03-06-2011, 03:12 PM
[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.
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.