kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Well, I believe in the “Keep It Simple” method. Why complicate things. But, on the other hand, it’s a cool-sounding term that would make me sound like I know more of what I’m doing.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

It's a fancy photographic term, some say elitist, for the background (or maybe the foreground, too) being out of focus.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Not afraid of much of anything -not the questions, answers to said questions, the IRS, bears, etc. I have even been known to exit perfectly good aircraft while still well airborne. As I think about it, it's a miracle I am still alive. That's it. I am convinced that I just need to lock myself in the house and cut off ties to the outside world for the rest of my, what will probably become my very dull, life.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

Wikipedia gets it right. "In photography, bokeh (Originally /ˈboʊkɛ/ˈboʊkeɪ/ BOH-kay — also sometimes pronounced as /ˈboʊkə/ BOH-kə, Japanese: [boke) is the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in the out-of-focus parts of an image produced by a lens. Bokeh has been defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light". 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. 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."

The page includes a couple of excellent explanatory images.

zincgt Loc: Tucson AZ

In first shot 85mm 1.8 lens was stopped down to f/8. If left alone at 1.8 the Bokeh would have been smoother yet. If noticed the "circles" of bokeh in background are octagonal instead of circular. Circular is always smoother. The smoothness tends to help the in focus Lorikeet look even sharper as this will give the eye "differential".The 2nd shot taken with an 18-55 kit lens a few years ago shows as little background as possible to keep "focus" on the subject. The 3rd shot was with a 90mm Tamron f/2.8 Macro lens. macro lenses will at this distance, always give you a large bokeh, or OOF area. Also the quality of the lens, which may mean anything from the number and shape of aperture blades to the speed of the lens will also make a difference.

Lorikeet

(Download)

Macro Bloom18-55mm

(Download)

90mm Macro caterpillar

(Download)

mechengvic Loc: SoCalo

[quote=Reinaldokool]Wikipedia gets it right. "In photography, bokeh (Originally /ˈboʊkɛ/ˈboʊkeɪ/ BOH-kay — also sometimes pronounced as /ˈboʊkə/ BOH-kə, Japanese: [boke) is the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in the out-of-focus parts of an image produced by a lens. Bokeh has been defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light". 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. 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."

The page includes a couple of excellent explanatory images.[/quote]

There is a contradiction in that definition but I understand why it is so, and it helps to illustrate the point I made earlier. Wiki says bokeh is an "aesthetic quality OF the blur" , earlier I said that bokeh is a potential component of the oof blur of an image. Which means that bokeh DOES mean good blur, or pleasing blur, or aesthetic, etc.

The contradiction is in wiki's use of "good bokeh" vs. "bad bokeh". If bokeh IS the "good" component of blur then it can't be bad. That's like saying "bad good blur".

But I understand why the term " bad bokeh" is used. Because also contained within the blur of your background might reside artifacts that are NOT bokeh, and are NOT simply blur, but ARE distracting components of the blur that take attention away from the subject. Since we have yet to invent a word for that, the term "bad bokeh" is used.

I feel pretty confident about this summery.

Phyllis Loc: NE PA

Bokeh

Summicron M f2 75mm ASPH

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Bokeh is progressively attractive with better lenses, some are famous for buttery bokeh. It is a technique that can make the subject pop out of the frame, attracting all the viewers attention to the intended subject rather then exist in a confused and detailed field when everything is all in focus. I think it lends a professional touch to an image.

Bokeh exists in the areas outside your DOF. So the two are related. You achieve it usually by using larger apertures and thus short DOF.

Saigon Loc: Atlanta, GA

Bokeh Portraiture....

(Download)

Jim Peters Loc: Pittsburgh

it's ELMER FUDD Saying Broken!

PhotoGator Loc: Florida

What is Bokeh?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

emmons267 Loc: Arizona, Valley of the Sun

Pretty funny... Out of 7 pages of replies, only 12 included photos. And this is a photography forum...lol

Bokeh, blur, OOF, combination ???

blackest Loc: Ireland

go on then , this isn't very well focused on the subject , my fault not the lens a 37-39 year old manual f1.7 55mm but the background has something.

well sprung onions

(Download)

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Nice shot mfeveland, was this from your Sony RX?

emmons267 Loc: Arizona, Valley of the Sun

Thanks. Yes, it was.