Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 22 Jan 2017 (Sunday) 21:53
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Bokeh overrated?

 
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,299 posts
Gallery: 155 photos
Likes: 5875
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Jan 29, 2017 00:25 |  #31

Kind of reminds me of Linux,

lie-nucks vs. lin-ucks. Debate rages on, and yet it's "none of the above" ;)


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,257 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2344
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Wilt.
     
Jan 29, 2017 00:29 |  #32

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18258355 (external link)
Kind of reminds me of Linux,

lie-nucks vs. lin-ucks. Debate rages on, and yet it's "none of the above" ;)

...that a derivative of Unix or eunuchs?

Charlie Brown defines the pronunciation with Lie-nus (Linus)


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,299 posts
Gallery: 155 photos
Likes: 5875
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Jan 29, 2017 01:10 |  #33

Wilt wrote in post #18258357 (external link)
...that a derivative of Unix or eunuchs?

Charlie Brown defines the pronunciation with Lie-nus (Linus)

:)


I always felt is had to be lie-nucks since yes, it was created by Linus Torvaldes,.

However, Linus does not pronounce his name, (or Linux) with a "lie"

When he says it, it sounds like lee-ah.
leah-nus and leah-nux but the nux sound a like nix too.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,791 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3292
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Tom Reichner. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 29, 2017 01:18 |  #34

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18258341 (external link)
It was a term created very recently, for photography. It is not an historic term that we can say "It has always meant this"
You will not find a definition in any ancient tomes.

So, I've been watching this terms' meaning change the entire time I've been on the internet. I understand that you like things to have no gray areas. Personally I am the opposite and always look for the in between.

But we don't get to change this word's meaning. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has any right to do so..........except for Mike Johnson.

.

I thought that Mike Johnson created the English word, bokeh. A Japanese word, boke, served as inspiration for his newly created English word, bokeh. I believe that as the word's originator, Mike gets to say what it means.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18258341 (external link)
The trouble is Tom, the term is being misused every day, and just because you say it means one thing, does not mean that that is the correct meaning.

So in this case, your insistence that we all use it to mean the same thing is a far trickier thing to do than simply stamping your foot and saying it's so.

At no point did I infer that my say so is authoritative, nor did I "stamp my foot". Rather, I humbly deferred to Mike Johnson - he gets to say what the word means because he invented it. The English word bokeh belongs to Mike Johnson - it is his. Therefore he alone gets to define it. And this is his definition:

Mike Johnson wrote:
"Bokeh" simply means blur, specifically out-of-focus blur (as opposed to the kinds caused by subject or camera movement).

No one other than Mike has the authority or the right to use this word in any different way. If it is used in a way that is inconsistent with Mike's definition, then that would be an incorrect use of the word.

EDIT:
I just came across something else that Mike Johnson wrote, but this is something that I think most of us will agree on:

Mike Johnson wrote:
I know, photographic terminology is a mess and getting worse. Don't blame me.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pippan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,380 posts
Gallery: 85 photos
Likes: 1769
Joined Oct 2015
Location: Darwin, Straya
     
Jan 29, 2017 03:51 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #35

And if Mike gets to define it, and says it means blur, we've come full circle back to my question--what is the difference between background blur and bokeh. Evidently nothing.


— Please feel free to offer your thoughts on how I might improve my images —

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,257 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2344
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Wilt.
     
Jan 29, 2017 08:48 |  #36

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18258364 (external link)
:)

I always felt is had to be lie-nucks since yes, it was created by Linus Torvaldes,.

However, Linus does not pronounce his name, (or Linux) with a "lie"

When he says it, it sounds like lee-ah.
leah-nus and leah-nux but the nux sound a like nix too.

Ah, the European pronunciation of 'i' as 'ee', same as in proh-nun-see-ay-shun, which -- from a Finnish software engineer -- is most appropriate (uh-proh-pree-it)


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,257 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2344
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Wilt.
     
Jan 29, 2017 09:01 |  #37

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18258367 (external link)
But we don't get to change this word's meaning. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has any right to do so..........except for Mike Johnson.

.

I thought that Mike Johnson created the English word, bokeh. A Japanese word, boke, served as inspiration for his newly created English word, bokeh. I believe that as the word's originator, Mike gets to say what it means.

