I have been seriously involved in PHOTOGRAPHY as a hobby, an art form (for self expression) and a (commercial) profession for over 50 years and I will never understand why folks become so incensed when it comes to the discussion of so many techniques, concepts, styles and even nomenclature within our craft. We are not health practitioners- there are no matters of life and death or human well being. We are not lawyers or accountants- what we do or don't do usually does not affect anyone's lifestyle, legal status or financial integrity.- ain't nobody going to jail for an out of focus background! There are hundreds of stylistic variations and technical concepts in photography and each and every one of them is optional so each of us can do exactly what we want to do and negate whatever we don't like, want or involve ourselves in. We are not mandated to buy or use equipment we don't care for. We can adhere to traditional methodologies or concepts, totally abandon them or approach things somewhere in between. If photography is truly an ART, each “artist” has the right to express their visions as they please. We can shoot for stark realism or create fantasy and interpret things as we like- not every image HAS to be as the eye sees it.

What's frustrating, especially on many online forums, is that so many folks can not carry on a logical, sensible, and civil conversation or give-and-take or express differences of opinion without digressing to uncouth and combative remarks. That's too bad simply because there is a world of learning and discovery to be had in good debate, exchange and polite argument. Then, in the midst of all of this conflict, when someone offers a logical definition, a learned explanation or compromise, this goes unrecognized, ignored and the negativism ensues.

So...the word or term “Bokeh” has Japanese origin, that's great! So many English words and technical terms have Latin, Greek or Germanic roots and so many words of foreign or diverse languages eventually find their way into our lexicon. Semantics and ultra-technical word usage is fun too but sometimes it can be carried on to a fault whereby it actually becomes a distraction and results in tangential tirades that leaves the crux of the subject in tatters.

OK, so Bokeh is not depth of field or selective focus, per se, but it is a product of those optical concepts. Can we say that it is the aesthetic quality, or lack there of, of out of focus elements, usually in the background of certain photographic compositions, therefore we can have good or bad bokeh?

If one is attempting to teach or advise on traditional concepts of photographic practice, I feel that is fair to say that image management is part of the discipline. In a discussion of composition, lighting usage and subject placement, background management is a logical issue up for discourse.

Suffice it to say that selective focus and the resulting “bokeh” in and of itself is not a cure all for every kind of background treatment. In traditional methodology, if a swirling mass of light or color becomes a distraction it becomes an unsuccessful treatment. If it becomes a part of a fantastic visual statement being expressed by the artist- that's another approach or story. What is boils down to, it you don't like the technique or resulting imagery, don't do it!

If, however, you wish to master the various techniques of background management and want to apply selective focus, there are other considerations besides simply throwing the background out of focus. As I have alluded in a previous post, background density needs to be controlled as well. This control; can be achieved by a number of methods. In a portrait or closeup image of a flower in an out of door environment or other, by means of a reflector or off-camera flash application, the volume of light on the subject can be increased and exposed for to alter the ratio between the subject and the background whereby the background is darkened to a level where it adds color or tonal mass without overpowering the subject. In some cases this effect can be accomplished simply placing the subject in an aesthetically pleasing lightning pattern and shooting into a darker background area. Background density can also be controlled by careful use of vignetting attachments which are employed in front of the lens or by burning in overpowering backgrounds in post processing. Theses are all possibilities that can be applied in formal portraiture or carefully planned nature photography. If on the other hand, you are a “color fantasist” and want to include wild backgrounds in you compositions, just forget about all the finite controls and let it all hang out- it is what it is- you are the artist!

Even under studio conditions, background management is important and certain aspects of “bokeh” can be considered. Funny thing- there are hundreds of painted backgrounds or backdrops, marked by background and prop suppliers. There is also front and rear projection systems to provide background images Many of theses products and methods are absolutely horrible, especially if they are overly lighted and rendered in sharp focus. I would venture to say that many of them are seriously misused, especially the ones that are touted a scenic backgrounds or painted to imitate office or library interiors- wood paneling etc. If, however, theses same backgrounds were rendered out of sharp focus and more subtly lighted so as to just suggest theses environments and again, just provide a touch of color mass or tonality, they could be be utilized quite effectively and become aesthetically pleasing. The same techniques can be applied to on-location interior photography as well.

I suppose that some lenses are touted as “having better bokeh”. I also suppose that any lens that has wide enough apertures can produce good bokeh if the technique is properly applied. I have experienced some interesting background effects from older and somewhat longer lenses, soft focus optics and the lenses that were especially designed for traditional “old school” and is some cases large format portraiture. You can also create some unique effects by introducing some interference in front to you lens, such as the tape on a skylight filter that I alluded to in my previous post in this thread or just shooting through twigs, foliage or grass. Try a “star effect” filter or just stretch a piece of black netting (tulle fabric) over your lens shade. Half the fun and accomplishment in photography comes through exploration and experimentation. If you are a staunch realist, there is a plethora of ultra-sharp, super-aprochromatic lenses that stop down to f/64 with little or no loss of quality. There are many new cameras that boast 50 or more megapixels and you can even get a tilt mechanism to infinitely increase your depth of field via the Scheimpflug method. Different strokes folks!

So, fellow Hogs, please don't label this post as a rant- it's simply a opinion and will probably not be read into by many and just get scrolled off to oblivion. If one person benefits from this, I'm a happy camper. Have a nice day!