Is Bokeh over used?

[David Pavlich]

It certainly has its place and can be used to good affect. While I'm sure that some use it to hide bad choices, we can't always control the sorrounding environment.

Where I see it going off the rails is when someone sacrifices their subject's sharpness for the "holy grail" of great blur. In other words, focus is lost due to depth of field. Example; a well focused portrait on the near eye, but because the shot was take at f1.4, the ears are out of focus. Not good (for me).

David

There, fixed it for you. But here are some images you wont like. And whats all this f/2, f/1.4 stuff that everybody keeps keeps mentioning? I shoot wide open at f/1.2 a LOT.

OH NOSE!!!!....blurry nose.

Blurry hairs!!

Ahhhhhh!!!! Blurry EVERYTHING!!

Blurry bridge!!

Blurry Vampyre!!!

Blurry Electro!!

Blurry all the things!!

Blurry bicyclist!!

(The rest of this isnt directed directly at you Dave).

This is sort of ridiculous really, this whole concept of 'is Bokeh over used' when the question is really 'is selective focus with wide open fast lenses over used'.

No. Its not overused at all. Artists and photographers can use whatever trick in the book they want to create whatever image they want. Also, shooting in this manner, with a narrow DOF and lots of blur (and any other manner as well) is an artistic discipline. If one devotes time and study and practice to a discipline then one can become quite accomplished in that style. Look up Ralph Eugene Meatyard and his No Focus style. He used camera shake and completely out of focus shots for artistic purposes. My last two shots above are examples of my own no focus style.

Anybody who claims 'there to much of this' or 'this technique is over used' or 'this is used to hide a lack of skills' is just whining about nothing and are lacking in any type of fundamental understanding of what Art is.

You know what is overused? Forums....for stupid stuff like this.

For any young artist or beginning photographer out there reading stuff like this on forums my advice to you would be to ignore opinions that in any way limit you. Explore the medium, experiment with every possible thing, make mistakes, practice, get better...then do it all again.

If you find something that works for you...USE IT. Own it. Make it your signature style. Dont listen to others say it is over done. Even if it IS over done. Just get better at it than anyone else. Then your work will be all the more amazing because it stands head and shoulders above many, many others doing the same.

--
Straylightrun- "Are you for real?"
Goethe- "No, I'm a unicorn. Kudos for seeing thru the disguise."
While I suppose I could be considered a natural light photographer I prefer to think I am a natural shadow photographer...
https://photolumiere.smugmug.com/

I'm a proponent of selective focus. I like the girl with the daisy. Nicely done. However, if you were to put out a portfolio of portraits such as the lovely lady in the first shot, it wouldn't be as successful as it would if you had portraits with the whole subject in focus.

Of course, if it's your "style", then you have to stick with it. Funny thing about artistic presentation; it ain't gonna' please everyone.

I do a lot of HDR, yes, the tone mapped stuff, and I sell it as well. Most here poo poo tone mapped stuff and that's okay. They aren't the people that buy my prints and they aren't the people that I make the prints to please. Heck, I just had a tone mapped dismantled diesel engine receive a third place at an art show. Yes, I was stunned, but there it is.

Anyway, we can't please everyone. Your work is good. You know how to handle a camera, that is obvious by your results. And as an aside, my favorite "revenge" movie is "The Crow". ;-) "It's a bad day to be a bad guy, eh, Skank?"

David

--
When one engine fails on a twin-engine airplane, you always have enough power left to get you to the scene of the crash.'
Viewbug: https://www.viewbug.com/member/David_Pavlich

 

[J A C S]

But you can take care and use words in their common meaning.

The common meaning of bokeh is highly debatable, which is what we are doing here.

No, what you are trying to do is turn it into meaning blur. Which it didn't originally mean, and since then has only been used to mean wrongly.

Whatever its original meaning was, is history. What matters is how it is being used now.

Funny how selective another poster was with his google search results. This is what Nikon actually say in that page before the quote he cherry-picked:

Bokeh comes from the Japanese word boke (ボケ), which means "blur" or "haze", or boke-aji, the "blur quality." Bokeh is pronounced BOH-Kə or BOH-kay.

Taken from here. "Bokeh" is used there about 20 times. In most uses, "quality of blur" does not make much sense, and the blur itself is the most appropriate meaning. Like here:

Many photographers like to use fast prime lenses when shooting photographs that they want visible bokeh in.

