Let's argue about Bokeh for the fourth time

08/29/2007 06:36:57 PM · #101

Originally posted by vdbe:

Maybe the one of the most hated name here in this site "Ken Rockwell" has a good definition of bokeh. :-p

What is Bokeh?

That's actually a decent article.

08/29/2007 06:43:19 PM · #102

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by vdbe:
Maybe the one of the most hated name here in this site "Ken Rockwell" has a good definition of bokeh. :-p

What is Bokeh?

That's actually a decent article.

First line: "Bokeh describes the rendition of out-of-focus points of light"

Maybe decent but incorrect.

BoKeh = Blur

Circles of confusion are a function of the lens and the number of aperture blades.

Message edited by author 2007-08-29 18:44:03.

vdbe

08/29/2007 06:44:00 PM · #103

Originally posted by glad2badad:

That's actually a decent article.

I think so, too, although I do not have ribbons and photos to prove that I know what I am talking about. ;-)

And I bet that those with huge egos will not admit that this is decent article since it came from ken rockwell. :-)

08/29/2007 06:45:26 PM · #104

Originally posted by vdbe:

And I bet that those with huge egos will not admit that this is decent article since it came from ken rockwell. :-)

I completely admit to having a very fat head however the article is incorrect and does not matter to me who wrote it.

:-D

Donna21

Fujifilm FinePix S9000

08/29/2007 06:52:10 PM · #105

So basically, we're looking at the opposite of "fill the frame" (LOL) w/ the additional of a (pleasingly) blurry background. That hopefully enhances the subject.

vdbe

08/29/2007 06:54:32 PM · #106

Here is a link from flickr. Too bad 'the Voldermort' of DPC is again mentioned. ;-)

08/29/2007 07:04:24 PM · #107

Originally posted by vdbe:

Here is a link from flickr. Too bad 'the Voldermort' of DPC is again mentioned. ;-)

Well we know you are in the little blurry circle camp I guess.

Again allow me to make this really really simple for all.

BoKeh = Blur
BoKeh = Idiot

and that is that.

08/29/2007 07:07:48 PM · #108

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by vdbe:
Here is a link from flickr. Too bad 'the Voldermort' of DPC is again mentioned. ;-)

Well we know you are in the little blurry circle camp I guess.

Again allow me to make this really really simple for all.

BoKeh = Blur
BoKeh = Idiot

and that is that.

Bokeh is not simply "Blur"...geesh.

08/29/2007 07:11:51 PM · #109

Allow me to post a quote from last year in a thread about 'Bokeh' (June 2006):

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Bokeh
"A term derived from the Japanese word for "fool" which when applied to a lens refers to the pleasing quality of the out of focus areas of an image produced by the lens. Thought to be related to factors like the shape of the aperture opening and spherical aberration."

Bokeh
"(from the Japanese boke â��Ã�â��Â¯, "blur"[1]) is a photographic term describing the subjective aesthetic qualities of out-of-focus areas in an image produced by a camera lens. For example, causing an out-of-focus background image may reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject.

Although difficult to quantify, and hence open to debate, some lenses are believed to enhance overall image quality by producing more subjectively pleasing out-of-focus areas (bokeh).

Bokeh characteristics may be quantified by examining the image's circle of confusion. In out-of-focus areas, each point of light becomes a disc. In images taken by some lenses, that disc is uniformly illuminated, for others it is brighter near the edge, and for others it is brighter near the center. Some lenses show one kind of disc for out-of-focus points closer to the camera, and a different kind for points farther from the camera. Traditionally speaking, an out-of-focus point of light with a more illuminated center and a dimmer outer edge is considered to be more desirable than an evenly illuminated disc or one with brighter edges than center. A circle of confusion with darker edges has a less defined shape which allows it to blend with the surrounding image. A hard edge would tend to bring the eye away from the in-focus subject and toward the out-of-focus element."

Seems the definition last year was a bit more in-depth? Note the last one stating "each point of light becomes a disc", etc, etc...

Pick a definition everyone. There's numerous ones out there. As for the Ken Rockwell one, that is pointed to in numerous other articles on the discussion of bokeh from various sources. Take it or leave it.

In the end most likely people will cling to THE definition they like the best and suits their photo in the most flattering way. :P

08/29/2007 07:13:25 PM · #110

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by vdbe:
Here is a link from flickr. Too bad 'the Voldermort' of DPC is again mentioned. ;-)

Well we know you are in the little blurry circle camp I guess.

Again allow me to make this really really simple for all.

BoKeh = Blur
BoKeh = Idiot

and that is that.

Bokeh is not simply "Blur"...geesh.

True it is simply the concept of blur. But translated from the Japanese word Boke it means blur or idiot. It is simply the quality of the blur or OOF areas in an image that help the main subject of the image "POP".

So yes it is simply blur. Geesh right back at you!

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

08/29/2007 07:16:08 PM · #111

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bokeh
"A term derived from the Japanese word for "fool" which when applied to a lens refers to the pleasing quality of the out of focus areas of an image produced by the lens. Thought to be related to factors like the shape of the aperture opening and spherical aberration."

Bokeh
"(from the Japanese boke â��Ã�â��Â¯, "blur"[1]) is a photographic term describing the subjective aesthetic qualities of out-of-focus areas in an image produced by a camera lens. For example, causing an out-of-focus background image may reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject.

Although difficult to quantify, and hence open to debate, some lenses are believed to enhance overall image quality by producing more subjectively pleasing out-of-focus areas (bokeh).

