Bokeh at different focus distances 85L vs 35L

guitarjeff wrote in post #16436904
Then describe the qualities of that something. A THING is not subjective. A contemplation about whether you like something IS SUBJECTIVE, not the existence of that thing itself.

I guess I might be starting to understand what you mean, but I think you are missing the fact that 'bokeh' can very much describe the qualities of the blur, but a person can still decide if they subjectively like or dislike thoise qualities.

OK. When a point of light in a photograph is not at the plane of focus, it will be rendered by the lens as a small circle instead of as a point.

When these circles are so small that they still appear to be points to our eyes, we say they are within the depth of field.

Farther and farther from the plane of focus, those circles get bigger yet, and now we can finally talk about what 'bokeh' means in the way that the light appears in the circles.

A perfectly corrected lens with no spherical aberration will render blur circles with uniform light intensity from center to edge. This is neutral bokeh.

A strongly corrected lens, one that has special elements to 'fix' spherical aberrations caused by spherical elements in the assembly, will often render blur circles with a bright, highlighted edge at the outer radius. This bright ring effect will make lines appear to double, and it will make patterns in the blur areas look very busy. Technically this is 'bad' bokeh. But be aware that some lenses have such strong and wild affects that some people actually like some lenses that have 'bad' bokeh. It can be subjective.

Finally, lenses with uncorrected spherical aberrations will render blur circles with the center area brighter than the edges. This makes for dreamy, smooth looking blur regions because all of the blur circles melt together. This is technically 'good' bokeh.

And finally.....bokeh does not mean how much blur there is. I can take the same shot with a Canon EF 50/1.4 and a Canon EF 50/1.2L. If I select f/1.4 for the picture with both lenses, they will have exactly the same amount of background blur. But they will not have the same bokeh, because the EF 50/1.4 has much worse bokeh, it is known for creating rather strong bright ring effects.

This is why the phrase 'I want a lens that will give me more bokeh' doesn't make sense. The 50L doesn't make 'more' bokeh than the 50/1.4, it makes better bokeh. And at f/1.4 they both have the same amount of blur.

[QUOTE=xarqi;16436438]​Question for guitarjeff:

Yes. Blur due to depth of field is a REAL THING, it's either there or not, which means the blur itself IS A quality of the photo, blur is a description of a certain aspect about that photo. It is REAL for everyone, we can measure the amount of blur, and when we describe that blur we are describing a quality about it. It may be pleasant to SOME, and not others, because whether it is liked or not, THAT'S THE SUBJECTIVE PART. That is not a quality or a thing or a description, that's subjective and only depends on the mind that contemplates it. Contemplating whether you like a real thing or not is NOT a description of a quality about something. Something may have the QUALITY of being red. That doesn't mean that I like the red color, my contemplating whether I like the red color is not a real thing or a quality of being red. That's subjective, not the FACT that it is red.

No contradictions in those statements that I see. Some may be taken out of context, but no contradictions.

Boekh is ALWAYS blur due to depth of field. Bokeh is the equivalent of blur, it IS blur due to dof. It's simple. Whether you find it pleasing or not is SUBJECTIVE. Whether you like the Quality of the color red that a certain thing is, that's subjective, the fact that it is STILL RED remains true, whether you like that red or not. Our contemplation of whether we like it is NOT A QUALITY or description about the the actual thing that has the quality of being red.

Then either describe what bokeh is, beyond blur, a real definition, or the statement is meaningless.

Sorry, again, this is gibberish. A subjective contemplation about something is NOT a quality or description about that something. Contemplating whether you like an aspect of something is NOT A DESCRIPTION or definition about that thing.

Nope, not unless you can DEFINE that characteristic, because a CHARACTERISTIC is a REAL description of a CERTAIN, quality of something. A characteristic of something is NOT SUBJECTIVE, it is a REAL description that doesn't exist just for some and not for others. A characteristic is a quality that something has. That's separate from whether you LIKE IT OR NOT. Bokeh doesn't come in to existence when you like it, then pop out of existence if I don't like it. We would end up sittinga round looking at the same photo and you would say, "Well, I love that bokeh", and I would say, "Your nuts, it has no bokeh" Whether you find an aspect of something pleasing or not does NOT make it exist or not.

