bokeh

[jduncan]

ok first one to answer this wins a shiny penny

what does the acronym 'bokeh' stand for?

i know what it refers to (how the depth of field renders out of focus objects etc)

but what does it stand for, its annoyed me for ages.

thanks

james

[robertwgross]

What makes you think it is an acronym?

---Bob Gross---

[robertwgross]

http://205.180.85.40/w/pc.cgi?mid=19240&sid=6389

That seems to spell it out.

---Bob Gross---

[bluebomberx]

Bob, you linked to a pop-up ad... It's a word, not an acronym.

[robertwgross]

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

This is the correct URL. I hate those pop up ads.

---Bob Gross---

[Longwatcher]

My understanding is Japanese slang converted to english and it roughly translates to "absent minded"

as in out of focus with reality. A good word for describing what they are talking about.

[PaulB]

I understand that the original Japanese word is 'boke'
pronounced as if it had the 'h' at the end.
I think the definition Tim ascribes to the word does really sum it up correctly; all I have read on the subject seems to try and invest normal out-of-focus backgrounds with an almost mystical quality. Unless of course this is the digital age coming to fullfillment or something...........

[rdenney]

The only mystical thing is the way people talk about it, heh, heh.

But it exists. Some lenses produce out-of-focus highlights with bright rings around them, and others are smooth disks. Some produce out-of-focus parallel lines with odd interference patterns, and others don't.

The reason people think it's mystical is because it is subjective, and also because it changes with aperture, and it's different in front of and behind the subject, and so it's hard to predict. If a lens produces pleasing out-of-focus backgrounds, then it has good bokeh. If the background is ugly, then the bokeh isn't so good. If you are like me and don't usually leave anything out of focus if at all possible for most subjects, then it doesn't matter.

Here's an image of some irises in my back yard that I took last year with a Ukranian 120mm lens on a 6x6 camera. The lens is quite sharp, but the bokeh isn't that wonderful. Notice the circular pattern to the bokeh, which is highlighted by the arrangement of the background shapes. Also, the highlights of sky through gaps in the leaves are hard-edged and harsh, it seems to me. I have an East German Zeiss Jena lens in the same focal length that does much better, though it isn't any sharper at focus.

http://www.rickdenney.com/scratch/irises_in_side_yard.jpg

Rick "who checks bokeh on all new lenses to determine which ones to use for narrowly focused subjects" Denney

[PaulB]

Rick, the pretend laughing with the heh,heh is just as bad AS SHOUTING IN A POST.

This does happen to be a Canon forum so how did the medium format creep in?

Do Canon give good or bad bokeh? Can it be designed in, or is it purely dependant upon the mechanical construction of a lens (mirror lenses with doughnuts)? Do lens designers aim for good,or not so good bokeh on purpose?
How do Leica lenses perform on this subjective assessment?
Does it matter?
Can Photoshop provide a remedy if you don't like the out of focus backgrounds?
I think we could be enlightened.

[PaulB]

Sorry, missed this from my previous.

Does the bokeh of a lens vary with the medium - film or digital?

[Jeppe]

Paul: Yes, the bokeh is an issue when making a lens. All L-lenses produces an beatiful (well, most people think so) bokeh. And the rest of teh EF-lenses are not to shabby either. However i have tried out some sigmas and they dont really come close to the EF-lenses.

One thing is the diaphram-blades and how many there are, more blades give rounder out-of-focus blur.

Take this for an example.

Shot with a 10D and an EF 300/4L+EF 1.4 II Making it an 672mm (35mm eqiuv) usead @ full (f5.6). ISO 400 and 1/400.. (yes i know, should have had my monopod with me)
http://www.fotosidan.se/obj/photo/m_3ea01e26ae940.jpg

[rdenney]

Actually, the article linked earlier from KenRockwell.com I thought explained it pretty well. I was just showing an example in response to the implication that it was more mystical than real. It's real.

I wouldn't have thought it was an issue of format or brand, so I didn't think my example needed to be made with Canon equipment, and I chose one that was already on my web page and linkable. But here is an article comparing the bokeh of the two Canon 50mm lenses (except the macro, unfortunately):

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

I don't know if it is affected by digital processing, but I rather suspect it would be difficult to adjust after the fact for most images. Perhaps a gaussian blur, if you could conveniently make the proper selection (always a problem for me). My usual sharpening settings won't affect it at all--the pixel radius is too small and the threshold too large--unless, I suppose, the bokeh of the lens is exceptionally harsh.

