[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