Here is another page on the top of the google bokeh hits, which says "Basically, bokeh is the quality of out-of-focus or “blurry” parts of the image rendered by a camera lens – it is NOT the blur itself". Good. But then the same page talks about "rendering bokeh". Would you say "lens A renders the quality of blur better", or you would say "lens A render blur/OOF better"? In this use, the same author uses bokeh to refer to the blur, not to its quality. Down the same page, we see "Bokeh shapes". Really? Quality of blur shapes?

BHphoto get it right: Because of the dual meaning, you can say, “That photo has bokeh,” and you can also say, “That image has very pleasant bokeh.”

Here a Canon page on bokeh. While they define bokeh as the quality of blur, they often use it there to describe the blur itself. Like here: The amount of bokeh increases when your image has a shallow depth of field. Would you say: "The amount of the quality of blur"? Next, "bokeh highlights"; would you replace this with "quality of blur highlights"? Next: Capture your bokeh winter shot. Would you say: "Capture your quality of blur winter shot"?

So my point is that the actual use of this term has dual meaning and the blur itself (OOF related) is one of them. This use is fairly well widespread for this very specialized term and there is nothing the language police can do about that.

 

[doonie]

lazy photographers use it a lot more to hide a distracting background rather than plan their shot, then tell everyone what a great photographer they are when it was the camera

cheers don

 

[Brev00]

You insist that a word used incorrectly by enough people makes the actual meaning invalid. So, when so many singers end a phrase with "I" because it sounds better than 'me', does that mean I has become an object? Your theory does apply at times. For example, 'whom' has pretty much dropped out of American English and has been replaced by 'who' maybe because using 'whom' seems elitist (or well educated). So, yes, dumbing down does occur.

 

[Brev00]

So, why not just call it blur if that is what you mean? Keeping it simple.

 

[doonie]

"Bokeh" refers to the quality of out of focus area, not to its mere presence. So your question is akin to asking if flavour is overused in food.

I think what you really meant to ask is whether shallow DoF is overused.

What does "overused" mean? If it means that the percentage of photographs taken with shallow DoF is higher than it should be given the subject matter and framing of all photographs taken, then I'd have to say "no". The frequency of shallow DoF is too low, not too high. Many more photographs are taken with a deeper DoF than is optimal due the limits of either the cellphone taking the picture or the photographer pressing the shutter release, than are taken with too shallow a DoF.

If "overused" means used when it shouldn't be, then the answer is "yes". Some photographs are taken with less DoF than is optimal, due to the limits of the macro lens they were taken with or of the photographer pressing the shutter release.

If "overused" means that your preference for everything in a photo being sharp is aesthetically superior to somebody else's preference for only the subject being in focus, I'd say you are both wrong. Appropriateness of any particular amount DoF is situational.

EcoPics wrote:

Now disclaimer, each to their own in Art.

But often I see so many photos where I want to see detail in the background, but of course its got an arperture stopped down to f2.0 and I can only see a cm of focus.

If you want to see detail in the background but the photographer didn't want you to see the detail in the background, who is right?

Generally, I like to see a photos entire image sharp. I believe if your forefront subject is strong enough, it holds its value and that everything else compliments it, but its nice to explore to tell the whole story. Clearly this doesnt work for every photo. And typically people only do it in landscapes, which I find a shame.

In a large proportion of of photos, the photographer does not have sufficient control of the subject, the background and/or the shooting vantage point to make a photograph in which everything in the background compliments the subject. The photographer is then left with a few choices, which include not taking a photograph at all, using shallow DoF to isolate the subject from unwanted elements, using extensive photoshop work to hide/remove unwanted elements, or taking a photo in which background elements detract from the image.

Perhaps I am alone in my thoughts on this one.

I doubt it.

But blur/bokeh/out of focus just seems to be the go to and I feel its often an addiction over an artistic choice.

It can be. So can getting everything sharp.

Perfect, perfect, perfect. Thank you !

 

[J A C S]

So, why not just call it blur if that is what you mean? Keeping it simple.

It is blur created by defocusing vs. motion blur or diffraction blur, for example. It is also the quality if it.

 

[Moti]

So, why not just call it blur if that is what you mean? Keeping it simple.

No No no. You cannot do this, it is too simple. Some people here may feel very insecure and unprotected if you will not use the absolute exact term of the bloody thing, as dictated by the terminology police. They will not hesitate to highjak any thread to make their point because Ordenung Muss Sein.

There is of course also the OP who asked an innocent and very clear question, that isn't that difficult to understand and to reply, but who cares about it? No one really.

Moti

 

[Brev00]

So, why not just call it blur if that is what you mean? Keeping it simple.

It is blur created by defocusing vs. motion blur or diffraction blur, for example. It is also the quality if it.