Personally, I like lenses with a smooth bokeh for situations where the background will frequently be out of focus, such as in wildlife work and portraiture. I do some portrature, but almost never any wildlife work, so it's only an issue for a couple of lenses. But I wish I'd shot those irises with a different lens! For most landscapes where the intent is to be sharp over the whole frame, a little edginess in the bokeh can actually increase the apparent acutance for those areas just a bit out of focus.

Rick "still curious about the bokeh of the 50/2.5 macro" Denney

[haroldboyle]

It's a Japanese term meaning (since there is no literal translation I believe)...the QUALITY of the part of the image which is out of focus. It should be soft, not recognizable as an object or thing, and can be either bright or not bright but absolutely the consistency of cream. It SHOULD NOT look like out of focus flowers behind in focus flowers for instance, but like a great swath of saturated color behind the focused flowers.

[rickm]

Out of curiosity, when did this term arrive on the scene so to speak? I mentioned bokeh when talking to a bunch of very experienced long term photographers (guys shooting portraits over 30 years) and they asked "whats bokeh - never heard that word used before"?

[PaulB]

I can't find any mention of the term older than the last couple of years.
Anyone know?

[PaulB]

Five minutes with Google returned a host of sites. Some quick browsing gave me:

Bokeh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A Japanese term used in photography, bokeh is the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of an image projected by a camera lens. For example, in some images the background may be deliberately caused to be out-of-focus to reduce distractions and to emphasize the primary subject. Some lenses are thought to produce more pleasing out-of-focus areas that enhance the over-all quality of the image. Bokeh is a quite subjective quality that is difficult to quantify and is sometimes debated.

Bokeh characteristics are primarily determined by the circle of confusion. In out-of-focus areas, each point of light is instead a disc. In some lenses, that disc is uniformly illuminated, for others it is brighter near the edge, and for others it is brighter near the center. Some lenses show one kind of disc for out-of-focus points closer to the camera, and a different kind for points far from the camera.
See also: depth of field.

"Bokeh" has two meanings in Japanese. The softening of the out-of-focus image, and the softening of the brain with age...
From http://www.pgallery.net/rogerama/image-41371.html


In the PHOTO Techniques May/June 1997 issue, they dedicated three articles on the Japanese term, BOKEH (actually spelled BOKE but pronounced BO-KEH). A term used to describe the portions of the photograph that are not it focus, the fuzzy or blurry parts. It is usually these parts of the picture which distinguish the "look and feel" or "signature" of different types of lenses.
http://www.pathcom.com/~vhchan/bokeh.html

Then I found this at http://www.clearsightusa.com/bokeh.html, seems to be from the May/June 1997 issue of Photo Techniques by Jim Brick.

"I personally think that Bokeh is an "art" word. What is "art" to one person is "trash" to another. I firmly believe that "good Bokeh" to one person makes an "ugly photograph" to another. I like many lenses because of the way I photograph. Different people photograph differently. A LUGger, awhile back, reported that he was disgusted with any photograph that had a single silver molecule out of focus.

My point is that asking someone to describe Bokeh is akin to trying to define art. You'll have to take photographs the way you take them, with the lenses you choose, and look at them ourself. Make up your own mind. Even though Preston Publications has tried to describe different kinds of Bokeh, it seems to me to be very nebulous. It's in the mind of the viewer."


This seems to be a link to the original article in .pdf format
http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/bokeh.pdf



Also look at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

[PaulB]

Five minutes with Google returned a host of sites. Some quick browsing gave me:

Bokeh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A Japanese term used in photography, bokeh is the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of an image projected by a camera lens. For example, in some images the background may be deliberately caused to be out-of-focus to reduce distractions and to emphasize the primary subject. Some lenses are thought to produce more pleasing out-of-focus areas that enhance the over-all quality of the image. Bokeh is a quite subjective quality that is difficult to quantify and is sometimes debated.

Bokeh characteristics are primarily determined by the circle of confusion. In out-of-focus areas, each point of light is instead a disc. In some lenses, that disc is uniformly illuminated, for others it is brighter near the edge, and for others it is brighter near the center. Some lenses show one kind of disc for out-of-focus points closer to the camera, and a different kind for points far from the camera.
See also: depth of field.

