Definition of bokeh, simply gibberish?

[guitarjeff]

........

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....

Absolutely correct. Either quality is completely subjective, "I think the painting is overall is a quality work of art" Others may not, which means completely in the mind. And the other is quality as a description of something concrete that can be measured, the chair has the quality of being brown. Saying bokeh "IS THE QUALITY" is simply meaningless gibberish.

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.

Great example. It is valuable to you subjectively, no way to have a definition of what that value is that everyone could measure and agree on, so the other side can't mean "Is the quality" in this way, or they would be admitting that it exist only in the mind. Yet when we ask them to define it in the real world for all to agree on all they can do is gives qualities/descriptions of differing kinds of blur, which is all still, BLUR. If bokeh is anything beyond blur they should be able to give a concrete set of parametrs that explain what is is for all and it would clearly show it is something MORE than blur, but they can't, which makes the so called definition nothing but gibberish.

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]

Oh yeah… GuitarJeff is wrong.

 

[guitarjeff]

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

Why would you do that?

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

Nothing wrong at all with the dictionary explaining terms which are subjective. If I feel a certain way but don't know what to call it, one of these explanations might help me understand a word that might better describe it. All words in the dictionary need not define ACTUAL things or phenomenon.

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

Yep, no need for controversy.

Bokeh is very well defined.

Yep, and the only rational definition is "blur in a photo due to a dof that doesn't encompass the entire frame." Saying it is THE QUALITY of blur is meaningless nonsense.

Not only it how out of focus the background is, but it is how smooth and pleasing the transitions are.

You mean how smooth the BLUR is. Whether it's pleasing or not is completely subjective.

I'm sure if someone was bored enough they could come up w/a way of measuring the blur quality.

Really? I would love to see that.

I'm always amazed when newbies step and try to redesign words that have been in common use for years.

Newbie? I have been a member of dpr for a couple years or more. I redefined nothing, I gave a completely logical explanation of why it is silly gibberish to say that bokeh IS THE QUALITY of the blur. Quality is not a THING in the real world. It is either a decription of real aspects, or it can be used in a completely subjective way that can't be defined for everyone to agree with.

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.

Ridiculous, we are talking about whether a definition is rational or not. A concept does not have to be measured to be a concept. The point stands, the defintion going around is not a definition at all. it's meaningless drivel.

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.

 

[guitarjeff]

Oh yeah… GuitarJeff is wrong.

But you just can't define how, lol.:-D

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

Oh yeah… GuitarJeff is wrong.

But you just can't define how, lol.:-D

.5 on the Friedman Bokeh Scale.

 

[Les Lammers]

Oh yeah… GuitarJeff is wrong.

But you just can't define how, lol.:-D

I had it but the words have escaped me. Maybe the Bokeh Man is responsible. :-O

 

[jmczaja]

First, i think bokeh is a silly word and i personally never use it!

Can we just make this easy and say bokeh is a TYPE of blur caused by a camera lens' ability to render out of focus areas (DOF)?

Kinda like.. Fuzz or overdrive is a type of 'distortion' coming from a guitar amp.

 

[slimandy]

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.

Bokeh IS subjective.

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.

It's the aesthetic quality of the blur.

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.

That's not the point. That might be where you are confused. If you use a longer lens and frame your subject the same way you will get more BG blur even with the same 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

--
www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[guitarjeff]

"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.

What we call brown matters not. the point is, we can all see the shades and agree to call it brown. Human beings see the same shades and can differentiate them, that's all that matters.

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.

We know how the eye cones work, how they capture the visible light spectrum. color isn't something that is arbitrary light at certain wave lengths that even if we were totally blind we could measure.
but there are some people out there who are color blind for whom green and red can be confused as each other. but this is a abnormality in the functioning of the eye. Really, are you going to go this far in to saying bokeh is something different than blur, really?

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.

Our eyes, for what we are talking about operate the same if we are both healthy. this is meaningless stuff here. Our value of something is COMPLETELY subjective, the tiny differences in shades that two healthy eyes see is meaningless to talk about in this debate.

