Am I the only one that does not like Bokeh?

Yeah, it was definitely photoshopped. Look at the first subjects feet, blurred. But his shirt is in focus. Just sayin.

Ya, I noticed the feet but let it slide.

CanonEOS wrote in post #12365056
In fact the human eye can see more than A million Billion megagpixels in colours so why is the DSLR camera campanries holding back on the MP cameras today?

Our eyes can see 0fps, 24fps, 1200fps, 600fps or 1,000,000fps, but we are made to use only 30fps? in vdeo?.

The human brain is the most complex thing in existence (so far). It can make 100 trillion calculations per second,

The eye can see in practice, objects 0.04mm wide also human eye see about a a 160 degree wide

So you are telling me when you walk or drive your eyes only see one subject? No camera is better then a human eye.

What about a bazillion gazillion let's not get too carried awayillion?

However advanced you judge the human eye, it can also be fooled by somebody putting a pencil between their fingers - "look, a rubber pencil!"

What about the moon illusion? Fools the human eye but not a half megapixel camera?

to each their own

talk about a thread bomb! OP got 5 pages out of one post.

Bokeh has come to mean blur. Old fogies are just gonna have to learn to deal.

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12366771
Bokeh has come to mean blur. Old fogies are just gonna have to learn to deal.

So what term will we then use for the quality of the out of focus areas, young master of all language? I presume we'll need a new one.

Just because a number of people on a forum use a term incorrectly does not make that incorrect usage the standard. By the way although I am *gasp* about to turn 45 (and presumably an old fogey??) I only heard the term bokeh for the first time about 2006 when I got a DSLR, it is not an old term -- dates to circa 1997 per Wikipedia at least in English usage. Given that the word dates to the late 90's your statement about age is ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Bokeh

WRAG wrote in post #12358649
I have just started to try and take more advanced photos and been researching and learning a lot over the past few weeks. I have learned that photos with a blurred background, more DOF are considered better than photos where the entire scene is focused, at least for sports and portraits. Not so much for landscapes.

Am I the only one that does not think a blurred background is pleasing, in any setting? In my sports photos, I like to see the faces of the other people in the crowd, the other kids on the field etc. I think it adds to the excitment of the game. I do not like to have the main subject in focus and everything behind him blurry so you cannot even tell what is in the background. Maybe I will come around to appreciate the better quality of blurred background as I know the majority think it is better, but I just don't get it.

Anyone else had this thought when they first got into photos and then learned to appreciate the blurred backgrounds?

Get UWA lens, set it to f8 or higher, prefous at something nearby and get close to our main object. Everything, more less, will be in focus.

Don't like blur background ? Well, it is natural. Same as our vision do. This is why I like to use shallow DoF for landscapes often. Represents how I see it naturally.

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12366771
Bokeh has come to mean blur. Old fogies are just gonna have to learn to deal.

I expect you also spell "too loose" as "to lose"?

Even dictionary.com knows about this word

Sorry, I don't make the rules. I'm just reporting them. Don't shoot the messenger. But if you do shoot the messenger, make sure the pic has tons of bokeh.

All you are reporting is a few folks who broke the rules

3

As much fun as it is to have the debate on the changing definition of the term bokeh with the proprietors of the English language, another point of the conversation seems like it could use a little clearing up. Some have said that blurring backgrounds and leaving the subject in focus best approximates how the human eye perceives the world. Are we sure this is true? Wouldn't an effect more similar to what a Lensbaby does be more in line with how we actually perceive the world? The actual point of focus and attention of the human eye seems to be very small, and it certainly doesn't seem to follow DoF rules.

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12370960
As much fun as it is to have the debate on the changing definition of the term bokeh with the proprietors of the English language, another point of the conversation seems like it could use a little clearing up. Some have said that blurring backgrounds and leaving the subject in focus best approximates how the human eye perceives the world. Are we sure this is true? Wouldn't an effect more similar to what a Lensbaby does be more in line with how we actually perceive the world? The actual point of focus and attention of the human eye seems to be very small, and it certainly doesn't seem to follow DoF rules.

Good points.

It's definitely not as simple as describing the optical features of lenses and formulas for DoF, without regard to how the information is processed by the lens, iris, retina, optic nerve and brain together.

The brain does not get a separate signal from each rod or cone in the retina, there is a substantial amount of processing that the retina and its nerve layers do before any information goes down the optic nerve to the brain. In some ways it seems to be akin to mpeg processing - watch the road in front of you after stopping on the freeway after a stint of high speed driving : the road seems to recede from you for a few seconds - the eye has "adapted" to the constant motion of incoming objects in the field of vision and that becomes the new "baseline" ; then you stop and it's the wrong baseline and it makes stationary objects seem to move away from you.

Where we expect things to be in focus is also affected by how our eyes converge to a point and other things are not as well perceived, so we actually don't really know how well they are focused. All the "DoF in a photograph" discussions should be around looking at a print and assessing how sharp something appears and how the sharpness is lost when it gets blurred in different ways by being out of focus (by different lenses with different bokeh )

I don't think this shot would have been the same with less bokeh. It works in some shots, doesn't work in others.

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR