bokeh

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

What makes you think it is an acronym?

---Bob Gross---

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

That seems to spell it out.

---Bob Gross---

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

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

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

---Bob Gross---

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.

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...........

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.

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.

Sorry, missed this from my previous.

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

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 response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

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/e​quipment/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

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.

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"?

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