I guess if you find enough folks to agree with your usage. But, blur is blur is blur and the difference between panning blur and dof blur can be easily derermined by context. Methinks you just want to use the term for some unrelated reason. If not purposefully blurring (bokehing?) the meaning than just trying to join in on the fun use of the word.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

 

[Moti]

Funny that "effect" is used twice, and that is different from "quality".

I expect a more cogent remark from you than that. Now you're grasping at straws. Read them again, this time for understanding and not for a foolish parry. Effect is, in both cases, linked to quality, either directly or by example.

I did read them again, and this is what I found:

the blurred quality or effect seen in the out-of-focus portion of a photograph taken with a narrow depth of field

So when I see a blurred effect in my photo, I can call that bokeh. End of story.

BTW, I and many people here will keep doing that regardless of your education efforts.

I know. I wouldn't have expected anything more of you.

Well said golly, you are the king and you should never allow anyone to contradict you for whatever it is because you are better and you know about photography better than anyone else in this forum.

Pity you feel urged to highjack the thread in order to show how clever you are, but I guess to each his style...

Moti

 

[lumigraphics]

It is the way for the "poor" photographer to isolate his subject from background.

He cannot do it using color, composition, light, other elements in the frame etc.

So just turns the aperture to f2 and voila! All friends are impressed by a wonderfully blurred background.

 

[gollywop]

Funny that "effect" is used twice, and that is different from "quality".

I expect a more cogent remark from you than that. Now you're grasping at straws. Read them again, this time for understanding and not for a foolish parry. Effect is, in both cases, linked to quality, either directly or by example.

I did read them again, and this is what I found:

the blurred quality or effect seen in the out-of-focus portion of a photograph taken with a narrow depth of field

So when I see a blurred effect in my photo, I can call that bokeh. End of story.

BTW, I and many people here will keep doing that regardless of your education efforts.

I know. I wouldn't have expected anything more of you.

Well said golly, you are the king and you should never allow anyone to contradict you for whatever it is because you are better and you know about photography better than anyone else in this forum.

Pity you feel urged to highjack (sic) the thread in order to show how clever you are, but I guess to each his style...

You really have a hard time getting things straight. It was not I who hijacked the thread. I simply answered my thoughts at the request for such by the OP. There is no possible way any sensible person could call that hijacking. It was the likes of you who then decided to corrupt my response.

But then, it looks like you're going to force any opportunity to hawk your patented snake-oil elixer of pompous righteousness, complacent misconception, and reflected glory – no matter how foolish it makes you look. And it does.

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

 

[Moti]

Now disclaimer, each to their own in Art.

But often I see so many photos where I want to see detail in the background, but of course its got an arperture stopped down to f2.0 and I can only see a cm of focus.

Generally, I like to see a photos entire image sharp. I believe if your forefront subject is strong enough, it holds its value and that everything else compliments it, but its nice to explore to tell the whole story. Clearly this doesnt work for every photo. And typically people only do it in landscapes, which I find a shame.

Perhaps I am alone in my thoughts on this one.

But blur/bokeh/out of focus just seems to be the go to and I feel its often an addiction over an artistic choice.

Just my 2c

Now that the thread has been highjaked by the terminology police and they all feel very proud of themselves for doing so, maybe it is time to get back on track. So to the topic.

Bokeh/OOF blur/usage of thin DOF or whatever you want to call them, are all tools that can be used in order to enhance a photograph when cleverly used. As many other photography attributes, overusing it on a photograph can often lead to the opposite.

There are usually three cases when people would overuse oof blur.

1. The classic case - to use bloor in order to separate the subject from the background. I often hear this mantra, we must separate the subject. True in some cases, wrong in others.

Every skilled portrait photographer knows that when going out to shoot environmental portraits, the first thing to do is to choose the right background and only then, to introduce the subject. If done that way, you may not want anymore to separate the subject because integrating it instead of separating it may look much nicer and more interesting.

The mistake that many portrait photographers are doing is to choose the wrong background and then try very hard to blur it because it doesn't work.

And those who feel the need to separate the subject by all means, should know that there are other ways to separate a subject which in many cases would look nicer and more aesthetic than simple background bloor.

2. Blurring part of the photo for artistic purposes. It is fine and can be aesthetic and attractive. Can ruin a photo when verdone. But this is art and remains a matter of personal taste. I never argue it.

3. Another classic case - I just bought this great FF camera with an amazing fast lens which will allow me to better control my DOF I can now overuse it and produce photograph that will look more like test shots. Unfortunatelly, forums are full of those.