At no point did I infer that my say so is authoritative, nor did I "stamp my foot". Rather, I humbly deferred to Mike Johnson - he gets to say what the word means because he invented it. The English word bokeh belongs to Mike Johnson - it is his. Therefore he alone gets to define it. And this is his definition:

No one other than Mike has the authority or the right to use this word in any different way. If it is used in a way that is inconsistent with Mike's definition, then that would be an incorrect use of the word.

EDIT:
I just came across something else that Mike Johnson wrote, but this is something that I think most of us will agree on:

.

Mike Johnston merely PUBLISHED information originally furnished to him. In his own words,

"The original articles about bokeh were published in the March/April 1997 issue of Photo Techniques magazine, which I edited at the time. (Long sold out, unfortunately.) Carl Weese introduced me to the term. The articles were written by John Kennerdell, Oren Grad, and Harold Merklinger. ... The only reason we added the "h" to the end of the Japanese word in the magazine was that English speakers persistently mispronounce "boke." It's properly pronounced in two syllables, "bo" as in "bone" and "ke" as in "Kenneth" with equal stress on each syllable. 'Bokeh' simply renders that (pronunciation) a little more accurately. "

Now even Mike sometimes mistates,
"'Bokeh' simply means blur, specifically out-of-focus blur (as opposed to the kinds caused by subject or camera movement)." Not the 'quality of the blur'!

He continues on...

"Then there's the issue of the applied connoisseurship of lens bokeh—specific aesthetic effects, or the adjective preceding the word. The Japanese term for the character of the bokeh (according to Oren) is boke-aji, which translates roughly to "flavor of blur." Typical "flavors" might be harsh, jarring, smooth, fuzzy, tizzy, confused, soft, etc."

but bokeh-aji, the characteristic of the bokeh, has not been adopted into the English language photographic lexicon! Authoritative sources like Zeiss do indeed directly refer to 'Bokeh – properties of blurriness'

So while Mike was a conduit for the information, the true sources of the concept were Kennerdell, Grad, and Merlinger. In particular, Grad essentially learned Japanese so he could read the Japanese-language photography magazines.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 533
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Jan 29, 2017 09:52 |  #38

Well, it's certainly an interesting discussion!Now, over the years we've seen the termbokeh come up many times, and those who've looked would have seen stuff referring to the "history " of the term, its Japanese origins...

Now, sure having "pronounced" background bluris at the top of this discussion, and those of us who have shot with lenses that have a wide/fast eperture have enjoyed playing around with stuff!

But, theidea that bokeh refers not just to the quantity of the blur, but it has been rpeatedly asserted in many of these discussion that people do/have referrred to what they call"good bokeh, that something in the blurry shows up in a way that they consider"good",

So, this discussion is coming from different angles!

I suppose that people who have taken a skilled approach to their work could post "Before And After images maybe after some post-processing, and maybe images that dhsow what they consider "good bokeh", togrether with ones they consider "not so good bokeh", and they would have to be very clear about what differences they "see!!! :)


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,257 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2344
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Jan 29, 2017 10:33 |  #39

tonylong wrote in post #18258580 (external link)
I suppose that people who have taken a skilled approach to their work could post "Before And After images maybe after some post-processing, and maybe images that dhsow what they consider "good bokeh", togrether with ones they consider "not so good bokeh", and they would have to be very clear about what differences they "see!!! :)

I included in Post #21 two photos, both taken at 50mm FL with f/5.6 as the shooting aperture. The overall blur quality is quite different, I prefer the first photo of the pair myself, in spite of the fact that Mike Johnston gave that lens a very low score of '3'!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,257 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2344
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. (8 edits in all)
     
Jan 29, 2017 11:51 |  #40

Wilt wrote in post #18258643 (external link)
I included in Post #21 two photos, both taken at 50mm FL with f/5.6 as the shooting aperture. The overall blur quality is quite different, I prefer the first photo of the pair myself, in spite of the fact that Mike Johnston gave that lens a very low score of '3'!