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

That is thier value of it, completely subjective.

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

 

[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.

Bokeh IS subjective.

Then the definition going around is meaningless, like I said.

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.

It's the aesthetic quality of the blur.

Then give me the parameters of that quality so we can agree we are actually both looking at bokeh. Or are you saying hthat it can both exist and not exist at the same time?

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.

That's not the point. That might be where you are confused. If you use a longer lens and frame your subject the same way you will get more BG blur even with the same DoF.

No confusion, it's still blur, and the frame has something in focus and the rest of it is blurred. Your statement is only meaningful if you are comparing against another lens, why do that? If I only look at the longer fl pic, the blur is still there because of dof. Whatever tha blurry stuff is is still blur not caused by camera shake or subject movement.

You can have good and bad, which is a characteristic of the lens. For example, I think this is bad bokeh,

YOU THINK it's bad bokeh? That would prove it's subjective. I may not feel it's bad bokeh. If it is bad bokeh FOR ALL humanity, then you need to define in a concrete way what bad bokeh is, with actual measurements. And even then all huans may not agree on the value.

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

--
www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[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.

No one is cornered.

Bokeh can be described as smooth or angular, or natural or artificial

So can blur, sounds like they are the same thing, uh, unless you can show me what bokeh is that blur cannot be.

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.

 

[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?

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,

great, I'll have some.

but quality of the blur is bokeh.

Then define the parameters of that quality so that we all know we are looking at actual bokeh. Without those defined parameters, we would be all over the place, bokeh would both exist and not exist at the same time, and you think that is REAL? How do you have a definition of something that can both be there and not be there at the same time?

It is present only when out of focus areas are present (obviously),

Yep, in other words, no such thing as bokeh without blur, NEVER EVER EVER, just as I said, there is no such thing as bokeh beyond blur. If there is, describe the qualities of the bokeh without simply naming qualities of blur, hint, YOU CAN'T. Any description you give of bokeh I can say is nothing more that a description/quality that blur can have.

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.

Right. Taste is not a cake just as "THE quality" is not a real thing or phenomenon in the real world. No such thing as a thing that is a QUALITY in and of itself. a quality is, get this, EITHER A DESCRIPTION OF AN ASPECT OF A REAL THING THAT CAN BE DEFINED AND measured, (the chair has the quality of being made of wood), or it is a completely subjective concept, (I find the painting to be a quality example of art, othersmay not.) If you have any other definition of the word "quality", please paste it here

_______________________________________________

You don't ever say 'this picture has bokeh',

Who doesn't? I do, al the time. If I see blur due to the subject focus being a smaller part of the entire frame, I say the photo has bokeh.

as you don't ever say 'this cake has taste'.

Nope, I say this taste good or not, which is completely subjective, meaning there would be NO WAY for me to define for everyone what good tasting cake is.

You say 'this picture has OOF back ground' or 'this picture has NICE bokeh' or 'horrible bokeh'.

Nope, many times I don't put a value on it because I feel neither way, i just see it as bokeh, or neutral.

look at the attached picture carefully, do you see the difference in the blur?

You mean bokeh, not really. I see bokeh exist in all of them, I don't value any of them over the other with a quick glance. Wonder where you are heading with this.

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.

Ridiculous. If ther are REAL DIFFERENCES, then they are definable for all. Any quality perceptions are COMPLETELY subjective, and there would be NOTHING rational about calling THE QUALITY bokeh. If there is something different in the blur that makes it bokeh AND NOT BLUR, something beyond the blur, then DEFINE IT FOR ME so we can agree on what we are seeing that is beyond the blur. I am waiting.

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.

 

[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.

 

[guitarjeff]

First, i think bokeh is a silly word and i personally never use it!

Can we just make this easy and say bokeh is a TYPE of blur caused by a camera lens' ability to render out of focus areas (DOF)?

Kinda like.. Fuzz or overdrive is a type of 'distortion' coming from a guitar amp.

