Am I the only one that does not like Bokeh?

Bang Bang Boy wrote in post #12371396
I don't think this shot would have been the same with less bokeh. It works in some shots, doesn't work in others.

Bokeh : Definition: a Japanese term for the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of a photographic image


After a little PP:

History and the fluidity of language are not on your side, my friend.

Yup. When enough of them are wrong they're right!

Too true.

Haha, sorry guys. Not my original language. I might screw up especially when I am tired and lazy.

If you wan't me to I can do it gramatically incorrect in three more languages?

This is very interesting Half of you are not understanding what the other half is saying.

For me bokeh is the feeling I get when looking at the oof area in front and behing the subject. In BBB's picture I dont like the bokeh, it is not smooth and pulls my attetion from the subject to the bad bokeh. In my view good bokeh, you have to look for it does not force itself on you, when you look past the subject then you can see it and it does not HURT your eyes. At least bad bokeh hurts my eyes

The canon 50mm 0.95 pics had some very bad bokeh, it really does hurt. The person taking the pics I think was making an art statement with the use of bad bokeh.

Dave

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #12371828


History and the fluidity of language are not on your side, my friend.

I do understand that commONality of usage of a term does change over time, so a word can acquire a new alternative definition eventually. Nevertheless, 'bokeh' has a very specific definition at present, even if newbies are starting to use it wrongly.

On the forum we attempt to have commonality of terms so that we all do not miscommunicate via one person meaning one thing while another person is using a totally different definition. So, when someone calls f/22 a 'large aperture', correction of that person is done so that they do not wrongly teach another newbie "Use a large aperture for maximum Depth of Field" simply because that is outright wrong. So why is there something wrong with letting someone know that similarly the misuse a term like 'boheh' ?!

You're a great gal, Indecent Exposure! -- 'gal' is the right term, isn't it? After all, you hear ladies address groups of ladies by 'you guys' so the term 'guy' and 'gal' must no longer have a connotation of gender, right?

I can never understand why we need " bokeh" in pictures why don't you just take the main picture and just change the background in Photoshop I like all the picture to be in focus it's nice this way IMO.

Choderboy wrote in post #12366474
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?

So if the human eyes can be fooled easy that explains why Canon,Nikon,Sony can fool us to beleve their cameras are 18 - 21.1MP? and are we to believe that the camera is better than the human eye, with a bokeh background!, the same for TV the moon landing was film in black & white. because it is easy to fool the eyes with only two colours!

So why are we force to see only Black text on white paper?

SkipD wrote in post #12365230
Look carefully at ONE WORD on the screen in front of you. Stare at it while thinking about the surrounding words.

So your eyes are only focus on one Word what about the "surrounding" your eyes see wide not tunnel vision like cameras do, so you force your eye to see a Narrow Vision thorught one lens, but you look at the picture with two eyes? why not have just one eye than!

So why invent wide screen TVs, PC monitors wide screen laptop, and the IPad, if are eyes only see narrow Vision. or one focus.

george m w wrote in post #12365252
True statement. Anybody that thinks they are able to focus on all subjects in the field of view, with the human eye, needs to do a little reading on how the human eye and vision works.

So when you are walking do you only use one eye?, so if you see a bus do you only focus on that one bus but don't see the cars when you cross the road? but most people can see with two eyes in wide vision so we force one eye to see all maybe you need to read on the human eye too.

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

The Bokeh don't mean is a good picture and some prople don't want blur backgrounds in their pictures, the term comes from the Japanese word boke (暈け or ボケ), so why change the name to 'Bokeh' in English? adding the 'h' letter. when we didn't invent it?

A little bg blur is very nice. Blurring to smithereens is unnatural looking.


On a different note. What do think about vignetting?

WRAG wrote in post #12358649
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.

It's the other way around. Blurred background implies less depth of field, not more.

As I think some others have commented on, bokeh is the quality of the blur, not the amount. Different lenses are more or less good at creating pleasing blur.

In photography and optics, (from French "vignette", pronounced /vɪnˈjɛtɪŋ/) but in English we change it again to vignetting its a problem that often arises in the creation of panoramic photographs from many individual shots is vignetting. this is an optical defect of camera lenses vignetting is not much an issue in single photographs

DonSantos wrote in post #12374216
A little bg blur is very nice. Blurring to smithereens is unnatural looking.
On a different note. What do think about vignetting?

CanonEOS wrote in post #12374119
...so if you see a bus do you only focus on that one bus but don't see the cars when you cross the road?

This is indeed an actual problem in road safety, and the reason why riding a motorcycle is dangerous. It's the visual cortex in the brain that is synthesizing the scene from the constantly changing feed of hi-res images from the foveon, and if the saccades are too slow it will actually synthesize a scene with missing objects. The careless driver who "didn't see the motorcyclist" really didn't - but we prosecute them because they should have paid more attention, i.e. used more frequent saccades.

There are also dedicated detectors for shapes and for moving shapes, and they work well at the periphery. It is an extremely complex system, and not analagous at all to a simple lens.

Even if it were, there's no reason in the world why photos should mimic it.

I am really surprised that some people don't like "bokeh" and background blur at all! I don't even know how it is possible but it is certainly good for your pocket.

Now this is taking blur just a bit too far!

But it shows how you can use it for some sort of creative effect.

Bokeh is the OOF areas, not the quality of the OOF?

Atleast thats how I have been taught and thats how the talk goes between me and my photography friends. There is ofcourse good and bad bokeh, but it all comes down to what you like. I love a small DOF on my portraits as it gives me the ability to convey to the viewer where to look.