The definition of "bokeh"

[Great Bustard]

Why a thread on this subject? Because it's not been discussed enough. ;-)

OK, let's begin with Wikipedia:

Bokeh - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In photography, bokeh (originally /ˈboʊkɛ/, /ˈboʊkeɪ/ BOH-kay — also sometimes pronounced as /ˈboʊkə/ BOH-kə, [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". Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting—"good" and "bad" bokeh, respectively. Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it is often associated with such areas. However, bokeh is not limited to highlights; blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image.

This is the definition I subscribe to. It is also the definition subscribed to on Rick Denny's excellent page on bokeh, chock full of examples:

Kiev Cameras

Conversely, some wish to used the term "bokeh" to describe the amount of blur (as opposed to the quality of the blur) in the portions of the photo outside the DOF. I disagree with this usage of the term.

This semantic debate is *exactly* analogous to those who define exposure as the amount of light per area that falls on the sensor:

Exposure (photography) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In photography, exposure is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance. Exposure is measured in lux seconds, and can be computed from exposure value (EV) and scene luminance in a specified region.

and those who use the term to mean the brightness of the photo:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Does it matter? Well, inasmuch as words have meaning, yeah, it kind of does. But, if you're more of a "It means exactly what I want it to mean -- no more, no less" then, no, it really doesn't matter. Apologies if I forced you to have read this to the bitter end. ;-)

Of course, one might argue that a more pragmatic approach may be that one can infer the meaning from context. Sometimes, this is the case. but more often than not, it is not the case at all. For example, if someone asks, "What lens gives the most bokeh?", one can infer they want to get the most blur in the portions of the photo outside the DOF. But if one were to ask, "What lens has the best bokeh?", then the meaning is rather ambiguous if we accept that the term has two different meanings, just as is the case with the term "exposure".

Lastly, do I expect a resolution to the dilemma here? Of course not -- that would be silly. What I expect is that, just like the term "exposure", bokeh will continue to be used both correctly and incorrectly ( ;-) ) and the ambiguity will continue, which is unfortunate, since I think the distinction is important, inasmuch as any technical aspect of photography is important.

 

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Why a thread on this subject? Because it's not been discussed enough. ;-)

OK, let's begin with Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

In photography, bokeh (originally /ˈboʊkɛ/, /ˈboʊkeɪ/ BOH-kay — also sometimes pronounced as /ˈboʊkə/ BOH-kə, [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". Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting—"good" and "bad" bokeh, respectively. Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it is often associated with such areas. However, bokeh is not limited to highlights; blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image.

This is the definition I subscribe to. It is also the definition subscribed to on Rick Denny's excellent page on bokeh, chock full of examples:

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

Conversely, some wish to used the term "bokeh" to describe the amount of blur (as opposed to the quality of the blur) in the portions of the photo outside the DOF. I disagree with this usage of the term.

This semantic debate is *exactly* analogous to those who define exposure as the amount of light per area that falls on the sensor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)

In photography, exposure is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance. Exposure is measured in lux seconds, and can be computed from exposure value (EV) and scene luminance in a specified region.

and those who use the term to mean the brightness of the photo:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8148042898/exposure-vs-brightening

Does it matter? Well, inasmuch as words have meaning, yeah, it kind of does. But, if you're more of a "It means exactly what I want it to mean -- no more, no less" then, no, it really doesn't matter. Apologies if I forced you to have read this to the bitter end. ;-)

Of course, one might argue that a more pragmatic approach may be that one can infer the meaning from context. Sometimes, this is the case. but more often than not, it is not the case at all. For example, if someone asks, "What lens gives the most bokeh?", one can infer they want to get the most blur in the portions of the photo outside the DOF. But if one were to ask, "What lens has the best bokeh?", then the meaning is rather ambiguous if we accept that the term has two different meanings, just as is the case with the term "exposure".

Lastly, do I expect a resolution to the dilemma here? Of course not -- that would be silly. What I expect is that, just like the term "exposure", bokeh will continue to be used both correctly and incorrectly ( ;-) ) and the ambiguity will continue, which is unfortunate, since I think the distinction is important, inasmuch as any technical aspect of photography is important.