OK shot another series of shots using 50mm FL at f/4. I arranged a primary focus target at 3', then I strung a set of Xmas lights from 3'-12' to observe what effects, if any, distance to the out-of-focus item affects highlights (since that meets CDS' definition of bokeh) as well as background details so that those with a broader inclusion of what makes for 'bokeh' can assess this. The series of crops, about 40% if the area of the full frame shot with Canon 5D, is the following sequence:


  1. Olympus 50mm f/1.4
  2. Olympus 50mm f/1.8
  3. Olympus 35-70mm f/3.6 at 50mm
  4. Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 at 50mm
  5. Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 at 50mm


I would have included Canon lenses, had I owned any EF lenses with 50mm FL that could mount on my 5D.

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/bokencompare-1_zpsugqmagul.jpg

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/bokencompare-2_zpsdlkgjdja.jpg

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/bokencompare-3_zpsqxnx2hhj.jpg

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/bokencompare-4_zpsrcbh8ixa.jpg

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/bokencompare-5_zpsdwtgqpyf.jpg



The generalizations I can jump to for myself would indicate that
  • The two fixed focal length lenses seem to have more uniformity of brightness throughout the highlight blur circle, than zooms. You can see bright edges and brighter centers on all three zooms...the highlight blur circles of the Olympus 35-70 are the most distracting visually of the lenses, with the Tamron 28-200 next in line for distracting highlight bokeh.
  • I find that I actually prefer the 'artistic design element' of polygonal highlights to be more appealing than roundish yet more misshapen circles!
  • Evaluating background blur for 'smoothness' I find the Tamron 28-75 to have the more 'abrupt' and 'disorganized' blur characteristics, the least 'smoothness' of all the lenses tested...curiously (sadly?) it is also the newest generation design of all the lenses!

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,791 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3292
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Tom Reichner. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 29, 2017 12:37 |  #41

.

Pippan wrote in post #18258405 (external link)
And if Mike gets to define it, and says it means blur, we've come full circle back to my question--what is the difference between background blur and bokeh. Evidently nothing.

Well, there is a difference. "Bokeh" consists of all of the out of focus blur in an image, while "background blur" consists only of the blur that is behind the subject (or behind the plane of focus).

For example, in this image (below), the doe is bokeh, but she is not background blur:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


.

Wilt wrote in post #18258532 (external link)
So while Mike was a conduit for the information, the true sources of the concept were Kennerdell, Grad, and Merlinger. In particular, Grad essentially learned Japanese so he could read the Japanese-language photography magazines.

I believe that Mike took the word boke as inspiration and created a new word, bokeh. He is the one who thought of a new word - boke with an "h" at the end. While others, and history, get to determine definitions for the word boke, Mike alone should be allowed to define bokeh.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WaltA
Goldmember
Avatar
3,862 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 111
Joined Feb 2006
Location: White Rock, BC, Canada
Post edited over 2 years ago by WaltA.
     
Jan 29, 2017 12:44 |  #42

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18258729 (external link)
.

Well, there is a difference. "Bokeh" consists of all of the out of focus blur in an image, while "background blur" consists only of the blur that is behind the subject (or behind the plane of focus).

I believe that Mike took the word boke as inspiration and created a new word, bokeh. He is the one who thought of a new word - boke with an "h" at the end. While others, and history, get to determine definitions for the word boke, Mike alone should be allowed to define bokeh.

.


I disagree, Tom.

There are many words in the English language (technical and non-technical) whose usage,spelling and/or meaning changes based on popular usage over the years. So no matter who "created" the word - others can change it.


https://www.scribblrs.​com …anings-changed-over-time/ (external link)

http://theweek.com …pletely-changed-over-time (external link)


Walt
400D, 5D, 7D and a bag of stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,587 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1044
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Jan 29, 2017 12:45 |  #43

LIN-ucks.

NIK-on.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,927 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 893
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
     
Jan 29, 2017 12:52 as a reply to  @ WaltA's post |  #44

Agree. Nobody owns any language. Words mean what people take them to mean and that is out of anybody's control.


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,791 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3292
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jan 29, 2017 13:07 |  #45

.

DaviSto wrote in post #18258740 (external link)
Agree. Nobody owns any language. Words mean what people take them to mean and that is out of anybody's control.

But the problem with that is that it leads to this:

Mike Johnson wrote:
I know, photographic terminology is a mess and getting worse. Don't blame me.

Which case is unacceptable to those who value logic and reason and precision.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,125 views & 33 likes for this thread
Bokeh overrated?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Caljbr
839 guests, 384 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.