Not bad. Mine is very direct

Bokeh is that part of a photo that is outside the confines of the dof. So simple. same for everyone everywhere at all times, no debates, no misunderstandings, no silly, artsy definitions that SOUND as cool as the word.

Whether you like that part of the photo is completely subjective.

 

[guitarjeff]

It's been fun guys, but the thread has gone on too long as I am missing all the good Fuji postings. It has been entertaining for sure, thanks for participating.

 

[jtra]

Esthetics of bokeh can be subjective and contextual.
Anyway, I have an article on how different bokeh is formed:
http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/index.html

 

[Matthew Miller]

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.

Saying things in capital letters doesn't make them any more accurate.

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)

A rock can have many qualities. Some of these relate to appearance. It can be shiny, it can be dull; it can be gray, or it can be red. Others are about other things: the rock can be brittle or not, it can be of different weights, it can be porous or solid. It can have different mineral composition. It could be valuable, or not. All of these things are "actually there", and only some of them are the aesthetic qualities.

But you are saying "YEP, and what is actually there that can be defined? IT IS A ROCK."

That's not helpful.

In actuality, it turns out that we have a term that applies to the appearance of out-of-focus blur. That term is "bokeh".

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

Right, so, we can actually define the parameters that go into bokeh. Just like we can have definitions for different colors of rocks.

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.

Correct. Just like someone might think a certain rock is pretty and someone else might not. There's general agreement that certain rocks (rubies, say) are prettier than others, but even then not everyone agrees.

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.

This is also true. I'm not sure why you are so angry about it.

Nope, I have clearly and logically shown you that either something is real or it isn't. Saying it is THE QUALITY of blur is gibberish. A quality is an aspect, like something being brown, or red, that's a quality. The quality itself is not a THING.

???

Right, it's true that you can't, like, pick up and hold bokeh. It's not that kind of thing. It is still "a thing". The appearance of rocks is also "a thing".

 

[Matthew Miller]

There are several aspects to bokeh that make it more or less desirable.

To you, or to many? If I like it, and you don't, does that mean there is MORE bokeh for me and less for you? Is it subjective?

Okay, I'm going to try one more thing. No, wait, two things because I have a different point below. But let's start with the first one:

Bokeh isn't a scale where more of it is good and less of it is bad, and there's a subjective element to how much there might be. It is a thing which exists, and which can be rated subjectively on a scale from good to bad, not more to less.

So here's the thing I'm trying. Let's talk about food. Food has flavor. Some food has more flavor, some is bland. That basically depends on how much spice is in the food. The amount of flavor is pretty much objective. However, the taste is a subjective: you might like it, I might not. But we can both say: wow, this has a strong flavor, or wow, this has a weak flavor, and agree.

It has NOTHING to do with how out of focus something is. Only the quality of the blur circles (that might not even be circular, but that is another story).

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.

It is actually the case that there are some pretty well agreed-on concrete parameters which contribute to good bokeh. This isn't absolute — it's like saying that clarity is good in diamonds — but generally, people agree. Specifically, a slight degree of spherical aberration contributes to smooth transitions ("creamy bokeh") in out of focus areas (and that's typically seen as "good bokeh"), while lenses which overcompensate (forming donut-shaped rings around specular highlights) have busier background blur ("nervous bokeh", generally "bad bokeh")

This is a real thing. You're not adding any value by trying to redefine taste as amount of flavor.

 

[Matthew Miller]

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

That is kind of amusing, but I think there's a real and legitimate reason — it is a reactionary movement against the crazy cult of sharpness that has taken over a certain segment of amateur/enthusiast photography.

 

[forpetessake]

It looks like most replies agree that it was the original post that was gibberish. But it's interesting why so many people decided to respond to it, instead of simply clicking on ignore button? And the same happens with the other trollish posts. If you look at the list of the top posts or the top posters the chances are those are pretty dumb. Is there some psychological reason why the weakest posts evoke the voluminous responses, and the lower the level of discussion the more people participate in it?