Its the quality of the blur







--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

 

[Great Bustard]

Why a thread on this subject? Because it's not been discussed enough. ;-)

OK, let's begin with Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

In photography, bokeh (originally /ˈboʊkɛ/, /ˈboʊkeɪ/ BOH-kay — also sometimes pronounced as /ˈboʊkə/ BOH-kə, [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". Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting—"good" and "bad" bokeh, respectively. Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it is often associated with such areas. However, bokeh is not limited to highlights; blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image.

This is the definition I subscribe to. It is also the definition subscribed to on Rick Denny's excellent page on bokeh, chock full of examples:

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

Conversely, some wish to used the term "bokeh" to describe the amount of blur (as opposed to the quality of the blur) in the portions of the photo outside the DOF. I disagree with this usage of the term.

This semantic debate is *exactly* analogous to those who define exposure as the amount of light per area that falls on the sensor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)

In photography, exposure is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance. Exposure is measured in lux seconds, and can be computed from exposure value (EV) and scene luminance in a specified region.

and those who use the term to mean the brightness of the photo:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8148042898/exposure-vs-brightening

Does it matter? Well, inasmuch as words have meaning, yeah, it kind of does. But, if you're more of a "It means exactly what I want it to mean -- no more, no less" then, no, it really doesn't matter. Apologies if I forced you to have read this to the bitter end. ;-)

Of course, one might argue that a more pragmatic approach may be that one can infer the meaning from context. Sometimes, this is the case. but more often than not, it is not the case at all. For example, if someone asks, "What lens gives the most bokeh?", one can infer they want to get the most blur in the portions of the photo outside the DOF. But if one were to ask, "What lens has the best bokeh?", then the meaning is rather ambiguous if we accept that the term has two different meanings, just as is the case with the term "exposure".

Lastly, do I expect a resolution to the dilemma here? Of course not -- that would be silly. What I expect is that, just like the term "exposure", bokeh will continue to be used both correctly and incorrectly ( ;-) ) and the ambiguity will continue, which is unfortunate, since I think the distinction is important, inasmuch as any technical aspect of photography is important.

There you have it 100% believe it's the quality of the blur

:-D

 

[The Davinator]

Why a thread on this subject? Because it's not been discussed enough. ;-)

OK, let's begin with Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

In photography, bokeh (originally /ˈboʊkɛ/, /ˈboʊkeɪ/ BOH-kay — also sometimes pronounced as /ˈboʊkə/ BOH-kə, [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". Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting—"good" and "bad" bokeh, respectively. Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it is often associated with such areas. However, bokeh is not limited to highlights; blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image.

This is the definition I subscribe to. It is also the definition subscribed to on Rick Denny's excellent page on bokeh, chock full of examples:

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

Conversely, some wish to used the term "bokeh" to describe the amount of blur (as opposed to the quality of the blur) in the portions of the photo outside the DOF. I disagree with this usage of the term.

This semantic debate is *exactly* analogous to those who define exposure as the amount of light per area that falls on the sensor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)

In photography, exposure is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance. Exposure is measured in lux seconds, and can be computed from exposure value (EV) and scene luminance in a specified region.

and those who use the term to mean the brightness of the photo:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8148042898/exposure-vs-brightening

Does it matter? Well, inasmuch as words have meaning, yeah, it kind of does. But, if you're more of a "It means exactly what I want it to mean -- no more, no less" then, no, it really doesn't matter. Apologies if I forced you to have read this to the bitter end. ;-)

Of course, one might argue that a more pragmatic approach may be that one can infer the meaning from context. Sometimes, this is the case. but more often than not, it is not the case at all. For example, if someone asks, "What lens gives the most bokeh?", one can infer they want to get the most blur in the portions of the photo outside the DOF. But if one were to ask, "What lens has the best bokeh?", then the meaning is rather ambiguous if we accept that the term has two different meanings, just as is the case with the term "exposure".