Then define what IT is beyond the blur, and it needs to be a description that is real for everyone. You can't, because everything beyond the fact that there is blur is SUBJECTIVE, which means that is not a descriptive quality of that actual blur. You liking or not liking the blur is Subjective and NOT an actual aspect or quality of that thing. A definition HAS TO BE DEFINITE, or it isn't a definition. There's no such thing as a definition that isn't definite, or it wouldn't be a definition. A quality of a thing is a description of an aspect of that thing. It is definable, from one to another. A contemplation of whether you like that aspect is NOT A DEFINABLE THING, your own likes and dislikes are subjective, not an aspect (quality) of that blur.

But color IS DEFINABLE. We can measure it's shade as compared to other shades and come up with a definite description of the aspect (quality) of being red, or a color. Now you give me a definable definition of bokeh just like I explained to you that we can define what a certain color is. You want your cake and to eat it to. You want to say Bokeh is subjective, yet you want to say, just as color is not matter, bokeh is not blur. I can describe a color in the real world, measure it compared to other colors and we can DEFINE what we will call that color. Now you do the same for bokeh, beyond blur.

No, the word BOKEH does not describe aspects of the blur. You need qualifiers to describe an aspect. When we see the bokeh from the Nifty fifty, we can say, "That is CHOPPY BOKEH. If we just say, "that is bokeh", we are not describing the choppiness of the bokeh. The blur/bokeh is a quality that the photo has, then, you can describe other aspects to the blur/bokeh, or other qualities it has, but ALL OF THEM are definable, not subjective. A quality is a description of an aspect something has, THAT Is REAL and definable. Nothing subjective about it. Whether it pleases you or not, that's the subjective part, and that's not a quality, that's a subjective opinion having nothing to do with the reality of that things existence.

Sorry, but every bit of this has nothing to do with what we are talking about. As you said, some may like the bokeh/blur, others may not. that is THE ONLY thing that is subjective, and that has nothing to do with whether a photo has or doesn't have bokeh/blur. The definition of bokeh is any blurred area in a photo due to the dof not being deep enough to put the entire frame in to focus. That definition is definable, with real parameters for everyone, everywhere, at all times. That's what a REAL definition actually is. There is no definition that is not definite. Saying that bokeh itself is subjective is to say that it might exist and might not exist in the very same photo. Saying it can exist and not exist in the same photo is NOT a description of a quality. A quality is a REAL description of an aspect. That's not subjective. Whether you find it pleasing, that's subjective.

A friend and i are sitting in the park watching the lake. here's our conversation.

Me: "Hey, look at that pretty duck over there"
friend: "Oh, hey, that's not a duck, that a MUCK"
Me: "What in the world is a muck"?
Friend: "well, it's, well, this subjective thing that a duck has that makes it a muck,
Me: "Oh, well, explain that aspect to me so I can know what a duck is apart from a muck"
Friend: "Well, a muck is the quality of a duck"
Me: "well, ok, then tell me what to look for that makes it a muck so that we can both agree what a muck is. You see, I was always told that if it looks like a duck,swims like a duct, acts like a duct, well, it's a duck. So unless you can explain to me what aspects mucks have about them that separates them from being ducks, well, we could just DROP the word muck all together.
Friend: " well, being a muck is,well, subjective, it's the QUALITY of being a muck."
Me: "yeah, but unless you can show some difference between a muck and a duck, they ARE THE SAME THING".
Friend: "Well, I still say it's a muck, cause it has the quality of being a muck, being a muck is subjective, though"
Me: "Well, you know what it sounds like to me? It sounds like you simply like the word Muck and you want to give it some artsy definition that sounds cool, did you think of this while you were having a mocha at Starbucks? If you can't explain to me what a muck is beyond a duck, then BY DEFAULT, that is a DUCK!!!!".

