What is Bokeh?

[travelfoodphoto]

There are many photography sites that clearly delineate that bokeh and oof backgrounds are not the same.

I don’t pay attention to so called “websites”, young man. I go by the timeless expertise of DPR, where free minds still believe there is good blur and bad blur, but it is all blur.

We disagree, no big deal. you keep thinking your way, I'll keep thinking mine.

Of course!

Enjoy your photography.

Den

Here's a photo. This isn't bad bokeh, its an oof background, as far as I'm concerned and many photography websites, and many photographers.

Yup!

You may think otherwise, fine.

Mr. Bodeswell,

I just turned 77 in May, so certainly don't consider myself a young man, but thanks anyway!

Den

 

[bodeswell]

There are many photography sites that clearly delineate that bokeh and oof backgrounds are not the same.

I don’t pay attention to so called “websites”, young man. I go by the timeless expertise of DPR, where free minds still believe there is good blur and bad blur, but it is all blur.

We disagree, no big deal. you keep thinking your way, I'll keep thinking mine.

Of course!

Enjoy your photography.

Den

Here's a photo. This isn't bad bokeh, its an oof background, as far as I'm concerned and many photography websites, and many photographers.

Yup!

You may think otherwise, fine.

Mr. Bodeswell,

I just turned 77 in May, so certainly don't consider myself a young man, but thanks anyway!

Den

You are welcome!

 

[Mako2011]

There are many photography sites that clearly delineate that bokeh and oof backgrounds are not the same.

bodeswell above never suggested that Bokeh and oof backgrounds are the same. He's just pointing out there are different characteristics to Bokeh and that your example below does indeed have describable Bokeh. I would describe the Bokeh there as not unpleasing and generally not distracting from the main subject. I like the overall color contrasts. Nice image

Here's a photo.

Mr. Bodeswell, as well as others here stated that bokeh and oof (blur) are the same.

I don't think they actually said/implied that...but I may have missed it.

Quote from Mr. Bodeswell: "where free minds still believe there is good blur and bad blur, but it is all blur."

Blur is not the same as oof backgrounds. But blur can be seen as synonymous with "Bokeh", in this context, when the "blur" being described is due to the area in the image being out of focus (rather than say motion blur) and one is speaking to the subjective visual quality of the blur. Webster even defines "Bokeh" using the term..."background blur (bokeh)"

I think that is where Jane Allan goes a bit astray (misleading a bit) in her article as she's uses the term "background blur". Folks here are using the term "blur", IMO, in the context of the quality of the blur in the background. By definition the term "quality of the blur in the background" is synonymous with the term "Bokeh". I think when one says "the blur we see here is a bit busy", in the context of this thread, it's the same as saying "the Bokeh here is a bit busy"

Jane says: "Bokeh is the out of focus blur of specular highlights in photos and appears (usually) as circular shapes in an out of focus background or foreground." It would be more accurate to say" One characteristic of Bokeh is the out of focus blur of specular highlights in photos and appears (usually) as circular shapes in an out of focus background or foreground."

Bokeh really isn't limited to just the nature of the blur associated with specular highlights. That can be the case though, IMO, when describing Bokeh Balls in an image

And I still like the above image



--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

 

[travelfoodphoto]

Evening Mako,

Thank you for providing more context and information, but as far as I am concerned, as well as how blur is defined on many sites online, and when using Chatgpt plus, etc., blur and bokeh do not mean the same thing whatsoever.

I guess the takeaway is that bokeh obviously means different things to different people. But its pretty clear to me that when Wikipedia, and many other sites that pop up when you query bokeh, you get photos almost exclusively with some sort of "bokeh balls".

When I put a several of my images (including the photo you liked) into Chatgpt plus, with various degrees of out of focus backgrounds, with flowers or a bird in the foreground, it responded like this:

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

Yes. You can tell because the background is smoothly blurred, with no distinct shapes or details visible. The subject (the cluster of orange flowers) is sharply in focus, while the green foliage behind it has a soft, creamy blur — that’s classic bokeh, an optical effect created by a shallow depth of field and a wide aperture.

So, while every out-of-focus area isn’t necessarily “bokeh,” in this case the blur is smooth and aesthetically pleasing — a good example of bokeh in flower photography.

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

AI took the low road with the definition, in my opinion.

When one Google's "photos with bokeh", you get answers like these sites, not sites with just out of focus background photos. I suspect there's a good reason for that, which is because that's what people think bokeh looks like. And that's what bokeh looks like to me, of course, not at all like my photo you liked or the ones I originally posted on the Z site thread when I was asking for a good bokeh lens:

https://speckyboy.com/beautiful-bokeh-photography/

https://iso.500px.com/30-beautiful-bokeh-images-to-capture-your-imagination/

Best to you

Den

 

[Mako2011]

Evening Mako,

Thank you for providing more context and information, but as far as I am concerned, as well as how blur is defined

Not speaking to how blur is defined but how Bokeh is often defined in relation to blur

...on many sites online, and when using Chatgpt plus, etc., blur and bokeh do not mean the same thing whatsoever.

As I pointed out with just the Webster definition ...Bokeh is often defined using the term blur "background blur (bokeh)"

I guess the takeaway is that bokeh obviously means different things to different people.

Yes...for example in the article you linked, Boheka was defined by it's relationship to Boekh Balls only. That's only one aspect of Bokeh

But its pretty clear to me that when Wikipedia, and many other sites that pop up when you query bokeh, you get photos almost exclusively with some sort of "bokeh balls".