Lastly, do I expect a resolution to the dilemma here? Of course not -- that would be silly. What I expect is that, just like the term "exposure", bokeh will continue to be used both correctly and incorrectly ( ;-) ) and the ambiguity will continue, which is unfortunate, since I think the distinction is important, inasmuch as any technical aspect of photography is important.

There you have it 100% believe it's the quality of the blur

:-D

Well done. What more do we need. ;-)

 

[Max Iso]

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? To tell a story, you still have to say it has "better bokeh" or "worse bokeh", the word on it's own really tells us nothing. Conversely, people often say it has "more" bokeh, to describe DOF control.

Yes, the purist word nazzis want to correct everything, as much happened to me recently in another thread. I know the technical definition of the word, but everybody in that thread knew exactly what i was saying bc i don't just use the word bokeh by itself for the reasons above.

When you use other connecting words to the term bokeh, it gives it sufficient context in any conversation. Unless of course you are simply looking for a reason to misunderstand.

 

[Great Bustard]

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?

No, one would not say "a lens has bokeh" whether one mean the quality or quantity of blur in the portions of the photo outside the DOF.

To tell a story, you still have to say it has "better bokeh" or "worse bokeh", the word on it's own really tells us nothing.

Taking "bokeh" to mean the quality of the blur, saying Lens A has "better bokeh" than Lens B implies that we are on the same page as to which qualities of bokeh are better than others.

Conversely, people often say it has "more" bokeh, to describe DOF control.

Well, there's a difference between DOF and the quantity of the blur in the portions of the photo outside the DOF. For example, 50mm f/2.8 and 200mm f/2.8 will have the same same DOF for the same subject and framing on the same format, but the blur from at 200mm f/2.8 will be up to 4x as great for the portions of the scene "far enough" from the focal plane.

Yes, the purist word nazzis want to correct everything, as much happened to me recently in another thread. I know the technical definition of the word, but everybody in that thread knew exactly what i was saying bc i don't just use the word bokeh by itself for the reasons above.

As I said, sometimes the meaning is clear from context, but more often than not, the meaning is not.

When you use other connecting words to the term bokeh, it gives it sufficient context in any conversation. Unless of course you are simply looking for a reason to misunderstand.

This takes us full circle to the same conundrum with the terms "exposure" and "brightness".

 

[Max Iso]

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?

No, one would not say "a lens has bokeh" whether one mean the quality or quantity of blur in the portions of the photo outside the DOF.

To tell a story, you still have to say it has "better bokeh" or "worse bokeh", the word on it's own really tells us nothing.

Taking "bokeh" to mean the quality of the blur, saying Lens A has "better bokeh" than Lens B implies that we are on the same page as to which qualities of bokeh are better than others.

Conversely, people often say it has "more" bokeh, to describe DOF control.

Well, there's a difference between DOF and the quantity of the blur in the portions of the photo outside the DOF. For example, 50mm f/2.8 and 200mm f/2.8 will have the same same DOF for the same subject and framing on the same format, but the blur from at 200mm f/2.8 will be up to 4x as great for the portions of the scene "far enough" from the focal plane.

Yes, the purist word nazzis want to correct everything, as much happened to me recently in another thread. I know the technical definition of the word, but everybody in that thread knew exactly what i was saying bc i don't just use the word bokeh by itself for the reasons above.

As I said, sometimes the meaning is clear from context, but more often than not, the meaning is not.

When you use other connecting words to the term bokeh, it gives it sufficient context in any conversation. Unless of course you are simply looking for a reason to misunderstand.

This takes us full circle to the same conundrum with the terms "exposure" and "brightness".

Well i guess one of use is going to have an easier time understanding common jargon. It's similar to the DOF discussion, you can't just say a lens has DOF, there must be adjectives. You can say a lens has more or less bokeh and most of us know what they mean, or you can say it has better or worse bokeh, and again, we know what they mean.

One side discribes quality, the other describes quantity. I think you guys just like the idea of being elitists. Some people just really want to be pro.

