[Brightcolours]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1299413177' post='6551']

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh



GTW

[/quote]

Bokeh means the blur in OOF areas, and not the amount of blur. We talk about the quality of bokeh to describe how pleasant we think a lens renders OOF areas.



The term "Bokeh" got introduced to our photographic idiom in 1997. Nice articles about the term "bokeh":

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/02/11/what-is-bokeh/



http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/01/what-is-bokeh.html

[Guest]

As Brightcolours said bokeh is the quality of the blur not the amount. If you look at some of the reviews here you will see a discussion on the quality. Unfortunately quality is not uniform for a given lens. There are certain lenses that are famous for producing very good bokeh in the background but very poor bokeh in the foreground (for example). The amount of blur might be the same but the quality changes dependent on various factors of the optical design.



As to canon vs nikon; no comments and quite frankly I think it is pointless debate. What matters (if you care about bokeh) is the lens you use and not the general performance of the line-up. Both systems have some real dogs and some very good performers. It used to be (in USA) that canon was significantly less expensive; I canon still tends to be less expensive but less so. About the only fact that seems to remain (in USA) is that canon-usa could care less if the item is 'grey' market and generally gives very good service; where nikon will go so far as to refuse to work on grey market items (even for $$$ - even if the person is visiting from europe and happens to have issues while in USA - second hand report; I personally avoid nikon more for the philosophy of the USA distributor than the quality of the equipment).

-

Anyways I think nikon has some really nice equipment (but for me it is too heavy for my style). Canon also has some nice offering and it tends to weight a bit less <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[PuxaVida]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299412325' post='6550']

With little respect ( <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> ), you seem to have a problem reading. Or on purpose misquote Pixavida.



What he actually stated:

"To my knowledge, the "amount" of bokeh (or blurriness), depends highly on the size of the aperture."



The amount of bokeh. Which he then equals to "blurriness".



Bokeh very much IS the quality, the pleasantness of OOF transitions/blur. It has nothing to do with the amount of blur. That you apparently do not know what the term bokeh in photography stands for is fine, but don't then come here and tell me I am wrong in what I wrote.



What all this has to do with that one can change the shape of highlights by some silly kindergarten cut outs is not clear to me.

[/quote]



OMG... You really try to misunderstand people here BC...



Where did I say bokeh = blurriness??? English is not my native language but I think when I say "the amount of bokeh (or blurriness)", it must be obvious that I try to mean the amount of bokeh, or the amount of blurriness (and please check the continued part of the sentence and try to misunderstand it again please!)... The bokeh of a lens results from the amount and nature of the blurriness. That's how I know it...



But these all do not change the fact that you've made a really unfortunate statement. Maybe you need to think of it much more that others's linguistic mistakes.



Edit: Now I realized that you've made another unfortunate statement:

Bokeh very much IS the quality, the pleasantness of OOF transitions/blur. It has nothing to do with the amount of blur.

If the amount of blur (in foreground/background) does not have an effect on bokeh of a lens, then f/11 and f/2.8 would lead to same results for the same lens, right?...I wonder why people buy fast primes (with aperture mechanism!) and don't use their cell phones to create beautiful bokeh... If you misunderstand my statement about the amount of blurriness and aperture size, it's clear that you make such mistakes... The blurring is more apparent in the near distance from subject to background. After a certain distance, the amount of blurring does not change or changes very little. And this is only one of the facts, which explain that such kind of a generalization of yours about the lenses with different brands cannot be valuable at all.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299412325' post='6550']

With little respect ( <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> ), you seem to have a problem reading. Or on purpose misquote Pixavida.



What he actually stated:

"To my knowledge, the "amount" of bokeh (or blurriness), depends highly on the size of the aperture."



The amount of bokeh. Which he then equals to "blurriness".



Bokeh very much IS the quality, the pleasantness of OOF transitions/blur. It has nothing to do with the amount of blur. That you apparently do not know what the term bokeh in photography stands for is fine, but don't then come here and tell me I am wrong in what I wrote.



What all this has to do with that one can change the shape of highlights by some silly kindergarten cut outs is not clear to me.

[/quote]



In common useage the term 'bokeh' is used to generally describe the out of focus areas of a photo (as well as the quality of those areas) - hence the 'blurred' part. If no out of focus area is present, bokeh cannot be referred to.



