The definition of "bokeh"

[The Davinator]

Words can have a technical use and a lay use. Can we not just accept this situation as an example of that? Good grief.

 

[Dareshooter]

There is the question as to whether the Japanese use the term "bokeh" with regards to photography in the same manner as described in the OP. However, the usage of the term in English may not necessarily be the same as the usage of the term in Japanese.

Would be interesting, however, to find out. A while back, I was talking with an old Japanese guy about photography and he brought up "bokeh" and was more than a little surprised I knew what he was talking about "ぼけわかるですか？" Anyway, he seemed to be using the term to mean the quality of the blur, rather than the quantity of the blur.

For Japanese, the term "boke" simply means blur, no more and no less, so when the Japanese are speaking about "boke" in a photographic context, they usually are referring to the quantity of blur or the type of blur (後ぼけ-back blur/前ぼけ-front blur, for example). Which meaning they are referring is derived entirely from the context of the discussion at hand. The quality of blur would be discussed using the term "boke-aji" which literally means "blur flavor" or "flavor of blur", though in truth I have seen just "boke" used even when discussing quality, i.e. - きれいなボケ/kirei na boke = beautiful boke.

In the conversation I had with the old Japanese man, definitely meant the quality of the blur （"カノンの７０－２００のぼけがすごいきれです") or something to that effect. But, like I said, it was just that one conversation with that one old man.

For English speakers this may be rather ambiguous and unsettling, but Japanese is a very ambiguous language and the bulk of meaning comes from the context. A very, very simple example of this would be that, except for a very few instances, Japanese has no plurals, so if you were talking about cats for example, you'd say "one cat" or "ten cat" - the word "cat" never changes and the plural meaning would be implied from the quantity mentioned in the context.

For this reason, English speakers learning Japanese can have a really hard time with it in the early stages until they get used to dealing with the ambiguity, and conversely Japanese speakers learning English have a hard time dealing with the intricacies of word choice and subtlety of meaning that English thrives on.

Myself, I think the English usage of "bokeh" is, despite what folks may or may not agree with, slowly shifting to become more in line with the Japanese usage, and interestingly enough, when I was Googling while writing my reply to Gollywop in the prior thread, I found a Japanese article regarding the international usage of the word "bokeh" that noted the same trend and also felt that despite its original English meaning of "boke-aji/quality of blur" the current meaning is shifting towards "boke/blur".

I personally am fine with either meaning in English and don't find it ambiguous at all as I'm already used to thinking about it in that sense anyway. YMMV

English is, of course, a dynamic language. We are seeing, for example, that "exposure" is typically used to describe the brightness of the photo, and it's all but a done deal that the term "aperture" is used to mean the relative aperture of the lens.

I agree. This is why I find it very important to try and understand what people really mean instead of sticking to the exact definitions, otherwise even a simple activity such as blowjob for example, would end up with a big disappointment.

Moti

:-D LOL

Now that you mention I've come to the same conclusion.

 

[Brev00]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this (haven't read every reply) but when lens testing websites analyze a lens they often evaluate the bokeh. They break down certain elements particularly the way a lens presents the bokeh circles. They discuss onion rings, fringing, consistency of brightness, and more. So, bokeh is not just a fancy and lazy word for blur. It is part and parcel of how we perceive the overall quality of a lens and can be one factor among many in our buying decisions.

 

[peripheralfocus]

You left out the most common usage: the blur itself. I provided dozens of examples in the other thread from the major manufacturers. Here is another one, from a unspoiled player, Apple:

Portrait mode automatically creates a depth-of-field effect that keeps faces sharp while creating a beautifully blurred background. This effect, also known as bokeh, was previously reserved for DSLR cameras.

According to them, bokeh is the effect, not the quality of it.

I wonder if technical terms were ever used incorrectly in the manufacturers' literature before, such as "sensitivity" and "exposure". Probably not, right? ;-)

Yes, Apple is espousing, or more likely echoing, yet another definition here: not just blur, or quality of blur, but specifically beautiful background blur.

So by that definition, bokeh can only exist in the background, not the foreground, and it can only be beautiful, not ugly.

