The definition of "bokeh"

[kodakrome]

I don't see any reason for the craziness about this word. When people talk about bokeh, they're discussing the quality of the blur. Everyone knows that. However...

A photo can have nice bokeh, or creamy smooth bokeh, or harsh bokeh, or ugly bokeh. The words "nice" and "creamy smooth" and "harsh" and "ugly" describe the quality of the blur. The word "bokeh" itself doesn't describe or reference any specific quality at all.

If you say - "that photo has bokeh", that tells you nothing about the quality of the blur. Used by itself, the bokeh and the blur mean the same area of the photo. That's why Canon, Nikon, and a lot of photography writers call the blur the bokeh. It seems absurd to say that there's something inherently wrong with that.

In my opinion, this issue is much ado about nothing.

 

[Max Iso]

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.

But it's a never ending battle anyway. We have a thread here where a few guys are insisting it's "wrong" to use a word outside of it's technical definition. There is likely a never ending stream of uneducated masses who will be sullying that pristine little word, how dare they.

Time to set up shot for bustard and company, the unclean masses need to be put in their place. May as well hand out pamphlets concerning gender pronouns while we are at it huh. The grammar nazzis are in full swing.

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.

You are right but people use slang all the time and there's nothing we can do about it.

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

 

[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.

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

Ironic you mention this...

 

[Max Iso]

I don't see any reason for the craziness about this word. When people talk about bokeh, they're discussing the quality of the blur. Everyone knows that. However...

A photo can have nice bokeh, or creamy smooth bokeh, or harsh bokeh, or ugly bokeh. The words "nice" and "creamy smooth" and "harsh" and "ugly" describe the quality of the blur. The word "bokeh" itself doesn't describe or reference any specific quality at all.

If you say - "that photo has bokeh", that tells you nothing about the quality of the blur. Used by itself, the bokeh and the blur mean the same area of the photo. That's why Canon, Nikon, and a lot of photography writers call the blur the bokeh. It seems absurd to say that there's something inherently wrong with that.

In my opinion, this issue is much ado about nothing.

Usually a strong sign that somebody just wants to be leet.

 

[Great Bustard]

I don't see any reason for the craziness about this word. When people talk about bokeh, they're discussing the quality of the blur. Everyone knows that. However...

A photo can have nice bokeh, or creamy smooth bokeh, or harsh bokeh, or ugly bokeh. The words "nice" and "creamy smooth" and "harsh" and "ugly" describe the quality of the blur. The word "bokeh" itself doesn't describe or reference any specific quality at all.

If you say - "that photo has bokeh", that tells you nothing about the quality of the blur. Used by itself, the bokeh and the blur mean the same area of the photo. That's why Canon, Nikon, and a lot of photography writers call the blur the bokeh. It seems absurd to say that there's something inherently wrong with that.

In my opinion, this issue is much ado about nothing.

...that, like the term "aperture", the term "bokeh" requires a qualifying adjective to be clear. However, I'll have to disagree. For example, if someone asked, "How does the bokeh of the 50 / 1.2L compare to the bokeh of the 50 / 1.4A?", I would hope that the meaning would be clear without the use of a qualifying adjective.

 

[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.

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 ...

Ouch, game set match Gerry. Mr Wop was trying to educate us on "proper" and it seems he couldn't even follow his own rules.

 

[peripheralfocus]

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. ;-)

Well, I'll be perfectly happy if you, Davinator, MediaArchivist et. al. prevail in your effort to promulgate the "quality" definition of bokeh. Not betting any money on it ;-) But perfectly happy if it happens.

And if a universal consensus is established, I'll gladly abide by it! (My dirty secret is that I already do; I don't use the term very much, but when I do, I use it in the "quality of blur" sense.) A clear consensus may even make the world a better place. We can aught but hope.

 

[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 ...

Isn't that being overly pedantic? :-D

Your thread is about precise meanings of words. Is there a difference between pedantry and precision in this context?

I've always understood pedantry as being overly bothered about things, so overly overly seems overly emphatic to me.

 

[Great Bustard]

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. ;-)

Well, I'll be perfectly happy if you, Davinator, MediaArchivist et. al. prevail in your effort to promulgate the "quality" definition of bokeh. Not betting any money on it ;-) But perfectly happy if it happens.

Trump won, though -- not a good omen for "the cause". ;-)

And if a universal consensus is established, I'll gladly abide by it! (My dirty secret is that I already do; I don't use the term very much, but when I do, I use it in the "quality of blur" sense.) A clear consensus may even make the world a better place. We can aught but hope.

Either way, as First World Problems go, I think we'll survive. :-D

 

[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

Ironic you mention this...

It was an attempt at humor that failed, unfortunately. Well, as my failures go, not too bad, really. For example, like when I asked an aunt I hadn't seen in a while when the baby was due, and, well, she wasn't pregnant. ;-)

 

[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

Your thread is about precise meanings of words. Is there a difference between pedantry and precision in this context?

I've always understood pedantry as being overly bothered about things, so overly overly seems overly emphatic to me.