If, as you insist of claiming, bokeh "has nothing to do with the amount of blur", you are also saying that in a landscape picture shot f/11 there can be a discussion of bokeh. For bokeh to be mentioned, there needs to be blurring, which commonly entails the use of wide apertures.



Etymologically, the words 'boke' and 'bokeh' refer toboth the quality of the blur OR the blur itself. However, only pedantic technicians such as yourself will claim exclusive correctness on its meaning while ignoring popular usage among photographers. In fact, since this is a borrowed term there are varying interpretation of its meaning - most online sources state that it is EITHER the blur itself or the quality of the blur - some even state it is only the blur created by close focusing.

In any case, all agree that the word refers to the subjective perception of the blur, thus invalidating your odious and constant claim to be the sole judge on the quality of bokeh provided by lens A or lens B.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299337229' post='6529']

What you are right about that often, when a lens shows less desirable background bokeh, it may do better with foreground bokeh. good example, in my view, is the Nikon 85mm f1.4 G, actually. Very smooth foreground bokeh.



But, alas, what usually is valued as much more important is background bokeh. simply because most photos have a background, and foreground subjects tend to blur more anyway.



You point out that different distances make for different blur, of course it does. But the amount of blur is NOT what smooth bokeh is about. It is about smooth transitions between different elements, structures and colours.



You do also not have to be a fanboy of any brand to see what the bokeh of the old and new 50mm f1.4 from Nikon is like.

I just look at images, and I convey the impression I get. Nothing more, nothing less. That some Nikon owners have huge problems with that, I can not change.

[/quote]



I fully agree. You might be interested in my article on bokeh: http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/index.html



Could you show comparison of out of focus highlights of the 85/1.4 G (both foreground and background)? Like I do in the article with the Sigma 50/1.4.

That would be interesting.

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1299424379' post='6557']

In common useage the term 'bokeh' is used to generally describe the out of focus areas of a photo...



...



However, only pedantic technicians such as yourself will claim exclusive correctness on its meaning while ignoring popular usage among photographers.

[/quote]

People incorrectly use common English and there's nothing suggesting that photographers are better. Terms like "bokeh" are technical terms that require some learning... to cut the story short, take a look at the following thread titles:



http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37015500

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=28767437

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=37727884

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=37816436

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=37814476



So I don't except such people to know how to use words like "bokeh" correctly.



Plus, who on Earth is a photographer and who isn't? Probably the largest upcoming community in photography is iphone and phone camera users. Are we to take their use of words as gospel? Or are we supposed to listen only to those people who turn up to events with 10fps DSLRs, machine gun everything and earn a living from it?



Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that I have perfect English or that I don't make mistakes (although the latter is rare <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />) but when you're talking about something technical you can't just go with the flow... leave that to business and marketing people <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[Guest]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1299463836' post='6563']

People incorrectly use common English and there's nothing suggesting that photographers are better. Terms like "bokeh" are technical terms that require some learning... to cut the story short, take a look at the following thread titles:



http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37015500

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=28767437

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=37727884

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=37816436

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=37814476



So I don't except such people to know how to use words like "bokeh" correctly.



Plus, who on Earth is a photographer and who isn't? Probably the largest upcoming community in photography is iphone and phone camera users. Are we to take their use of words as gospel? Or are we supposed to listen only to those people who turn up to events with 10fps DSLRs, machine gun everything and earn a living from it?



Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that I have perfect English or that I don't make mistakes (although the latter is rare <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />) but when you're talking about something technical you can't just go with the flow... leave that to business and marketing people <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[/quote]



Hi GTW,



Thanks for the reply - no offence taken. You are right, some terms require learning, but we live in a global world, and I feel it is unfair to expect our friends who are not English native speakers to have perfect command of the language. Put it this way, on an international forum (and in real life) you can find many reasons for disagreement due to language issues - and in a nuclear power station, this might be critical, but in photography we can afford to be a bit more tolerant. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



But just to go back to the linguistics of the thing: In the old days, we (in England) used to call this phenomenon the "out of focus area" or background/foreground "blur", and these terms served their purpose very well for a long time. We added modifiers such as "good blur", "bad blur", "smooth" etc - and since these modifying adjectives define the quality of the blur, the combined phrase e.g. "smooth blur" is thus equivalent to "bokeh" (i.e. it describes the quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photograph).