Not always (as we see in the replies here and some of the fine Jason Polak examples

When I put a several of my images (including the photo you liked) into Chatgpt plus, with various degrees of out of focus backgrounds, with flowers or a bird in the foreground, it responded like this:

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

Yes. You can tell because the background is smoothly blurred, with no distinct shapes or details visible. The subject (the cluster of orange flowers) is sharply in focus, while the green foliage behind it has a soft, creamy blur — that’s classic bokeh, an optical effect created by a shallow depth of field and a wide aperture.

So, while every out-of-focus area isn’t necessarily “bokeh,” in this case the blur is smooth and aesthetically pleasing — a good example of bokeh in flower photography.

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

And that's a good example of why we shouldn't put all our eggs in the ChatGPT basket.


ChatGPT: "Isn't necessarily" means that something is not always or definitely true, but rather it is possibly true or true in some cases. It indicates that a statement is not a guaranteed fact, but instead a potential or sometimes accurate idea."

For fun I asked ChatGPT if Bokeh always refers to how out of focus light looks and got this as part of the answer:

"However, it's worth noting that bokeh doesn't just apply to points of light—it can also refer to the overall aesthetic quality of the out-of-focus areas of an image, which is influenced by how the lens handles blur in general."

I'm still not a ChatGPT convert

AI took the low road with the definition, in my opinion.

Here's what bokeh looks like to me, not at all like my photo you liked:

https://speckyboy.com/beautiful-bokeh-photography/

https://iso.500px.com/30-beautiful-bokeh-images-to-capture-your-imagination/

All nice examples of one of the characteristics we often see when describing Bokeh...but not encompassing all of the characteristics that describe Bokeh ...IMO.

 

[travelfoodphoto]

Never even hinted I was a chatgpt fan, just said they viewed all the images I posted there of having bokeh, when my definition would indicate none had bokeh

And other than the image submitted in the first response on this thread that had bokeh balls, ie bokeh, no one else submitted any images, just verbiage.

And there well may be bokeh examples/images without circle of confusion, but the point I made, and documented it with 65 examples from 2 websites, and indicated wiki's site also showed examples with every one of them having circles of confusion.

An out of focus background is not bokeh, even though posters here and on the Z thread indicated it was and that all my images had bokeh.

We just disagree, simple as that, only difference is I show examples of what I think is bokeh, and darn near everyone else just talks about it. But it is what it is, differences of opinion.

Best,

Den

Let's change the subject, here's a photo I took in the early morning in the hills in Chianti, Italy - no bokeh, lol!

 

[Mako2011]

Never even hinted I was a chatgpt fan,

I never once said you were

And there well may be bokeh examples/images without circle of confusion, but the point I made, and documented it with 65 examples from 2 websites, and indicated wiki's site also showed examples with every one of them having circles of confusion.

Yes...and that doesn't prove it's a required characteristic of "Bokeh" .... just something common to those 65 examples

An out of focus background is not bokeh, even though posters here and on the Z thread indicated it was and that all my images had bokeh.

They never said it was, as I read it....but all out of focus areas of an image do show/contain/have bokeh...by definition

Let's change the subject, here's a photo I took in the early morning in the hills in Chianti, Italy - no bokeh, lol!

That would only be the case if the entire image is "in focus".....But looking at the clouds and haze captured in the distance...looks like there is Bokeh in the image that can be described as "of little consequence/effect"

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

 

[Dem Bell]

...

I think that is where Jane Allan goes a bit astray (misleading a bit) in her article as she's uses the term "background blur". Folks here are using the term "blur", IMO, in the context of the quality of the blur in the background. By definition the term "quality of the blur in the background" is synonymous with the term "Bokeh". I think when one says "the blur we see here is a bit busy", in the context of this thread, it's the same as saying "the Bokeh here is a bit busy"

Agree with Mako.

Jane says: "Bokeh is the out of focus blur of specular highlights in photos and appears (usually) as circular shapes in an out of focus background or foreground." It would be more accurate to say" One characteristic of Bokeh is the out of focus blur of specular highlights in photos and appears (usually) as circular shapes in an out of focus background or foreground."

Her understanding of "specular highlights" and "bokeh" are both incorrect.

First, she incorrectly uses "specular highlights" when she means "point light sources". Specular highlights are reflections in shiny surfaces that typically

• lose colour information in at least one colour channel
• are in focus
• have a shape dictated by the light source and the surface, not the lens diaphragm

These are different from "bokeh balls" which are renderings of out of focus point light sources. These renderings resemble the shape of lens diaphragm and can be blown but typically aren't.

Second, the "blur" (and also the "bokeh" as in "the quality of the blur") is a property of absolutely every single point rendered in the image. Every. Single. One. Let that sink in.

If one is photographing an out-of-focus Christmas tree, it is not like the brighter lights produce "bokeh" but the dimmer ones do not. Same blur affects both. There is no threshold brightness to be qualified as a "bokeh ball". Naturally, some "renderings" are brighter than others and therefore are more visible in the image, but the shape of these renderings, given by

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

is the same regardless of their brightness.

Bokeh really isn't limited to just the nature of the blur associated with specular highlights. That can be the case though, IMO, when describing Bokeh Balls in an image.

Indeed, blur equally affects dark and light points. Point light sources are used to clearly demonstrate the shape of this blur. Compare:

• A uniform OOF background will not show any blur.
• A non-uniform OOF background will show how the edges of large shapes blur.
• An OOF point light source will show the exact "blur shape" for a point this far away from the sensor and this far away from the lens optical axis for a given focus distance.

 

[GonnaSnap]

There's bokeh, and then there's TONEH...