn't bokeh simply the Japanese word for blur?

It is derived from the Japanese word for blur, but has its own meaning. Kind of like how "hardware" in German means computer hardware, and a hardware store selling hammers, hinges, and lumber is therefore pretty funny.

Anyway, I have set the photography world straight and saved the day for logically minded folks.

Or..... you have made a up a problem, and then declared that the thing which was already solved is the solution. Which puts us right where we started, except for maybe you will read this and come out a step ahead.

 

[guitarjeff]

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT SIR!!

Bokeh is absolutely definable as the out of focus areas caused by depth of field.

You can have more or less, which is user controlled.

You can have good and bad, which is a characteristic of the lens. For example, I think this is bad bokeh, like someone blurred an area and then ran a really harsh sharpness filter in photoshop. While good/bad is subjective if most people consider the quality of bokeh from this lens to be unpleasant you can then objectively say that the lens provides bad bokeh.

When people say a photo has nice bokeh, they are referring to a combination of how much and how good the quality of the bokeh is to them.

Absoluetly correct. Their opinion of it does not make the bokeh actually exist or not. The blur IS there and it is the only REAL thing that can be called bokeh, anything beyond the blur is subjective, and cannot be defined in a concrete way for all. A real thing CANNOT exist only in the mind. Opinions about the qualities of the blur--soft, harsh, are all in the mind and do not define a real thing or phenomenon.

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

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT SIR!!

Bokeh is absolutely definable as the out of focus areas caused by depth of field.

You can have more or less, which is user controlled.

You can have good and bad, which is a characteristic of the lens. For example, I think this is bad bokeh, like someone blurred an area and then ran a really harsh sharpness filter in photoshop. While good/bad is subjective if most people consider the quality of bokeh from this lens to be unpleasant you can then objectively say that the lens provides bad bokeh.

When people say a photo has nice bokeh, they are referring to a combination of how much and how good the quality of the bokeh is to them.

Absoluetly correct. Their opinion of it does not make the bokeh actually exist or not. The blur IS there and it is the only REAL thing that can be called bokeh, anything beyond the blur is subjective, and cannot be defined in a concrete way for all. A real thing CANNOT exist only in the mind. Opinions about the qualities of the blur--soft, harsh, are all in the mind and do not define a real thing or phenomenon.

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

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

Bokeh is the way the lens/camera combination renders the out of focus area. That's a concrete definiton. Different lens/camera combinations render it differently.

 

[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.

You can have more or less, which is user controlled.

No, you can have more or less blur but not more or less bokeh,

Define it then, so we can all agree what bokeh actually is, since you are saying it is REAL. If you CAN'T define it, it isn't real. What is the only REAL thing in the photo you can define? YOU GOT IT, BLUR. How you get it, using distance and all that is meaningless. Subject distance alters dof, so the blur is still thaqt which is not in the dof, it matters not how you got the depth of field, distance, aperture, whatever, it's still blur due to dof.

and the amount of blur is not just governed by depth of field. A longer lens will give more blur for the same framing and same depth of field.

Meaningless. Whatever is out of focus and not be subject movement or camera shake, or focus errors is blur because of the dof.

You can have good and bad, which is a characteristic of the lens. For example, I think this is bad bokeh, like someone blurred an area and then ran a really harsh sharpness filter in photoshop. While good/bad is subjective if most people consider the quality of bokeh from this lens to be unpleasant you can then objectively say that the lens provides bad bokeh.

I agree this is bad, but it is subjective and some people might like it.

When people say a photo has nice bokeh, they are referring to a combination of how much and how good the quality of the bokeh is to them.

They are not quite accurate then. They should only be referring aesthetic quality of the blur. Shallower DoF may affect the quality of the bokeh by giving more blur but so will other factors such as narrow field of view.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bokeh

--
www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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 one particular blue paint is not a thing because one person might consider it cool and the other warm.

 

[guitarjeff]

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT SIR!!

Bokeh is absolutely definable as the out of focus areas caused by depth of field.

You can have more or less, which is user controlled.

You can have good and bad, which is a characteristic of the lens. For example, I think this is bad bokeh, like someone blurred an area and then ran a really harsh sharpness filter in photoshop. While good/bad is subjective if most people consider the quality of bokeh from this lens to be unpleasant you can then objectively say that the lens provides bad bokeh.

When people say a photo has nice bokeh, they are referring to a combination of how much and how good the quality of the bokeh is to them.

Absoluetly correct. Their opinion of it does not make the bokeh actually exist or not. The blur IS there and it is the only REAL thing that can be called bokeh, anything beyond the blur is subjective, and cannot be defined in a concrete way for all. A real thing CANNOT exist only in the mind. Opinions about the qualities of the blur--soft, harsh, are all in the mind and do not define a real thing or phenomenon.

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

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

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



Nice try, though.

Bokeh is the way the lens/camera combination renders the out of focus area. That's a concrete definiton. Different lens/camera combinations render it differently.