03-06-2011, 11:52 AM
[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1299411810' post='6549']
With respect, Puxvida has not defined bokeh as the amount of blur anywhere in the above post: he merely stated "to my knowlege [the amount of blur is dependent on aperture size]", which is correct. Aperture degree/shape also affects the shape of the highlights, which is a factor of the quality of the bokeh: ergo, it affects the bokeh.
You can also affect bokeh by using a star-shaped paper cutout.
It is linguistically incorrect for you to claim that bokeh is "the pleasantness" of the blur, since pleasantness is a subjective attribute - it would be a bit like claiming that the word 'taste' defines the pleasantness of a particular food.
Sorry to have to say this, BC, but I have the impression you often only post on this forum to belittle other people or to prove you are right. In my opinion that is rather antisocial.
[/quote]
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.
With respect, Puxvida has not defined bokeh as the amount of blur anywhere in the above post: he merely stated "to my knowlege [the amount of blur is dependent on aperture size]", which is correct. Aperture degree/shape also affects the shape of the highlights, which is a factor of the quality of the bokeh: ergo, it affects the bokeh.
You can also affect bokeh by using a star-shaped paper cutout.
It is linguistically incorrect for you to claim that bokeh is "the pleasantness" of the blur, since pleasantness is a subjective attribute - it would be a bit like claiming that the word 'taste' defines the pleasantness of a particular food.
Sorry to have to say this, BC, but I have the impression you often only post on this forum to belittle other people or to prove you are right. In my opinion that is rather antisocial.
[/quote]
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.