Now we can dismiss that as lazy copywriting -- which it is -- but I'm afraid it could turn out to be a harbinger of doom for anyone in favor of the "quality of defocus blur" definition (or the simple "blur" definition, for that matter.) Because -- and it pains me to be a dark prophet here, GB -- lazy smartphone copywriters may well be far, far more influential than the good folks on these forums. There's no justice in it, but alas, we live in a fallen world.

 

[jooyoonchung]

Words can have a technical use and a lay use. Can we not just accept this situation as an example of that? Good grief.

 

[Moti]

You left out the most common usage: the blur itself. I provided dozens of examples in the other thread from the major manufacturers. Here is another one, from a unspoiled player, Apple:

Portrait mode automatically creates a depth-of-field effect that keeps faces sharp while creating a beautifully blurred background. This effect, also known as bokeh, was previously reserved for DSLR cameras.

According to them, bokeh is the effect, not the quality of it.

Nope...not the effect. They said "beautifully" blurred background. Thus, the effect to which they refer for Bokeh is beautiful blurred....thus quality.

The phrase "This effect, also known as bokeh" too complex for you to comprehend?

The combination of phrases: "beautifully blurred background. This effect, also known as bokeh . .", which makes it clear that the effect called bokeh that they are talking about is a beautifully blurred background, is too complex for you to comprehend?

And...you failed again.

You are acting as a donkey hole as usual. Trying to compensate lack of comprehension with rudeness.

Davinator is correct, you did fail again. And if there is any rudeness, it must have infected you.

And those examples you gave did not support your point, they contradicted it.

 

[BrownieVet]

ボケ効果がぼやけている、またはぼやけていることを意味する日本語の単語。
I hope you are literate in Japanese. The above explains bokeh.

There is the question as to whether the Japanese use the term "bokeh" with regards to photography in the same manner as described in the OP. However, the usage of the term in English may not necessarily be the same as the usage of the term in Japanese.

Exactly the point. Not a native-born American, I noticed several words in my native language misused by many American for their own purpose.

Would be interesting, however, to find out. A while back, I was talking with an old Japanese guy about photography and he brought up "bokeh" and was more than a little surprised I knew what he was talking about "ぼけわかるですか？" Anyway, he seemed to be using the term to mean the quality of the blur, rather than the quantity of the blur.

As used in photography, I agree. Bear in mind that "quality" is subjective.
MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE is the gradual softening of the edges of the subject thus gradually blending with the background that becomes fuzzy. My preference is NOT necessarily right.

In any case, that was my only experience talking with a Japanese guy where bokeh came up in the conversation, and is not necessarily representative. Still, as I said, what's being debated here is how the term is used in the US with regards to photography.

And most everybody have their opinion. I respect everyones opinion. My post is just a reminder to try to know the origin and meaning of the word, preferably from Japanese. I noticed references to Wikipedia. With all due respect, while I used Wiki and support Wiki with very small contribution, be cognizant that anyone can contribute articles to Wiki.

 

[gollywop]

The problem with the technical definition is to convey meaning, one still has to use an adjective with the word. Can you simply say a lens has bokeh?

Of course. All lenses have bokeh (properly used), just as all lenses have contrast.

Well, there's another problem with this linguistic debate. If bokeh is the quality of blur (which is GB's proposition to which I'm presuming you subscribe) then no lens has it.

The lens creates the blur and the blur has a quality that is called bokeh; but that's not the same as the lens having bokeh.

Of course it is, or the lens couldn't produce it. If a lens produces good bokeh, it has good bokeh;

That's exactly the confusion that GB's thread is trying to dispel. Producing and having are distinctly different and are emphatically not synonyms.

You've surely got to be right, Gerry. Sites like photozone analyze and describe the bokeh of a lens as one of its properties. Thus, for example, in describing their analysis of the properties of the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, they state:

Bokeh (out-of-focus blur) @ 55mm

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS may appear as a perfect lens for portrait photography but keep in mind that it is only equivalent to a full format "27-88mm f/4" lens with respect to its depth-of-field capabilities. Nonetheless it is interesting to analyze the bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur).

Low contrast transitions are handled relatively well but hard contrasts are rendered quite harsh and you can spot some "onion"-like substructures in highlights upon closer observations. This doesn't really improve at f/4.

There are a couple of interesting points here. First, it is interesting that in their shortened section heading they simply say OOF blur, but in their more complete text they define this property of the lens (bolded above) as the quality of the OOF blur.