 

[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. And contrast, just like bokeh, must be modified to tell what kind of contrast or bokeh the lens has. Your argument is simple sophistry.

To tell a story, you still have to say it has "better bokeh" or "worse bokeh", the word on it's own really tells us nothing.

There is nothing strange in this situation, and it applies to almost endless aspects of life. One can say, for example, an engine has power. Should that word be open to ambiguous definition because it requires an adjective to tell the story as to whether the power is great, small, over- or under-? Or a painting can have affect. Or a novel can have a plot. The examples could go on forever. Once again, pure sophistry.

Conversely, people often say it has "more" bokeh, to describe DOF control.

Not those who use the term correctly.

Yes, the purist word nazzis want to correct everything,

You really do have an inherent ugliness in your soul, don't you? It outs in your posts and your signature mottos.

as much happened to me recently in another thread.

With good reason.

I know the technical definition of the word, but everybody in that thread knew exactly what i was saying bc i don't just use the word bokeh by itself for the reasons above.

And I guess everyone knows just exactly what you mean by the use of ****? Because the meaning of a word is not essential to understand the meaning, is it?

When you use other connecting words to the term bokeh, it gives it sufficient context in any conversation. Unless of course you are simply looking for a reason to misunderstand.

What is a connecting word? Are we all supposed to know what you mean by that as well? Can you please provide us with a reference?

 

[Great Bustard]

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?

No, one would not say "a lens has bokeh" whether one mean the quality or quantity of blur in the portions of the photo outside the DOF.

To tell a story, you still have to say it has "better bokeh" or "worse bokeh", the word on it's own really tells us nothing.

Taking "bokeh" to mean the quality of the blur, saying Lens A has "better bokeh" than Lens B implies that we are on the same page as to which qualities of bokeh are better than others.

Conversely, people often say it has "more" bokeh, to describe DOF control.

Well, there's a difference between DOF and the quantity of the blur in the portions of the photo outside the DOF. For example, 50mm f/2.8 and 200mm f/2.8 will have the same same DOF for the same subject and framing on the same format, but the blur from at 200mm f/2.8 will be up to 4x as great for the portions of the scene "far enough" from the focal plane.

Yes, the purist word nazzis want to correct everything, as much happened to me recently in another thread. I know the technical definition of the word, but everybody in that thread knew exactly what i was saying bc i don't just use the word bokeh by itself for the reasons above.

As I said, sometimes the meaning is clear from context, but more often than not, the meaning is not.

When you use other connecting words to the term bokeh, it gives it sufficient context in any conversation. Unless of course you are simply looking for a reason to misunderstand.

This takes us full circle to the same conundrum with the terms "exposure" and "brightness".

Well i guess one of use is going to have an easier time understanding common jargon. It's similar to the DOF discussion, you can't just say a lens has DOF, there must be adjectives. You can say a lens has more or less bokeh and most of us know what they mean...

Agreed.

...or you can say it has better or worse bokeh, and again, we know what they mean.

Here, I disagree. Many say "better bokeh" to mean the same as "more bokeh" as in the above paragraph.

One side discribes quality, the other describes quantity. I think you guys just like the idea of being elitists. Some people just really want to be pro.

It's curious that the desire for a technical term to have a more or less precise meaning is viewed as being "elitist". Would you feel the same, for example, if people said that an f/4 lens was "sharper than" and f/1.4 lens because more of the photo was within the DOF wide open with the f/4 lens than the f/1.4 lens? Is it OK to use the term "sharpness" to mean this and just expect people to figure it out from context, eventually?

 

[peripheralfocus]

As I said, sometimes the meaning is clear from context, but more often than not, the meaning is not.

I think I might take issue with this claim, GB -- I rarely find myself confused about which sense of the word "bokeh" is meant when I see it used.

But I have not done a statistical analysis, so I won't hang my hat on my impression of it.

I know you're having some fun here, and I like fun. In moderation, I mean. But as you know, I'm now of the opinion that it is not crucial to All That is True and Just for only one definition of "bokeh" to prevail.