Explain what bokeh is beyond blur due to the thickness of dof, you can't, which means bokeh is just another word for blur due to dof. Whether you like it or not is subjective, that's not a quality or aspect of the blur, it's just your personsal. subjective like or dislike.

guitarjeff wrote in post #16437141
A friend and i are sitting in the park watching the lake. here's our conversation.

Me: "Hey, look at that pretty duck over there"
friend: "Oh, hey, that's not a duck, that a MUCK"...If you can't explain to me what a muck is beyond a duck, then BY DEFAULT, that is a DUCK!!!!".

Explain what bokeh is beyond blur due to the thickness of dof, you can't, which means bokeh is just another word for blur due to dof. Whether you like it or not is subjective, that's not a quality or aspect of the blur, it's just your personsal. subjective like or dislike.

Here is a picture of different types of bokeh (the quality)
http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/bokeh.htm

Yes, you have to have a duck to have the presence of muck. The characteristics of different muck depends not only upon the presence of the duck, but also also what the duck ate. There is more unpleasant muck and less unpleasant muck. But do not call a duck 'muck', nor call muck a 'duck'...I will eat duck quite willingly, I will never eat muck.
Similarly, you need out-of-focus blur to have different characteristic bokeh. And like muck, some bokeh is found to be less objectionable that other lens' bokeh in the out-of-focus blur.

Scroll 2/3 of the way down for a great side by side example

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …SM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

OK - I'll go another round.

guitarjeff wrote in post #16436880
Saying bokeh is a "Subjective Characteristic", is saying that there is nothing real called bokeh at all.

Not at all. At the same measured temperature, I may feel subjectively warm, and you subjectively cool. Are those perceptions not real?

If something is subjective, its value depends upon the observer. A subjective quality is not unreal simply because it is subjective. It may just be, almost by definition, that no consensus can be reached among observers about its value.

I'd agree. Any image with blur has bokeh, that is, a subjective, observer-dependent quality to that blur. To say anything can be bokeh is nonsense. The word cannot be used in that context. Nothing can BE bokeh; but blur HAS bokeh. So, you are right here too, there isn't any specific thing called bokeh, other than the character of any blur present, described subjectively.

These are not synonyms. One is an optical manifestation, the other the name of a subjective description of that manifestation.

Sorry, I didn't follow that.

guitarjeff wrote in post #16436972
Yes. Blur due to depth of field is a REAL THING, it's either there or not, which means the blur itself IS A quality of the photo, blur is a description of a certain aspect about that photo. It is REAL for everyone, we can measure the amount of blur, and when we describe that blur we are describing a quality about it. It may be pleasant to SOME, and not others, because whether it is liked or not, THAT'S THE SUBJECTIVE PART.

Breakthrough! Yes! That is the thing that is called "bokeh".

It was the consistency of your stance, not the presence of any contradictions that I was attempting to highlight. The clear (to me) inference was that you considered blur and bokeh to be synonyms, but maybe you've got that squared away now.

...

except...

We're back to square one it seems. Bokeh is NOT blur. It is the quality of that blur, subjectively described.

This I've done repeatedly; see above.

Just as blur is definable in terms of the mapping of a point in a scene to a disc in an image. Colour is the analogue of blur.

Bokeh is not the analogue of colour. The analogue would be a subjective description of that colour for a particular observer, be it "nice", "nasty", or any other descriptor the observer thought fit to apply.

Not quite. The assessment of bokeh, the character of blur, is a subjective, personal thing. It is true for each person individually, but no two may agree. Bokeh is not blur. It is the subjective quality of that blur.

Notice you said "Different types of bokeh", not that bokeh exists ornot. Quality means the ASPECTS to that EXISTING bokeh, meaning that's the subjective part--whether YOU LIKE the bokeh or not, not it's existence. There's no such thing as a definition of something that is subjective.