Disclaimer. The above is my personal view based on many years of portrait photography experience.

Moti

--
http://www.musicalpix.com

 

[Chikubi]

Or the pig-headed, but I fear you are right. Still, you might want to consider:

1. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of bokeh

the blurred quality or effect seen in the out-of-focus portion of a photograph taken with a narrow depth of field <Good bokeh is smooth and pleasing, whereas bad bokeh produces a jagged and discordant effect.

2. From Wikipedia:

In photography, bokeh (originally /ˈboʊkɛ/ /ˈboʊkeɪ/ boh-kay — also sometimes pronounced as /ˈboʊkə/ boh-kə, Japanese: [boke]) is the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in the out-of-focus parts of an image produced by a lens. Bokeh has been defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light".

3. From the Oxford English Dictionary

bokeh

NOUN

Photography

[mass noun] The visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens.

4. From Nikon when trying, apparently without success, to educate beginners:

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

Quoting English dictionaries as accurate sources for a Japanese word is less than acceptable. All of these are based off of the usage of the original poorly translated misappropriation of the Japanese term and are incorrect, though widely held by English speakers as being correct, as you've amply demonstrated yourself.

If you're going to use a dictionary definition, then use a proper one, like from a respected academic source like WWWJDICT :

"ぼけ; ボケ 《暈け》 (uk) bokeh; blur; lack of focus; unsharpness"

or a common source in the primary language like GOO's dictionary service (GOO is a major Japanese search engine/service site like Google): Boke definition

"３ （暈け）カメラのレンズの被写界深度を意図的に浅くすることによって生じる効果。人物や花などの主たる被写体にのみピントを合わせ、背景から浮かび上がらせたり（後ぼけ）、手前にある物体をぼかして遠近感を強調したり（前ぼけ）することをいう。"

If you can't read it, the Google translation is somewhat sloppy, but close enough that you'll note there's no mention regarding the quality of blur anywhere in it.

This is because the Japanese have never used, and still don't use, "boke/ボケ" when referring to the quality of blur produced by a lens, they use "boke-aji/ボケ味" which means "flavor of boke". "Boke" means "blur" and nothing more, and any English speaker who uses it to refer to the quality of blur is using it incorrectly because that notion is based on a mistake when the word was introduced here in the first place.

In other words, all of the English speakers who are being badgered about improper use of "boke" to simply refer to "blur" are actually using it correctly and in line with the actual Japanese meaning. Ironic, huh? Thus, if you want to, you can keep harping on folks now coming to use the term the way it actually should be, or you can get educated, join them, and use it correctly yourself.

Now all they have to do is educate those who should know better and who, I should think, would want to know what the words actually mean in the hobby they've chosen. And your citation of the DPR review just shows how those who should know better can mess it up.

Since you should know better, consider yourself educated now. Anyone who doesn't speak both languages is in no position to educate anyone, so I'm trying to do my part to correct the original misappropriaton of the term.

After all, if bokeh doesn't mean bokeh, just what term are we going to use to denote bokeh?

To stay consistent with the sense of the original misappropriation for "bokeh", "boke-aji" is the correct term, though a bit of a mouthful.

 

[MediaArchivist]

The DPR review you cite is inconsistent with their use of the term bokeh. They define it (sort of) one way, then consistently use it correctly from then on. So while you have done an excellent job of cherry picking, one sentence from one review does not an accepted definition make.

If you look at other lens reviews on DPR the usage is much more consistently "quality of blur" and not a synonym for blur. Remember, we already have a word for blur: "blur". Other terms in DPR reviews are sometimes subject to misuse. The Tamron superzoom review misuses the term "telephoto" (a specific lens design) to mean "long", while also (correctly) chiding Tamron for their misuse of the word "macro".

And then there is Wikipedia, which I will indeed cite as an example of commonly accepted usage of a word, as well as an easy to find collection of links that re-assert "bokeh" as the quality or aesthetic appeal of the OOF areas of an image, and not the mere presence of it or numerical measure of it.

Bokeh is to a lens what tone is to a guitar or piano.

• "Wow, I really like the tone you get with those new strings!"
• "Wow, I love the bokeh I get with this lens!"

As opposed to:

• "This piano has more tone than that piano, how does it get so much more tone?"
• "I want more bokeh, should I get another lens, per se?"

You could, of course, say either of the latter as much as you wish. You might do it knowing full well they will immediately correct your semantics, and in fact that might be something you enjoy?

 

[embie]

Funny that "effect" is used twice, and that is different from "quality".

