What is bokeh?

[travelfoodphoto]

Evening,

i thought I would put links to a couple of articles I recently found and thought did a good job of explaining what bokeh is and showing some good examples of bokeh.

Bokeh is a term that I have found to be misused quite often by many photographers who don't know the difference between out of focus backgrounds and bokeh, viewing them basically as synonymous, which they definitely are not.

I'm sharing these articles just to share information, and have no desire to enter into a disagreement or argument with anyone here. I feel quite safe and at home here, so please don't think I'm trying to stir up anything.

As I really enjoy photographing birds and flowers with attractive out of focus backgrounds to aid in separating the background from the subject in my photographs, I'm often told what nice bokeh some of my photos have. I normally just respond with a simple thanks, as stating these images don't really contain bokeh, just out of focus backgrounds, would possibly create a disagreement.

So without further adieu, here are the articles. Hope you enjoy them.

Background blur in photos is not the same as a bokeh background

The difference between background blur and a bokeh background is out of focus spectral highlights, not just an out of focus background

thelenslounge.com

25 Beautiful Examples of Bokeh Photography — Speckyboy

Explore the allure of bokeh photography, where the focus is on creating stunning images with beautifully blurred backgrounds.

speckyboy.com

Best,

Den

 

[Guy Parsons]

An early article about Bokeh. http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf

Most lenses appear to be slightly over-corrected for spherical aberration and this causes a sharper looking image but leads to harsh background blur or harsh Bokeh.

Some lenses like the Nikon DC portrait lenses have a control ring to alter the degree of spherical aberration, so the Bokeh can be played with. If you have good foreground Bokeh then the background Bokeh will be harsh and vice versa. With care the Bokeh can be balanced and reach a compromise back and front using that control.

What is a "DC" lens?

www.nikonimgsupport.com

 

[Dak on cam]

Evening,

i thought I would put links to a couple of articles I recently found and thought did a good job of explaining what bokeh is and showing some good examples of bokeh.

I consider the definition in those articles, considering bokeh to be specular highlights, to be an outlier rather than the usual use of the term. Specular highlights are quite useful for showcasing and analyzing bokeh, the visual quality of blurred backgrounds. But they aren't synonymous with it.

Wikipedia, which typically reflects common understanding of a term, appears to reflect a similar understanding as mine:

"Some photographers incorrectly restrict use of the term bokeh to the appearance of bright spots in the out-of-focus area caused by circles of confusion".

 

[travelfoodphoto]

Hi Dak,

The Wiki link you provided shows many examples of what it calls bokeh, in all, or at least the 20 or so I quickly looked at there were some sort of "balls" in the image.

I'll stick with bokeh and out of focus backgrounds being different entities and bokeh very, very frequently having some sort of "circles of confusion" or bokeh balls.

"In photography, the circles of confusion are the out-of-focus, circular highlights that are formed by points of light in the foreground or background of an image. The quality and shape of these circles are what is referred to as the bokeh".

Let's agree to disagree.

Best,

Den

 

[Dak on cam]

Hi Dak,

The Wiki link you provided shows many examples of what it calls bokeh, in all, or at least the 20 or so I quickly looked at there were some sort of "balls" in the image.

We are probably looking differently. The majority of examples do use specular highlights, but by no means all.

I'll stick with bokeh and out of focus backgrounds being different entities

You are misrepresenting what I (and Wikipedia) are stating. Bokeh is the quality of defocused regions, not the region as such. The shape of specular highlights is one aspect of it, and their look is rather representative for the entire bokeh. If the highlights have bright rims, you usually get "nisen bokeh" on the background where lines are not as much smudged but doubled.

and bokeh very, very frequently having some sort of "circles of confusion" or bokeh balls.

The circle of confusion (and its actual shape and the way it is filled) is relevant for all the unsharpness. It is just that the specular highlights provide an isolated view of that shape.

"In photography, the circles of confusion are the out-of-focus, circular highlights that are formed by points of light in the foreground or background of an image. The quality and shape of these circles are what is referred to as the bokeh".

Let's agree to disagree.

As long as you don't misrepresent what you are disagreeing with, I am fine with that. It is a linguistic difference, there is no absolute truth to be found.

 

[travelfoodphoto]

Dak,

I'll stick with what I stated.

Best,

Den

 

[Dak on cam]

Dak,

I'll stick with what I stated.

As long as you don't stick with your claims about what I was supposed to have said.

 

[travelfoodphoto]

No reason to misrepresent you Dak.

Stay well,

Den

 

[Dak on cam]

Evening,

i thought I would put links to a couple of articles I recently found and thought did a good job of explaining what bokeh is and showing some good examples of bokeh.

