Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

[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?

 

[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.

 

[guitarjeff]

I never said it had anything to do with the amount of blur. The amount of blur is only one QUALITY of the blur, some may like more, some may like less, amount has nothing to do with it's actual existence. If bokeh is a THING, then it is definable with concrete parameters, if it is subjective, then it's not definable.

warm

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

Warm is a subjective concept.

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

 

[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. saying this is bokeh is the same thing as saying bokeh is subjective, which is the same as saying it is NOT REAL and exist only in the mind.

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

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

No it isn't. It is the quality of the blur.

Then give us the parameters of that thing, if you can't, then it is subjective, which isn't real. If bokeh is real, then it is definable, understand? A quality is an aspect of something definable. Saying a real thing is THE QUALITY is ABSOLUTE GIBBERISH and meaningless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

I never said it had anything to do with the amount of blur. The amount of blur is only one QUALITY of the blur, some may like more, some may like less, amount has nothing to do with it's actual existence. If bokeh is a THING, then it is definable with concrete parameters, if it is subjective, then it's not definable.

warm

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

Warm is a subjective concept.

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

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

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

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

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

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

Nice try, though.

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

 

[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. "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.

 

[guitarjeff]

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

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

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

Nice try, though.

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

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

 

[guitarjeff]

I never said it had anything to do with the amount of blur. The amount of blur is only one QUALITY of the blur, some may like more, some may like less, amount has nothing to do with it's actual existence. If bokeh is a THING, then it is definable with concrete parameters, if it is subjective, then it's not definable.

warm

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

Warm is a subjective concept.

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

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

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

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

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

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

No it isn't. It is the quality of the blur.

Then give us the parameters of that thing, if you can't, then it is subjective, which isn't real. If bokeh is real, then it is definable, understand? A quality is an aspect of something definable. Saying a real thing is THE QUALITY is ABSOLUTE GIBBERISH and meaningless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

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

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

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

Nice try, though.

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

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

Warm is not a definition, warm has a definition.

 

[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.

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

 

[carlk]

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

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

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

 

[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. Differences in those parameters produce different styles of bokeh. Bokeh is not the amount of blurring as you can have different styles of bokeh wight he same amount of blurring.

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

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

FWIW I'm enjoying this conversation.

 

[guitarjeff]

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

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

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

Nice try, though.

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

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

Warm is not a definition, warm has a definition.

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

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

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

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

 

[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.

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

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

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

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

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

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

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

Nice try, though.

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

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

Warm is not a definition, warm has a definition.

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

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

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

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

Both these photos have blurring, but with different qualities.

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

Bokeh has the qualities of being angular or smooth.

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

Smoothness.

 

[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?

I too enjoy this conversation. But I again ask you the simple question you should be able to answer, TELL ME WHAT QUALITIES a quality has beyond a physical object. I can explain to you the qualities a chair has, we can measure them. We can measue how round a point is in a real thing called BLUR. We can see how soft it is, choppy or not, we are describing QUALITIES of a real thing called BLUR.

So now since you say bokeh "IS THE QUALITY", as if "the quality" is a real thing, then give me some descriptive qualities of that real thing BEYOND THE REAL THING IT IS MADE OF, which is blur. Saying a point is round, or it's choppy, or smooth are descriptions of a real object, these are descriptions, these are qualities of a real thing called blur. You should be able to tell me the qualities OF "THE QUALITY" as it's own real thing, not connected to blur, remember, you say bokeh is not just blur, so tell me what it is, describe the qualities of "The quality". You can't, there is NOTHING, get it. NOTHING beyond the blur that can be described as a real thing beyond subjectivity. There is no REAL thing called bokeh INSIDE the subjective thing outside the blur.

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

 

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

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.

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.