Apparently, my attempt at humor failed big-time. Guess I should hold up on that goat joke -- might get me arrested the way things are going. ;-)

 

[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 ...

Isn't that being overly pedantic? :-D

Your thread is about precise meanings of words. Is there a difference between pedantry and precision in this context?

I've always understood pedantry as being overly bothered about things, so overly overly seems overly emphatic to me.

Apparently, my attempt at humor failed big-time. Guess I should hold up on that goat joke -- might get me arrested the way things are going. ;-)

No, I saw the smiley - hence my second paragraph. But I always try to answer questions.

 

[kodakrome]

I don't see any reason for the craziness about this word. When people talk about bokeh, they're discussing the quality of the blur. Everyone knows that. However...

A photo can have nice bokeh, or creamy smooth bokeh, or harsh bokeh, or ugly bokeh. The words "nice" and "creamy smooth" and "harsh" and "ugly" describe the quality of the blur. The word "bokeh" itself doesn't describe or reference any specific quality at all.

If you say - "that photo has bokeh", that tells you nothing about the quality of the blur. Used by itself, the bokeh and the blur mean the same area of the photo. That's why Canon, Nikon, and a lot of photography writers call the blur the bokeh. It seems absurd to say that there's something inherently wrong with that.

In my opinion, this issue is much ado about nothing.

...that, like the term "aperture", the term "bokeh" requires a qualifying adjective to be clear. However, I'll have to disagree. For example, if someone asked, "How does the bokeh of the 50 / 1.2L compare to the bokeh of the 50 / 1.4A", I would hope that the meaning would be clear without the use of a qualifying adjective.

What you said was exactly my point.

"How does the bokeh of the 50 / 1.2L compare to the bokeh of the 50 / 1.4"

That's the same as saying "how does the blur of the 50/ 1.2L compare to the blur of the 50/ 1.4". "Bokeh" and "blur" mean the same thing in both sentences, and the word bokeh doesn't mean a specific quality.

 

[peripheralfocus]

to become a Wikipedia editor.

Are you one, by chance, GB? If so, you can add to its knowledge.

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).

Mike Johnston is a friend of mine (I'm a Contributing Editor to his blog, actually), but the English spelling of "boke" as "bokeh" (i.e. with an "h") goes back before him and Harold Merklinger to at least 1990.

It's the same transliterated Japanese word, but used in a political, rather than photographic context, in an article from the Washington Post. I retrieved the article from Lexis-Nexis. Here's the relevant passage and citation:

---

The Washington Post

November 8, 1990, Thursday, Final Edition

Kaifu Abandons Bill To Send Troops to Gulf;
Effort Unpopular With Japanese Public

BYLINE: T.R. Reid, Washington Post Foreign Service

SECTION: FIRST SECTION; PAGE A60

... Instead, much of the country seems to be fearful of any foreign involvement. The attitude, dating back to Japan's disastrous defeat in World War II, is a broader and longer-lasting version of what in America came to be known as the "post-Vietnam syndrome." The term for it here is heiwa bokeh, which translates as "peace senility." ...

 

[Great Bustard]

I don't see any reason for the craziness about this word. When people talk about bokeh, they're discussing the quality of the blur. Everyone knows that. However...

A photo can have nice bokeh, or creamy smooth bokeh, or harsh bokeh, or ugly bokeh. The words "nice" and "creamy smooth" and "harsh" and "ugly" describe the quality of the blur. The word "bokeh" itself doesn't describe or reference any specific quality at all.

If you say - "that photo has bokeh", that tells you nothing about the quality of the blur. Used by itself, the bokeh and the blur mean the same area of the photo. That's why Canon, Nikon, and a lot of photography writers call the blur the bokeh. It seems absurd to say that there's something inherently wrong with that.

In my opinion, this issue is much ado about nothing.

...that, like the term "aperture", the term "bokeh" requires a qualifying adjective to be clear. However, I'll have to disagree. For example, if someone asked, "How does the bokeh of the 50 / 1.2L compare to the bokeh of the 50 / 1.4A", I would hope that the meaning would be clear without the use of a qualifying adjective.

What you said was exactly my point.

"How does the bokeh of the 50 / 1.2L compare to the bokeh of the 50 / 1.4"

That's the same as saying "how does the blur of the 50/ 1.2L compare to the blur of the 50/ 1.4".

Not at all. Indeed, the 50 / 1.2L is a 1/3 stop faster than the 50 / 1/4A, so it is *entirely reasonable* that someone would mean the quantity of the blur if using the term "bokeh" to mean the quantity of the blur rather than the quality of the blur.

"Bokeh" and "blur" mean the same thing in both sentences, and the word bokeh doesn't mean a specific quality.

But it really doesn't as explained above, and that's *exactly* why it makes sense to use technical terms as they are defined to avoid confusion.

 

[Great Bustard]

to become a Wikipedia editor.

Are you one, by chance, GB? If so, you can add to its knowledge.

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).

Mike Johnston is a friend of mine (I'm a Contributing Editor to his blog, actually)...