Except ... it's not that simple, because some people claim that "bokeh" describes the quality of the blur, which would mean it is an adjective (such as "smooth", "harsh", "good") when in fact it is used as a noun and requires qualifying adjectives ( e.g. "smooth bokeh", "harsh bokeh" etc.).



Similarly, if "bokeh" defines the pleasantness of the blur, it is rather strange to talk of "bad pleasantness" (bad bokeh).

Now, the linguistic issue is, if we take bokeh as a noun describing the blur - and thus requiring adjectival modifiers (harsh, soft, creamy etc.) to complete its meaning, there is no grammatical reason why we should be forbidden from using other modifiers to describe the amount of bokeh - (thus, a photo in which all areas are in focus has by definition "very little bokeh".



So there is a lack of clarity about the term, in any case. I would imagine that this is also why Wikipedia and other websites fail to define the grammatical attributes of the word (is is a noun, or an adjective, or the equivalent of an adjectival phrase?).



And if the word bokeh is used as a noun, it is synonymous with "blur" - yet if it is an adjective, it still requires a noun!



I hope my ramblings were not too obscure. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Regards,

Pinhole

[PuxaVida]

It's strange that, we get away from the content and focus on language problems. I'm not sure if I used wrong expressions (within the context) and sorry for any inconveince. But apart from language issues, there's still no "I did not understant what you are saying" coming to me. And to complete my knowledge regarding bokeh, I will insist on the verification of my following statement:



To my knowledge, the amount of blur is different at a particular image within the distance from subject to background. Consider an image taken @ f/1.4. The amount of blur in 10cm distance from subject will be different than the amount of blur in 40m distance (given that both are OOF). If we close the aperture, the blurred range mentioned will be changing (will be shifted towards infinity) but the difference in the amount of blur will still be there (though, will be very less, almost not visible in the resulting image). In other words, the blur in nearer OOF area is less than the blur in distant OOF area. And this has an effect on smoothness of the color transitions (in near vs. distant OOF planes). Because closing or opening the aperture has an effect on results of the spherical aberrations.



So, I was asking to BC and now to you to explain me if I'm wrong. Then maybe I can have the opportunity to correct myself. But, please do not change the subject by pointing out linguistic problems concerning technical explanations. Language is a tool for communication, and every tool can be fixed, but the content is essential.



Serkan

[Guest]

[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1299497127' post='6568']

It's strange that, we get away from the content and focus on language problems. I'm not sure if I used wrong expressions (within the context) and sorry for any inconveince. But apart from language issues, there's still no "I did not understant what you are saying" coming to me. And to complete my knowledge regarding bokeh, I will insist on the verification of my following statement:



To my knowledge, the amount of blur is different at a particular image within the distance from subject to background. Consider an image taken @ f/1.4. The amount of blur in 10cm distance from subject will be different than the amount of blur in 40m distance (given that both are OOF). If we close the aperture, the blurred range mentioned will be changing (will be shifted towards infinity) but the difference in the amount of blur will still be there (though, will be very less, almost not visible in the resulting image). In other words, the blur in nearer OOF area is less than the blur in distant OOF area. And this has an effect on smoothness of the color transitions (in near vs. distant OOF planes). Because closing or opening the aperture has an effect on results of the spherical aberrations.



So, I was asking to BC and now to you to explain me if I'm wrong. Then maybe I can have the opportunity to correct myself. But, please do not change the subject by pointing out linguistic problems concerning technical explanations. Language is a tool for communication, and every tool can be fixed, but the content is essential.



Serkan

[/quote]



Hi Serkan,

Like I said, sorry to drift off on a tangent, but I wrote that long boring post to describe the precise problem of such terms as "bokeh". Also, the difference between a noun and an adjective is extremely important in any language, so I would like to know which of these "bokeh" is.



In short - I do not use the term "bokeh" in real life and I don't know anyone who does. I just use "background blur" or "rendering", which is perfectly adequate.

I guess the word has a use for technicians and lens testers.

[Guest]

Nice article Jtra; also Paul van Walree has some interesting articles. For years he posted on the c/y digest. Wonders if he still does much with photography.



[quote name='jtra' timestamp='1299446541' post='6561']

I fully agree. You might be interested in my article on bokeh: http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/index.html



Could you show comparison of out of focus highlights of the 85/1.4 G (both foreground and background)? Like I do in the article with the Sigma 50/1.4.

That would be interesting.

[/quote]