Bokeh?!?? (Page 8): Bokeh is not the out of focus background of a picture caused by shallow depth of field. Bokeh is the out of focus "sparkle" of points of light in a photo. If you...

lowkick Loc: Connecticut

MadMikeOne wrote:

I keep seeing forum members referring to "bokeh". Could someone please explain what it is, how to get it, and when it might be wanted?
Just dumb it down for me.
Thanks guys and girls

Bokeh is not the out of focus background of a picture caused by shallow depth of field. Bokeh is the out of focus "sparkle" of points of light in a photo. If you take a photo of a deer, and the forest behind it is out of focus, that is shallow depth of field. If there are points of light coming through the trees, and they are out of focus, that is bokeh. The degree that the out of focus points of light are pleasing to the eye would be the basis of whether it is good or bad bokeh. If the points of light are washed out, overexposed blobs of light, they would probably be considered bad bokeh. If they have shape, color, points of interest in them, but are blurred, they would probably be considered good bokeh.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

mechengvic wrote:

There is a contradiction in that definition but I ... (show quote)

Yes, thank you for picking up that point.
You are correct.
"Bad bokeh" is an oxymoron.
There are now 3 of us it seems on this thread who actually understand what bokeh is, and there are others trying to redefine it into having no value.
Then you get the idiots who think it is elitist to even consider it.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

lowkick wrote:

Bokeh is not the out of focus background of a pict... (show quote)

NO.
This is another misconception.
Bokeh is not limited to the out of focus highlights.

blackest Loc: Ireland

lighthouse wrote:

NO.
This is another misconception.
Bokeh is not limited to the out of focus highlights.

Would you say the photo i posted earlier in the thread has bokeh ?

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

blackest wrote:

Would you say the photo i posted earlier in the thread has bokeh ?

No I wouldn't.
For my judgement it is too busy in the background.
It does have some nice soft blur, and with a different image, this would most likely manifest as bokeh.

zincgt Loc: Tucson AZ

lighthouse wrote:

Yes, thank you for picking up that point.
You are correct.
"Bad bokeh" is an oxymoron.
There are now 3 of us it seems on this thread who actually understand what bokeh is, and there are others trying to redefine it into having no value.
Then you get the idiots who think it is elitist to even consider it.

You have to consider whether or not the Bokeh in a particular shot is pleasing or not. Call it good, bad or ugly. What you define it is only paramount to the shot taken by the person taking it. I showed the difference between pleasing and unpleasant bokeh earlier. If the so called sparkle of lights coming through from a shallow DOF were more round or circular, it would be more pleasing than the octagonal ones. That which the OP wanted to know what caused the bokeh in the first place. Know someone that is trying to get into child photography with families and small children. She is taking "decent" shots, but her bokeh is distracting instead of complimenting the subjects. 1. there is way too much of it. it is in EVERY shot. 2. the bokeh is almost angular and sharp instead of soft.

blackest Loc: Ireland

lighthouse wrote:

No I wouldn't.
For my judgement it is too busy in the background.
It does have some nice soft blur, and with a different image, this would most likely manifest as bokeh.

Slightly unfriendly owl

(Download)

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Bokeh means : nobody knows exactly what it means but knows how to identify it when seen.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

blackest wrote:

Would you say the photo has bokeh ?

Slightly unfriendly owl.

No, I find the circles on the highlights in the background too busy.
I find it an unattractive distraction.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Racmanaz wrote:

Bokeh means : nobody knows exactly what it means but knows how to identify it when seen.

No, it doesn't.

I think that not only do people not know what it means, they also often think they see it when it is not there. But being as the judgement of it is subjective that is a hard line to call.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

lighthouse wrote:

No, it doesn't.

I think that not only do people not know what it means, they also often think they see it when it is not there. But being as the judgement of it is subjective that is a hard line to call.

Ya who knows, doesn't really matter I would guess. But I did look up the translation of the word Bokeh not the definition a few mins ago. The translation for Bokeh is "blur". But I think you maybe right, not many would consider just a blurred background "Bokeh", maybe it's when we see those blurred circles and creamy blurred backgrounds in the photo is what is meant as bokeh?

Michael66 Loc: Queens, New York

lighthouse wrote:

"Bad bokeh" is an oxymoron.

:thumbup:

I said the same thing the last thread.

lighthouse wrote:

There are now 3 of us it seems on this thread who actually understand what bokeh is, and there are others trying to redefine it into having no value.

Don't even try to discuss the issue with folks who wrote the article on wikipedia. So utterly wrong. But that's become the norm on that site. It reads as a complete re-wording of Ken Rockwell. Feh!

The only site that I've seen that does some justice to the word is on Nikon's site; http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/h0ndz86v/bokeh-for-beginners.html .

lighthouse wrote:

Then you get the idiots who think it is elitist to even consider it.

Yeah, we really don't need to descend into name calling.

But I understand the sentiment. The English language is always borrowing words from other languages and twisting the meaning a bit. In the last thread, I mentioned a Japanese couple I met a few months back that corrected my mis-conceptions. I think I am more in line with your thinking.

After posting in that thread, I realized that there was a Japanese woman in my office; a recent transplant to the US. I asked her about the word and she had no idea what it was. I showed her the article in Wikipedia and after studying the kanji a bit, told me what she thought the word meant; "Fuzzy in the head" or "A bit senile". She knows nothing about photography.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Michael66 wrote:

Yeah, we really don't need to descend into name calling.
......

You are absolutely right.
That was an error on my behalf.

Great link, there are many good articles on the Nikon site.

Michael66 Loc: Queens, New York

lighthouse wrote:

Was it this one?
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/h0ndz86v/bokeh-for-beginners.html

I believe that was my error. I cut and pasted the link correctly, however, I put a period in at the end of the sentence and UHH took it in as part of the URL. I think a '<' at the beginning and a '>' at the end will prevent that. I will have to test it the next time I put a URL in a post.

I've gone back and corrected my post and it seems to work now.

My apologies for any inconvenience.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I have been a little busy, so dropped out of the thread for a while. I haven't been able to read all the responses yet, but it still seems that an explanation that enables people to recognize "bokeh" and to differentiate it from mere blur is elusive.

So far my favorite is "fuzzy in the head", since it seems to apply to many of us.

So, you self-appointed Illuminati, whether you are numbered as a mere three or in greater numbers, how about trying to describe the attributes that differentiate "bokeh" from "blur" in terms that everyone can interpret and use to distinguish the difference in the work that we see.

Then maybe we can say: "Ah! I get it. Thank-you."

If that has already been achieved, then I apologize. Perhaps I just haven't read enough responses from the last day or two....

Thanks