But it's even more interesting that they describe this property of the lens at all, because, according to you, a lens cannot have this property. Life is full of interesting things.

Your oxygen example, by the way, is a false parallel. Bokeh is a property of a lens, but oxygen is not a property of a plant. The ability of a plant to convert elements to oxygen is the appropriately parallel property.

--
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

 

[Great Bustard]

Is there really a debate on the definition of "exposure"?

Well, let's see: do two photos of the same scene, one at f/2.8 1/200 ISO 400 and the other at f/5.6 1/200 ISO 1600 have the same exposure?

Did I miss some lenghtly discussion with happy fights and name calling?

;-)

I fail to understand how a lens can have more or less bokeh than an other, I thought the quantity of bockeh depend onlu on the adjustment and the framing. Another photograph trying to blame the hardware?

The hardware definitely plays a role, as linked in the OP:

Kiev Cameras

 

[Great Bustard]

Words can have a technical use and a lay use. Can we not just accept this situation as an example of that? Good grief.

So, which definition of "bokeh" is technically correct, and which definition(s) of bokeh are examples of lay use?

 

[nuke12]

Your poll says otherwise but there are some pile of threads on this site where a poster says bokeh is just the out of focus area and there is no mention of the quality of that area.

Of course there are still the differences in what people consider to be a quality out of focus area.

--
I'm a photo hacker. I use my expensive equipment to destroy anything in front of my camera. This is a special skill that can never be realized by low life photographers. A nurtured skill since the 1970's.

 

[Great Bustard]

Your poll says otherwise but there are some pile of threads on this site where a poster says bokeh is just the out of focus area and there is no mention of the quality of that area.

Thus the poll.

Of course there are still the differences in what people consider to be a quality out of focus area.

Sure -- there is necessarily going to be a strong element of subjectivity when talking about "good" and "bad" bokeh. But the point of the thread is when someone is talking about "good" and "bad" bokeh, "should" that mean pleasing and unpleasing qualities of the OOF blur, or pleasing and unpleasing use of shallow DOF?

 

[Great Bustard]

You left out the most common usage: the blur itself. I provided dozens of examples in the other thread from the major manufacturers. Here is another one, from a unspoiled player, Apple:

Portrait mode automatically creates a depth-of-field effect that keeps faces sharp while creating a beautifully blurred background. This effect, also known as bokeh, was previously reserved for DSLR cameras.

According to them, bokeh is the effect, not the quality of it.

I wonder if technical terms were ever used incorrectly in the manufacturers' literature before, such as "sensitivity" and "exposure". Probably not, right? ;-)

Yes, Apple is espousing, or more likely echoing, yet another definition here: not just blur, or quality of blur, but specifically beautiful background blur.

So by that definition, bokeh can only exist in the background, not the foreground, and it can only be beautiful, not ugly.

Now we can dismiss that as lazy copywriting -- which it is -- but I'm afraid it could turn out to be a harbinger of doom for anyone in favor of the "quality of defocus blur" definition (or the simple "blur" definition, for that matter.) Because -- and it pains me to be a dark prophet here, GB -- lazy smartphone copywriters may well be far, far more influential than the good folks on these forums. There's no justice in it, but alas, we live in a fallen world.

In the end, I think smartphone copywriters will run the world. ;-)

 

[nuke12]

Your poll says otherwise but there are some pile of threads on this site where a poster says bokeh is just the out of focus area and there is no mention of the quality of that area.

Thus the poll.

Of course there are still the differences in what people consider to be a quality out of focus area.

Sure -- there is necessarily going to be a strong element of subjectivity when talking about "good" and "bad" bokeh. But the point of the thread is when someone is talking about "good" and "bad" bokeh, "should" that mean pleasing and unpleasing qualities of the OOF blur, or pleasing and unpleasing use of shallow DOF?

I agreed with your definition but until a "quality out of focus" can be defined the argument will reign on where some say "bokeh = out of focus".

 

[Great Bustard]

Your poll says otherwise but there are some pile of threads on this site where a poster says bokeh is just the out of focus area and there is no mention of the quality of that area.

Thus the poll.

Of course there are still the differences in what people consider to be a quality out of focus area.

Sure -- there is necessarily going to be a strong element of subjectivity when talking about "good" and "bad" bokeh. But the point of the thread is when someone is talking about "good" and "bad" bokeh, "should" that mean pleasing and unpleasing qualities of the OOF blur, or pleasing and unpleasing use of shallow DOF?

