Jay Pat Loc: Round Rock, Texas, USA

I have read on the internet about smooth bokeh and harsh bokeh. I have seen examples of both.
Can it be controlled one way or another? Is it a lens thing?

Thanks,
Pat

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

what the heck is a bokeh?

Jay Pat Loc: Round Rock, Texas, USA

I can see you are going to make me work for this......

Actually, I guess I found the answer. I ripped the following off the internet...From Wikipedia.
"In photography, bokeh (Originally /ˈboʊkɛ/,[1] /ˈboʊkeɪ/ boh-kay, and also sometimes heard as /ˈboʊkə/ boh-kə,[2] Japanese: [boke]) is the blur,[3][4] or the aesthetic quality of the blur,[5][6][7] in out-of-focus areas of an image, or "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light."[8] Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting—"good" and "bad" bokeh, respectively.[3] Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions."
I guess that answers my question!
Pat

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

Pat, Cool! Two for one! Thanks to you I just found out I've been creating Bokeh all my life and as the wife says: if it ain't bokeh don't worry!" HA!

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Personally, I hate the term "bokeh". It was adopted just a few years ago. Matthew Brady must be spinning in hes grave!

Good or harsh bokeh is determined by each lens design. It is actually the Spherical Aberration in background hotspots that cause soft points of light, or noticeable harsh rings of light.

Usually, it is only lower-end lenses demonstrating noticeable Spherical Aberrations.

Jay Pat Loc: Round Rock, Texas, USA

Nikonian72, Thanks!

topdoghawaii Loc: Honolulu, Hawaii

You might want to check out this Flickr group call "Bokeh and beyond". They are very focus on the subject of "Bokeh". No punt intended. Here's the link:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/beyondbokeh/

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Bokeh is related mostly to lens design,but is also affected by aperture, focused distance and subject matter. From http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/bokeh.html

In Japanese the word has various meanings, including 'fuzzy', 'indistinct' and even 'senile', but the specifically photographic meaning was picked up by Mike Johnson in the 1990s and has been a source of controversy and even hysteria ever since. By great good fortune, as I started work on this module, Geoffrey Crawley came up with a wonderful definition for the English language: 'good bokeh (preservation of subject shape in out of focus planes)' [Amateur Photographer, 8 August 2009, page 74]

There's a rather longer discussion of bokeh in the piece, which you may care to read.

Cheers,

R.

RiverNan Loc: Eastern Pa

[quote=Nikonian72
Personally, I hate the term "bokeh". It was adopted just a few years ago. Matthew Brady must be spinning in hes grave!

me too. What ever happened to depth of field?

Sam55

[quote=rivernan][quote=Nikonian72
Personally, I hate the term "bokeh". It was adopted just a few years ago. Matthew Brady must be spinning in hes grave!

me too. What ever happened to depth of field?[/quote]

It lives on with us that got our start some years ago! I absolutely hate change when it is just for the sake of change, and it seems to me that is all this "bokeh" is.

OnTheFly Loc: Tennessee

I'm just corious. What was it called before ? I don't like the sound of that word either. I may go back to the origional unless it was just called "blury background" or something like that.

ahanonymous Loc: Queens, NY

[quote=rivernan][quote=Nikonian72
Personally, I hate the term "bokeh". It was adopted just a few years ago. Matthew Brady must be spinning in hes grave!

me too. What ever happened to depth of field?[/quote]

I agree with Docrob if it ain't bokeh don't fix it!

After 50 years of photography it's still depth of field and how you use it. You will never hear me use this "term".

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

No, it's not depth of field. DoF is the zone of acceptable sharpness on either size of the focal point (with, of course, 'acceptable' open to dispute). Bokeh is how the out of focus areas look. Three more quotes from http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/bokeh.html

"Admittedly, some photographers seem to be a lot more sensitive to bokeh than others. Some don't notice at all; to some, it is the be-all and end-all; and in between, the vast majority of photographers are more or less aware of it."

"The first thing to bear in mind about bokeh, therefore, is that while it is a useful word and describes a recognizable (if not easily describable) phenomenon, it is partly a fashionable buzz-word, and it can be interpreted in widely different ways. What one person calls 'beautiful, swirly bokeh', another will see as queasy. We cannot quite see what either party means."

and

"Bokeh is one of those things like grey cards and the Zone System in that while it is very useful in its place, it attracts fanatics and people who think they know a great deal more about photography than they do. Many are inclined to attribute everything good in photography to their pet hobby horse, much like those who believe in gurus. Don't be intimidated by bokeh, and don't overrate it if it's not important to you. If it is important to you, then the very best of luck to you, but remember that others may not share your opinion of its importance."

You may think it's overrated (it often is); you may be unable to see it; you may refuse to see it. But to deny the existence of something that other people CAN see is, to put it mildly, a little eccentric.

@Eugene, another quote:

"Although the word is hopelessly over-used by some people, it is far from useless, as it replaces the somewhat cumbersome phrase that was in use before: the quality of the out-of-focus image. Long before the new word came into use, certain lenses had been prized for this: the original Voigtländer Apo-Lanthar was one. Others were generally agreed to have a rather nasty out-of-focus image: the doughnuts from a mirror lens, for example, or the 'wiry' way in which a Thambar may render fine lines."

There are examples of all this in the referenced link.

Cheers,

R.

pdwoodswood Loc: Lewisville, NC

Do you then use good/bad SA to describe the B word?
I don't like the word either. However, I can imagine a photographers reaction when I say "nice spherical aberration" regarding a particular photo & lens. If I say nice bokeh, the vast majority won't know what the hell I am talking about either.
I guess just "nice blurry background" is best, then the photographer will think "should have noticed that and done whatever to improve overall focus".
I say all this as humor in trying to communicate with photospeak, then adding strategically placed acronyms to really confuse the person.

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

Wow, what a treat to receive those magical words of Roger. He certainly hit it on the nose. Roger, I hope I have your permission to use those words in teaching. I agree with many of the definitions that have come forth today, but my comment is why are we paying more attention to the bokeh (out of focus background) than the subject. Simply a matter of depth of field which is a relationship of focal length and aperture. If I capture images using a 500mm f/4 lens, say at f/8, please tell me how I can control the type of bokeh my image contains.
Thanks, Jerry