"Bokeh" has two meanings in Japanese. The softening of the out-of-focus image, and the softening of the brain with age...
From http://www.pgallery.net/rogerama/image-41371.html


In the PHOTO Techniques May/June 1997 issue, they dedicated three articles on the Japanese term, BOKEH (actually spelled BOKE but pronounced BO-KEH). A term used to describe the portions of the photograph that are not it focus, the fuzzy or blurry parts. It is usually these parts of the picture which distinguish the "look and feel" or "signature" of different types of lenses.
http://www.pathcom.com/~vhchan/bokeh.html

Then I found this at http://www.clearsightusa.com/bokeh.html, seems to be from the May/June 1997 issue of Photo Techniques by Jim Brick.

"I personally think that Bokeh is an "art" word. What is "art" to one person is "trash" to another. I firmly believe that "good Bokeh" to one person makes an "ugly photograph" to another. I like many lenses because of the way I photograph. Different people photograph differently. A LUGger, awhile back, reported that he was disgusted with any photograph that had a single silver molecule out of focus.

My point is that asking someone to describe Bokeh is akin to trying to define art. You'll have to take photographs the way you take them, with the lenses you choose, and look at them ourself. Make up your own mind. Even though Preston Publications has tried to describe different kinds of Bokeh, it seems to me to be very nebulous. It's in the mind of the viewer."


This seems to be a link to the original article in .pdf format
http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/bokeh.pdf



Also look at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

[PaulB]

Five minutes with Google returned a host of sites. Some quick browsing gave me:

Bokeh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A Japanese term used in photography, bokeh is the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of an image projected by a camera lens. For example, in some images the background may be deliberately caused to be out-of-focus to reduce distractions and to emphasize the primary subject. Some lenses are thought to produce more pleasing out-of-focus areas that enhance the over-all quality of the image. Bokeh is a quite subjective quality that is difficult to quantify and is sometimes debated.

Bokeh characteristics are primarily determined by the circle of confusion. In out-of-focus areas, each point of light is instead a disc. In some lenses, that disc is uniformly illuminated, for others it is brighter near the edge, and for others it is brighter near the center. Some lenses show one kind of disc for out-of-focus points closer to the camera, and a different kind for points far from the camera.
See also: depth of field.

"Bokeh" has two meanings in Japanese. The softening of the out-of-focus image, and the softening of the brain with age...
From http://www.pgallery.net/rogerama/image-41371.html


In the PHOTO Techniques May/June 1997 issue, they dedicated three articles on the Japanese term, BOKEH (actually spelled BOKE but pronounced BO-KEH). A term used to describe the portions of the photograph that are not it focus, the fuzzy or blurry parts. It is usually these parts of the picture which distinguish the "look and feel" or "signature" of different types of lenses.
http://www.pathcom.com/~vhchan/bokeh.html

Then I found this at http://www.clearsightusa.com/bokeh.html, seems to be from the May/June 1997 issue of Photo Techniques by Jim Brick.

"I personally think that Bokeh is an "art" word. What is "art" to one person is "trash" to another. I firmly believe that "good Bokeh" to one person makes an "ugly photograph" to another. I like many lenses because of the way I photograph. Different people photograph differently. A LUGger, awhile back, reported that he was disgusted with any photograph that had a single silver molecule out of focus.

My point is that asking someone to describe Bokeh is akin to trying to define art. You'll have to take photographs the way you take them, with the lenses you choose, and look at them ourself. Make up your own mind. Even though Preston Publications has tried to describe different kinds of Bokeh, it seems to me to be very nebulous. It's in the mind of the viewer."


This seems to be a link to the original article in .pdf format
http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/bokeh.pdf



Also look at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

[PaulB]

Don't know why the double post!

[Roger_Cavanagh]

There's a short piece in EOS Magazine (Dec, 2002) about bokeh. Here are a few quotes:

In Japan, the blurred background is studied carefully. Attracive blur is said to have good bokeh.
...
In Japan, some photo magazines include bokeh ratings alongside other tests for a lens. The problem is that the quality of blur is purely subjective - no one has yet come up with a method of measuring the result.

... [bokeh] has something to do with the shape of out-of-focus highlights. If these have a smooth circular edge, bokeh is likely to be good. If they are angular... bokeh is probably bad.

One factor which influences bokeh is the shape of the lens aperture... The closer the aperture is to a circle, the better the bokeh - probably.

Many German lenses are praised for their bokeh, while many Japanese lenses are not well regarded. Canon lenses seem to be an exception, and Canon uses good bokeh as a selling point in a few of its Japanese advertisements.

Regards,