I agreed with your definition but until a "quality out of focus" can be defined the argument will reign on where some say "bokeh = out of focus".

Several examples of bokeh were linked in the OP:

Kiev Cameras

 

[Great Bustard]

In the conversation I had with the old Japanese man, definitely meant the quality of the blur （"カノンの７０－２００のぼけがすごいきれです") or something to that effect. But, like I said, it was just that one conversation with that one old man.

Yup, that's believable. In another vein, the article I mentioned earlier starts, "See that photo there? It has boke. See this photo here? It has boke. Everybody loves boke. Did you know that even in English boke is called Bokeh?". They're just talking about blur itself and nothing more. Both your's and my examples are very typical Japanese usage.

In other words, the Japanese also use the same word to mean two different, albeit related, elements.

 

[nuke12]

Several examples of bokeh were linked in the OP:

http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

Yes, I know. Now can you put that look into words so it can be defined in the English language?

 

[Great Bustard]

Several examples of bokeh were linked in the OP:

http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

Yes, I know. Now can you put that look into words so it can be defined in the English language?

There were many looks of the different bokeh on that page, all described in English.

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

The problem with the technical definition is to convey meaning, one still has to use an adjective with the word. Can you simply say a lens has bokeh?

Of course. All lenses have bokeh (properly used), just as all lenses have contrast.

Well, there's another problem with this linguistic debate. If bokeh is the quality of blur (which is GB's proposition to which I'm presuming you subscribe) then no lens has it.

The lens creates the blur and the blur has a quality that is called bokeh; but that's not the same as the lens having bokeh.

Of course it is, or the lens couldn't produce it. If a lens produces good bokeh, it has good bokeh;

That's exactly the confusion that GB's thread is trying to dispel. Producing and having are distinctly different and are emphatically not synonyms.

You've surely got to be right, Gerry. Sites like photozone analyze and describe the bokeh of a lens as one of its properties. Thus, for example, in describing their analysis of the properties of the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, they state:

Bokeh (out-of-focus blur) @ 55mm

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS may appear as a perfect lens for portrait photography but keep in mind that it is only equivalent to a full format "27-88mm f/4" lens with respect to its depth-of-field capabilities. Nonetheless it is interesting to analyze the bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur).

Low contrast transitions are handled relatively well but hard contrasts are rendered quite harsh and you can spot some "onion"-like substructures in highlights upon closer observations. This doesn't really improve at f/4.

There are a couple of interesting points here. First, it is interesting that in their shortened section heading they simply say OOF blur, but in their more complete text they define this property of the lens (bolded above) as the quality of the OOF blur.

But it's even more interesting that they describe this property of the lens at all, because, according to you, a lens cannot have this property. Life is full of interesting things.

You keep missing my point. I admit that I didn't spell it out explicitly because I expected you to see it, in which I was clearly overoptimistic.

It's very common to cut out words in everyday language, with no loss of comprehension. This is what has happened in the quotation above (and many others). To repeat, emphatically, what I've said before - a lens produces or creates bokeh, it doesn't !have" it. But rather than say every time something like "it is interesting to analyze the bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur) that the lens produces" people just omit the words underlined.

There's nothing wrong with this - it's pretty well universal as a mode of expression. But just because it's common doesn't mean that using have as a shorthand for being able to produce doesn't mean it's using have properly. My first post was demonstrating the absurdity of using one word improperly when discussing the use of a different word improperly.

Your oxygen example, by the way, is a false parallel. Bokeh is a property of a lens, but oxygen is not a property of a plant. The ability of a plant to convert elements to oxygen is the appropriately parallel property.

As with the people who have been confused about the meaning of bokeh, you have allowed yourself into being confused about it being a property of a lens rather than an output.

My parallel is exact: both are produced by the principle objects; neither is a property of them.

 

[nuke12]

Several examples of bokeh were linked in the OP:

http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

Yes, I know. Now can you put that look into words so it can be defined in the English language?

There were many looks of the different bokeh on that page, all described in English.

You can't put that into a simple paragraph that can be used in a dictionary to explain the word "bokeh". There will be no agreement until the word can be defined in simple terms without the use of a page of information and twenty images.