I expect a more cogent remark from you than that. Now you're grasping at straws. Read them again, this time for understanding and not for a foolish parry. Effect is, in both cases, linked to quality, either directly or by example.

I did read them again, and this is what I found:

the blurred quality or effect seen in the out-of-focus portion of a photograph taken with a narrow depth of field

So when I see a blurred effect in my photo, I can call that bokeh. End of story.

BTW, I and many people here will keep doing that regardless of your education efforts.

I know. I wouldn't have expected anything more of you.

Well said golly, you are the king and you should never allow anyone to contradict you for whatever it is because you are better and you know about photography better than anyone else in this forum.

Pity you feel urged to highjack (sic) the thread in order to show how clever you are, but I guess to each his style...

You really have a hard time getting things straight. It was not I who hijacked the thread. I simply answered my thoughts at the request for such by the OP. There is no possible way any sensible person could call that hijacking. It was the likes of you who then decided to corrupt my response.

But then, it looks like you're going to force any opportunity to hawk your patented snake-oil elixer of pompous righteousness, complacent misconception, and reflected glory – no matter how foolish it makes you look. And it does.

 

[MediaArchivist]

So, why not just call it blur if that is what you mean? Keeping it simple.

Yes, I have found blur to be a perfectly acceptable, and universally understood word to use for "blur".

 

[Moti]

Funny that "effect" is used twice, and that is different from "quality".

I expect a more cogent remark from you than that. Now you're grasping at straws. Read them again, this time for understanding and not for a foolish parry. Effect is, in both cases, linked to quality, either directly or by example.

I did read them again, and this is what I found:

the blurred quality or effect seen in the out-of-focus portion of a photograph taken with a narrow depth of field

So when I see a blurred effect in my photo, I can call that bokeh. End of story.

BTW, I and many people here will keep doing that regardless of your education efforts.

I know. I wouldn't have expected anything more of you.

Well said golly, you are the king and you should never allow anyone to contradict you for whatever it is because you are better and you know about photography better than anyone else in this forum.

Pity you feel urged to highjack (sic) the thread in order to show how clever you are, but I guess to each his style...

You really have a hard time getting things straight. It was not I who hijacked the thread. I simply answered my thoughts at the request for such by the OP. There is no possible way any sensible person could call that hijacking. It was the likes of you who then decided to corrupt my response.

Sorry golly, you can say anything you want but by deviating from the OT towards a different debate about the importance of using correct terminology, not only it was you who highjaked the thread but your post also created a second important debate within the main one that has nothing to do with the OT. Pity you cannot understand that.

But then, it looks like you're going to force any opportunity to hawk your patented snake-oil elixer of pompous righteousness, complacent misconception, and reflected glory – no matter how foolish it makes you look. And it does.

I'll not argue on that. I'll just say, as you often do, this kind of reply was well expected from you.

Cheers

Moti

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

Since you should know better, consider yourself educated now. Anyone who doesn't speak both languages is in no position to educate anyone, so I'm trying to do my part to correct the original misappropriation of the term.

Lens is Latin for lentil. English borrowed (or stole) the word and converted into something new based - very loosely - on the original meaning. In the case of lens the loose meaning was derived from the shape, not the food value.

This is very widespread - all languages develop by acquiring new words from foreign languages. Trying to impose their meaning in the first language is pointless unless making a direct translation of some text.

As no language actually "owns" its constituent words, this process can't be called misappropriation.

 

[antoineb]

Agree.

Tastes vary.

Sometimes a portrait shot will look superb with relatively shallow DOF and nice bokeh.

Other times a non-portrait shot will look great with lots of DOF - even then, on FX, at f/2, with a 35mm lens you could still get everything in focus from about 50ft to infinity. And with a 24mm you could be in focus from just 20ft to infinity.

P.S. When you go down to smaller f numbers, such as f/2 in your example, you go to larger apertures. So it's called stopping UP, not down. Stopping down is when you go to smaller apertures, i.e. larger f numbers.

Now disclaimer, each to their own in Art.

But often I see so many photos where I want to see detail in the background, but of course its got an arperture stopped down to f2.0 and I can only see a cm of focus.

Generally, I like to see a photos entire image sharp. I believe if your forefront subject is strong enough, it holds its value and that everything else compliments it, but its nice to explore to tell the whole story. Clearly this doesnt work for every photo. And typically people only do it in landscapes, which I find a shame.

Perhaps I am alone in my thoughts on this one.

But blur/bokeh/out of focus just seems to be the go to and I feel its often an addiction over an artistic choice.

Just my 2c