I consider the definition in those articles, considering bokeh to be specular highlights, to be an outlier rather than the usual use of the term. Specular highlights are quite useful for showcasing and analyzing bokeh, the visual quality of blurred backgrounds. But they aren't synonymous with it.

Wikipedia, which typically reflects common understanding of a term, appears to reflect a similar understanding as mine:

"Some photographers incorrectly restrict use of the term bokeh to the appearance of bright spots in the out-of-focus area caused by circles of confusion".

A few more data points: there is some interest in consulting the "horse's mouth", in this case the Japanese Wikipedia page . When autotranslating it to English, you get

"Bokeh in photography is the bokehbeauty of a blurred area created outside the scope of the focus of the lens ( depth of field ) and the expression method that uses it intentionally[1].[1] Basically, the main subject is assumed to be in focus, but the focus of the soft focus lens is suitable, but the effect of not being a sharp image is also a kind of blur[.[2] This concept and method is also called bokeh outside of Japan[.[3]

In contrast, focusing on everything on the screen ]is called pan focus[4] or deep focus.

Technically, such images can be taken by setting the depth of field to be shallow intentionally, and similar expressions in cinematography are called shallow focus."

Of course that does not help a lot because for one thing there is a lot of sense lost in that kind of translation. For another, it only tells us the word and its use that inspired our own meaning of bokeh.

Now one indicator favoring the "beauty of out-of-focus areas" interpretation is that there is also "nisen bokeh", double-line bokeh, and it has also been pulled into the English language. In nisen bokeh, line features in the blurred area double up rather than dissolve, looking more like camera shake than being out of focus. Specular highlights, however, don't contain double lines but rather look like a strongly outlined circle.

Because of the still active influence of the Japanese use of the term "bokeh" and because of derivates still finding their way into English, there is merit in staying close to the meaning of the word as it is being used by Japanese photographers.

This is language, not science. In the end, the meaning that most people use will end up being the term of art. Our votes for where we want this to go differ.

But that will not affect our photographs.

 

[travelfoodphoto]

Hi again Dak,

The Japanese Wiki page is one I looked at yesterday, after talking a bit about bokeh with my son. We asked ChatGPT Plus several times with different photos of mine if the image had bokeh, and its responses said yes every time, with responses 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.

========================================================================

As my definition of bokeh comes from my visual mind, so to speak, and the trite expression of "bokeh balls" is almost always included in my definition, examples like these are what I define as good bokeh:

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

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

I view bad bokeh images often, but still separate them from images with just OOF backgrounds, as I believe there is a difference between the 2.

Thanks for providing additional information, as more additional relevant information is provided, the better analysis and decisions can generally be made.

Best,

Den

 

[Dak on cam]

Hi again Dak,

The Japanese Wiki page is one I looked at yesterday, after talking a bit about bokeh with my son. We asked ChatGPT Plus several times with different photos of mine if the image had bokeh,

That is actually a loaded question already since it does not make a lot of sense with the "quality of blur" meaning. As long as there is anything out of focus, it has some "quality of blur".

I'll admit that it isn't easy to phrase a question matching both definitions equally well. But the distinction appears to have gone over ChatGPT's head anyway, so no harm done.

and its responses said yes every time, with responses like this

I usually wince when people consult ChatGPT since it essentially regurgitates a conglomerate of what is to be found on the net rather than what is correct. For questions of evolving language usage, that may actually be based on more thorough sampling than what humans can easily achieve, with the caveat that people writing in whole sentences on publicly available media may not be representative of the general populace.

So yes, good additional source for figuring out what someone you don't know but who has got much of his knowledge from the Internet (and regarding "bokeh", I'll just have to admit that I don't think I have learnt and used that term anywhere else) is likely to associate with it.

I also think that the term "ugly bokeh" is comparatively often seen in lens reviews; and for isolated specular highlights, it would be more a matter of "weirdly shaped" or similar.

There is also "cat's eye bokeh": that term is pretty clearly a point for your understanding of the term as it can only sensibly describe the specular highlight shape.

So it probably makes sense when using "bokeh" as a term, to put in enough context that the reader does not need to choose a particular definition for understanding the intended meaning.

And then we can have this conversation again in a decade and see whether "nobody says that anymore" will have downed one of our assigned meanings.

--
Dak

 

[ishwanu]

When I first read of the term many years ago, its definition was very simple: the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens. That's still the proper meaning AFAIK.

This applies to any features that exist in those out-of-focus areas - specular highlights, other bright areas, branches, architecture, faces, etc.

If the effect is pleasing, the bokeh is 'good' and if it's not pleasing, it's something other than good. But there's not always agreement on what is pleasing.