Talk about the Six Degrees of Separation! ;-)

...but the English spelling of "boke" as "bokeh" (i.e. with an "h") goes back before him and Harold Merklinger to at least 1990.

Sure. If one wrote "boke", it would be pronounced in English the same as "boak". Thus the "h" at the end to get the same pronunciation as the Japanese.

It's the same transliterated Japanese word, but used in a political, rather than photographic context, in an article from the Washington Post. I retrieved the article from Lexis-Nexis. Here's the relevant passage and citation:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Washington Post

November 8, 1990, Thursday, Final Edition

Kaifu Abandons Bill To Send Troops to Gulf;
Effort Unpopular With Japanese Public

BYLINE: T.R. Reid, Washington Post Foreign Service

SECTION: FIRST SECTION; PAGE A60

... Instead, much of the country seems to be fearful of any foreign involvement. The attitude, dating back to Japan's disastrous defeat in World War II, is a broader and longer-lasting version of what in America came to be known as the "post-Vietnam syndrome." The term for it here is heiwa bokeh, which translates as "peace senility." ...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sure. Here on DPR, the term "bokeh" applies in a rather different sense that the photographic sense to many. ;-)

 

[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; i.e., it is a property of the lens that it creates pleasant OOF elements. If it produces bad bokeh, it has bad bokeh. But it has bokeh – the quality it lends to its OOF elements – no matter what. That bokeh didn't come from nowhere; it came from the lens, and it couldn't come from the lens unless the lens has it.

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 ...

For sure.

 

[The Davinator]

I don't see any reason for the craziness about this word. When people talk about bokeh, they're discussing the quality of the blur. Everyone knows that. However...

A photo can have nice bokeh, or creamy smooth bokeh, or harsh bokeh, or ugly bokeh. The words "nice" and "creamy smooth" and "harsh" and "ugly" describe the quality of the blur. The word "bokeh" itself doesn't describe or reference any specific quality at all.

If you say - "that photo has bokeh", that tells you nothing about the quality of the blur. Used by itself, the bokeh and the blur mean the same area of the photo. That's why Canon, Nikon, and a lot of photography writers call the blur the bokeh. It seems absurd to say that there's something inherently wrong with that.

In my opinion, this issue is much ado about nothing.

...that, like the term "aperture", the term "bokeh" requires a qualifying adjective to be clear. However, I'll have to disagree. For example, if someone asked, "How does the bokeh of the 50 / 1.2L compare to the bokeh of the 50 / 1.4A?", I would hope that the meaning would be clear without the use of a qualifying adjective.

Well.."it appears perfectly clear to about 85% of us who bothered to learn what it meant. :-D

 

[kodakrome]

I don't see any reason for the craziness about this word. When people talk about bokeh, they're discussing the quality of the blur. Everyone knows that. However...

A photo can have nice bokeh, or creamy smooth bokeh, or harsh bokeh, or ugly bokeh. The words "nice" and "creamy smooth" and "harsh" and "ugly" describe the quality of the blur. The word "bokeh" itself doesn't describe or reference any specific quality at all.

If you say - "that photo has bokeh", that tells you nothing about the quality of the blur. Used by itself, the bokeh and the blur mean the same area of the photo. That's why Canon, Nikon, and a lot of photography writers call the blur the bokeh. It seems absurd to say that there's something inherently wrong with that.

In my opinion, this issue is much ado about nothing.

...that, like the term "aperture", the term "bokeh" requires a qualifying adjective to be clear. However, I'll have to disagree. For example, if someone asked, "How does the bokeh of the 50 / 1.2L compare to the bokeh of the 50 / 1.4A", I would hope that the meaning would be clear without the use of a qualifying adjective.

What you said was exactly my point.

"How does the bokeh of the 50 / 1.2L compare to the bokeh of the 50 / 1.4"

That's the same as saying "how does the blur of the 50/ 1.2L compare to the blur of the 50/ 1.4".

Not at all. Indeed, the 50 / 1.2L is a 1/3 stop faster than the 50 / 1/4A, so it is *entirely reasonable* that someone would mean the quantity of the blur if using the term "bokeh" to mean the quantity of the blur rather than the quality of the blur.

"Bokeh" and "blur" mean the same thing in both sentences, and the word bokeh doesn't mean a specific quality.

But it really doesn't as explained above, and that's *exactly* why it makes sense to use technical terms as they are defined to avoid confusion.

Okay, this is going to be my final comment on this, I just don't see any reason to carry it on forever. The sentence only says "compare". There's no specific question about quantity. What one looks like compared to the other. What the bokeh looks like. What the blur looks like. You want to pretend those are two different things?

Trust me, I understand the importance of technical details. I spent years writing computer code. This doesn't seem to fall into that category. Bokeh is a subjective opinion of what something looks like. It isn't the same as an objective technical detail. Besides, plenty of words have more than one definition. What words mean is often determined by how they're used in a sentence. I think that's clearly the case with bokeh.

 

[BrownieVet]

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.

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.