Peterff wrote:
Oh dear,
Quality doesn't necessarily map to good or bad, but to the varying attributes of something.
After all, some people actually like the donut bokeh from reflex lenses in some circumstances. Do we need to go down the good / bad path? Especially in the context of reflex lenses, the physics of the optics affect the quality of out of focus areas rather differently from the nature of refractive lenses. That's not good/bad, blur vs. bokeh, but something else, the nature of "quality".
I think this discussion evolved into the question of the differences between DOF and bokeh, not to debate the finer nuances between the definitions of bokeh and blur.
That may be a fine discussion, especially if we want to discuss focus depth and quality, motion blur and so on.
Is this an objective (agreed definition based) discussion or a subjective interpretation issue?
Not wanting to start something here, but are we talking about the same things in the same way?
Oh dear, br br Quality doesn't necessarily map to... (
show quote)
No, bokeh is a high quality blur. If it is not pleasing it is not bokeh. If it is bokeh, by definition, it can not be bad.