Bokeh characteristics may be quantified by examining the image's circle of confusion. In out-of-focus areas, each point of light becomes a disc. In images taken by some lenses, that disc is uniformly illuminated, for others it is brighter near the edge, and for others it is brighter near the center. Some lenses show one kind of disc for out-of-focus points closer to the camera, and a different kind for points farther from the camera. Traditionally speaking, an out-of-focus point of light with a more illuminated center and a dimmer outer edge is considered to be more desirable than an evenly illuminated disc or one with brighter edges than center. A circle of confusion with darker edges has a less defined shape which allows it to blend with the surrounding image. A hard edge would tend to bring the eye away from the in-focus subject and toward the out-of-focus element."

Cut and paste good. yummy cut and paste..

:-/

ETA: In regards to the last paragraph yes you must have the circles of confusion because that is, as I said before, a characteristic of the lens and will always be there. That is necessary in creating a nicely blurred background but it doesn't make that the only characteristic of BoKeh.

The more technical we make it the more confused the masses become. You pick your definition and I will mine like you suggest. However it doesn't change the true meaning of the word but you can try if you wish.

Message edited by author 2007-08-29 19:27:13.

Atropos

Nikon D40

08/29/2007 07:16:47 PM · #112

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Bokeh is not simply "Blur"...geesh.

It isn't circles of light, either. What if your background has no bright spots? If you've got those circles of light then you're off to a good start, but that isn't what makes it bokeh. The blur is most important. You can have bokeh without circles of light, you can't have bokeh without the blur.

fotomann_forever

08/29/2007 07:24:07 PM · #113

Those bright circles are called specular highlights.

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/29/2007 07:28:24 PM · #114

I feel a load more DNMC moans and rants coming up next week.

08/29/2007 07:29:24 PM · #115

Originally posted by Simms:

I feel a load more DNMC moans and rants coming up next week.

This challenge always brings the DNMC.

Too bad really...

08/29/2007 08:38:58 PM · #116

Originally posted by Atropos:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
Bokeh is not simply "Blur"...geesh.

It isn't circles of light, either. What if your background has no bright spots? If you've got those circles of light then you're off to a good start, but that isn't what makes it bokeh. The blur is most important. You can have bokeh without circles of light, you can't have bokeh without the blur.

Ok. I can agree with that...mostly. :P Where I disagree is the blur being the most important. The 'bokeh' images, most of the time, that have the best impact or pizazz (sp?), are the ones with the cool bokeh circles clearly defined/evident. But yes, it's not possible to have the circles without blur also.

However, just a blurry background doesn't always mean bokeh either. If you look closely at the "blur" you can see circles coming together to form the blur - at least on the better ones IMO.

08/29/2007 08:41:32 PM · #117

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by Simms:
I feel a load more DNMC moans and rants coming up next week.

This challenge always brings the DNMC.

Too bad really...

I get the impression that you're in the camp that if the 'bokeh' is primarily circles of light you'll be inclined to not score it highly. I, on the other hand, will most likely vote the other way - cool circles get much higher scores than just a blurry background.

As always, this will be interesting. Have fun! :)

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/29/2007 08:42:52 PM · #118

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by Simms:
I feel a load more DNMC moans and rants coming up next week.

This challenge always brings the DNMC.

Too bad really...

I get the impression that you're in the camp that if the 'bokeh' is primarily circles of light you'll be inclined to not score it highly. I, on the other hand, will most likely vote the other way - cool circles get much higher scores than just a blurry background.

As always, this will be interesting. Have fun! :)

Not at all, both are bokeh in my book, I just prefer one over the other, the creamier version is more to my taste. I just think people get too wrapped up in the need to try to capture the circles of light, they dont.

08/29/2007 08:45:26 PM · #119

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by Simms:
I feel a load more DNMC moans and rants coming up next week.

This challenge always brings the DNMC.

Too bad really...

I get the impression that you're in the camp that if the 'bokeh' is primarily circles of light you'll be inclined to not score it highly. I, on the other hand, will most likely vote the other way - cool circles get much higher scores than just a blurry background.

As always, this will be interesting. Have fun! :)

Not at all, both are bokeh in my book, I just prefer one over the other, the creamier version is more to my taste. I just think people get too wrapped up in the need to try to capture the circles of light, they dont.

I can see bokeh in both also, and prefer the more brilliant light points to the creamy. No foul there as we both have the right to individual preferences.

BTW - I didn't intend to direct my comment at you, however I missed the interior quote so I can see how it may have come across that way. It was more directed at waz.

08/29/2007 08:53:52 PM · #120

Originally posted by glad2badad:

No not at all! I love all the forms of subjective BoKeh!
I always vote the image on how it makes me feel and think. I just think, as you pointed out by my last years post, that there needs to be an understanding that BoKeh is more a concept and really can't be quantified.

That means to me that both camps need to see that each is right and to DNMC an image because one is "creamy" or "sparkly" should be avoided at all costs.

Blur if sparkly or creamy is Blur just the same...

:-D

08/29/2007 09:13:31 PM · #121

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

... That means to me that both camps need to see that each is right and to DNMC an image because one is "creamy" or "sparkly" should be avoided at all costs. ...

:-D

Ok. Sounds good to me. :D

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/29/2007 09:19:44 PM · #122

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
... That means to me that both camps need to see that each is right and to DNMC an image because one is "creamy" or "sparkly" should be avoided at all costs. ...

:-D

Ok. Sounds good to me. :D

seconded.

maybe just include a bit of both in your images to keep both camps happy.

jschro

Canon EOS-30D

08/30/2007 01:26:11 AM · #123

Originally posted by Atropos:

Amen...ding ding ding...we have a winner. This is what I wanted to say after reading all the posts since this morning. Thank you for being the voice of reason. (and agreeing with me:)

jschro

Canon EOS-30D