And every time I succumb to the temptation to chime in, my subconscious vaguely nags at me with some proverb or other -- I can't quite bring it into sharp focus. Something about arguments being so vicious because the stakes are so small.

 

[The Davinator]

As I said, sometimes the meaning is clear from context, but more often than not, the meaning is not.

I think I might take issue with this claim, GB -- I rarely find myself confused about which sense of the word "bokeh" is meant when I see it used.

But I have not done a statistical analysis, so I won't hang my hat on my impression of it.

I know you're having some fun here, and I like fun. In moderation, I mean. But as you know, I'm now of the opinion that it is not crucial to All That is True and Just for only one definition of "bokeh" to prevail.

And every time I succumb to the temptation to chime in, my subconscious vaguely nags at me with some proverb or other -- I can't quite bring it into sharp focus. Something about arguments being so vicious because the stakes are so small.

I find it easier to just maintain the standard definition. It avoids confusion. Imagine if groups of people decided Dynamic Range, Resolution, Chromatic Aberation, all had various meanings...it would make a mess of discussions.

No, it is easier to simply look at the fact the overwhelming majority of people, as well as dictionary definition, have but one meaning for Bokeh.

And I agree...this was done in fun. Love GB's sense of humour.

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

... to persuade the punter that the lens that costs twice as much has mysterious properties to make it so much better than the cheaper lens that otherwise has the same specification?

Or am I being unduly cynical?

I didn't encounter the word until about ten years ago (and I'd then been using cameras and reading about photography extensively for over 25 years).

 

[Great Bustard]

As I said, sometimes the meaning is clear from context, but more often than not, the meaning is not.

I think I might take issue with this claim, GB -- I rarely find myself confused about which sense of the word "bokeh" is meant when I see it used.

But I have not done a statistical analysis, so I won't hang my hat on my impression of it.

I know you're having some fun here, and I like fun. In moderation, I mean. But as you know, I'm now of the opinion that it is not crucial to All That is True and Just for only one definition of "bokeh" to prevail.

And every time I succumb to the temptation to chime in, my subconscious vaguely nags at me with some proverb or other -- I can't quite bring it into sharp focus. Something about arguments being so vicious because the stakes are so small.

I find it easier to just maintain the standard definition. It avoids confusion. Imagine if groups of people decided Dynamic Range, Resolution, Chromatic Aberation, all had various meanings...it would make a mess of discussions.

Bingo. And, in fact, it does often make a mess of those discussions, or, conversely, it makes those discussions more "entertaining". ;-)

No, it is easier to simply look at the fact the overwhelming majority of people, as well as dictionary definition, have but one meaning for Bokeh.

It doesn't take much of a minority to make a mess of things, however (the recent US Presidential election being a case in point ;-) ).

And I agree...this was done in fun. Love GB's sense of humour.

Y'all ready for the goat joke? :-D

 

[David Pavlich]

You just did this to tweak the word nazis, right? Other than that, it's pretty much a waste of space....and here I am adding to the din.

David

 

[Great Bustard]

As I said, sometimes the meaning is clear from context, but more often than not, the meaning is not.

I think I might take issue with this claim, GB -- I rarely find myself confused about which sense of the word "bokeh" is meant when I see it used.

But I have not done a statistical analysis, so I won't hang my hat on my impression of it.

Fair enough to say -- I've not done a statistical analysis either. My impression, however, is that there are two distinct groups of people: one using the term correctly, the other using the term incorrectly. ;-)

I know you're having some fun here, and I like fun. In moderation, I mean. But as you know, I'm now of the opinion that it is not crucial to All That is True and Just for only one definition of "bokeh" to prevail.

It's a First World Problem, to be sure.

And every time I succumb to the temptation to chime in, my subconscious vaguely nags at me with some proverb or other -- I can't quite bring it into sharp focus. Something about arguments being so vicious because the stakes are so small.

Well, I prefer to leave viciousness out of the discussion, even when the discussion is merely "entertainment". However, I don't see any reason not to use technical terms correctly, but, as I noted in the OP, it's not like I expect to win the war on that point. Just want to see where those that do have an interest in the matter stand.

 

[Great Bustard]

Isn't it a marketing phrase to persuade the punter that the lens that costs twice as much has mysterious properties to make it so much better than the cheaper lens that otherwise has the same specification?

However, that's not to say that marketers don't do what marketers do.

Or am I being unduly cynical?

Is that even possible? ;-)

I didn't encounter the word until about ten years ago (and I'd then been using cameras and reading about photography extensively for over 25 years).

Yes -- it's a relatively recent term:

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

The term comes from the Japanese word boke (暈け or ボケ), which means "blur" or "haze", or boke-aji (ボケ味), the "blur quality". The Japanese term boke is also used in the sense of a mental haze or senility. The term bokashi (暈かし) is related, meaning intentional blurring or gradation.

The English spelling bokeh was popularized in 1997 in Photo Techniques magazine, when Mike Johnston, the editor at the time, commissioned three papers on the topic for the March/April 1997 issue; he altered the spelling to suggest the correct pronunciation to English speakers, saying "it is properly pronounced with bo as in bone and ke as in Kenneth, with equal stress on either syllable". The spellings bokeh and boke have both been in use since at least 1996, when Merklinger had suggested "or Bokeh if you prefer." The term bokeh has appeared in photography books as early as 1998. It is sometimes pronounced /ˈboʊkə/ (boke-uh).

 

[Great Bustard]

You just did this to tweak the word nazis, right? Other than that, it's pretty much a waste of space....and here I am adding to the din.

...cast for Option 4:

Words mean exactly what I want them to mean -- no more, no less. I hate people who try to impose the meaning of words on me.

or Option 5?

I don't care about bokeh and was tricked into reading this thread from the misleading subject line.

Just curious.

 

[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.

Insofar as the bokeh may be good, bad or indifferent, whether a lens "has" it or not is of no significance anyway unless (as Max says, one describes it). But in a thread dedicated to precision of meaning it's good idea to be precise.

It would, of course, be pointless to suggest that everyone knows what you mean ...

 

[Great Bustard]

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.

Insofar as the bokeh may be good, bad or indifferent, whether a lens "has" it or not is of no significance anyway unless (as Max says, one describes it). But in a thread dedicated to precision of meaning it's good idea to be precise.

It would, of course, be pointless to suggest that everyone knows what you mean ...

Isn't that being overly pedantic? :-D

 

[Max Iso]

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. And contrast, just like bokeh, must be modified to tell what kind of contrast or bokeh the lens has. Your argument is simple sophistry.

And none of those attributes are given value without using other words as well. saying a lens has contrast tells us nothing.

To tell a story, you still have to say it has "better bokeh" or "worse bokeh", the word on it's own really tells us nothing.

There is nothing strange in this situation, and it applies to almost endless aspects of life. One can say, for example, an engine has power. Should that word be open to ambiguous definition because it requires an adjective to tell the story as to whether the power is great, small, over- or under-? Or a painting can have affect. Or a novel can have a plot. The examples could go on forever. Once again, pure sophistry.

Conversely, people often say it has "more" bokeh, to describe DOF control.

Not those who use the term correctly.

Well some of us don't care about your correctness, we are not here to stroke our ego with technicalities. I bet you get your panties in a bunch when somebody calls a ML camera a DSLR don't you?

Yes, the purist word nazzis want to correct everything,

You really do have an inherent ugliness in your soul, don't you? It outs in your posts and your signature mottos.

Judging by the photos i have seen you post on DPR, i consider this a compliment.

as much happened to me recently in another thread.

With good reason.

I know the technical definition of the word, but everybody in that thread knew exactly what i was saying bc i don't just use the word bokeh by itself for the reasons above.

And I guess everyone knows just exactly what you mean by the use of ****? Because the meaning of a word is not essential to understand the meaning, is it?

Yes, those of us who haven't been living under a rock know exactly what it means.