Wilt wrote in post #16437551
Here is a picture of different types of bokeh (the quality)
http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/bokeh.htm

Yes, you have to have a duck to have the presence of muck. The characteristics of different muck depends not only upon the presence of the duck, but also also what the duck ate. There is more unpleasant muck and less unpleasant muck. But do not call a duck 'muck', nor call muck a 'duck'...I will eat duck quite willingly, I will never eat muck.
Similarly, you need out-of-focus blur to have different characteristic bokeh. And like muck, some bokeh is found to be less objectionable that other lens' bokeh in the out-of-focus blur.

windpig wrote in post #16437579
Scroll 2/3 of the way down for a great side by side example

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …SM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

Yep, I like the 180 bokeh better than the other tow pics with bokeh.

[QUOTE=xarqi;16437939]​OK - I'll go another round.

Sure they are real. Now tell me which one is right and it REALLY IS warm, and which one is wrong and it isn't really cool? You see, you are CLAIMING to have a definition of bokeh. The temperature itself is real, (BLUR), we can measure it as opposed to other temperatures. Whether you like the temperature or not is SUBJECTIVE, that doesn't mean that the temperature is different for everyone, the temperature is NOT SUBJECTIVE, whether you are comfortable with it is SUBJECTIVE. The bokeh/blur EXIST IN THE FRAME or it doesn't, that's not subjective, whether you like the bokeh/blur IS SUBJECTIVE. Your anology does not hold.

Absolutely right. It's VALUE, is subjective, NOT IT'S EXISTENCE. The bokeh/blur EXISTS, OR IT DOESN'T. The value of that blur/bokeh is UP TO YOU, that's subjective. You are wanting to stretch the subjective value part to cover ACTUAL EXISTENCE, no need to do that. If you do that then as i said, we could both belooking at a photo and you might say, "man I love that bokeh in that pic, and I might say, "What bokeh, there is none". Do you see how silly that would be? It makes much more rational sense for me to se, "Nah, I don't enjoy THAT BOKEH as much as you.

A quality is a description of an aspect, there is NO SUCH thing as a quality that is subjective. There is no such thing as a definition that is not definite.

It's value is not the SAME THING as it's very existence. It's value IS subjective, it's EXISTENCE ISN'T!!

This statement is meaningless. You just said that any image with blur has bokeh, and that's MY ARGUMENT, not yours. You have a contradiction in one sentence. If it is observer dependent, then another observer may say it doesn't have ENOGH quality to be called BOKEH, so he would say the bokeh DOESn"T EXIST. Which is it? You just said that any image with blur has bokeh, which is what I say. If that is true then IT IS NOT OBSERVER DEPENDENT.

I said any photo with BLUR due to the dof not being deep enough to put all the frame in focus IS BOKEH. Meaning any BLUR due to shallow dof IS bokeh. Whether you like it or not is SUBJECTIVE, not it's actual existence.

Again, this is gibberish. If there is no such thing as bokeh, then why use the word when it is the equivalent to calling it blur? So now a description IS BOKEH? How does that work? How good does your description of that quality have to be for it to be called bokeh? And what if I disagree about the quality, who is right? If bokeh is subjective then there is no definition of it, which means it doesn't exist in the real world, but only in the mind. YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THIS, no matter how hard you twist and turn. There IS NO definition of something that is subjective, if it is subjective, it is NOT ABLE to be defined.

There is no such thing as a subjective description or definition.

What?

No, they are the SAME THING.


...

except...

No, your twisting logic is back to square one because it is ILLOGICAL. Bokeh IS BLUR due to dof being shallow in a frame. It is NOT blur due to camera shake. For bokeh to exist, it needs to be blur caused by shallow dof. It is gibberish to say that bokeh exist for one person in a photo and has ZERO EXISTENCE to someone else if they don't like the quality. Why not just say that one likes the bokeh and another DOESN"T LIKE IT??

Sorry, but again, this is gibberish. We can measure the color RED as opposed to other shades of color. RED is not subjective. Bokeh is NOT subjective. Whether you like the color red or the bokeh IS SUBJECTIVE, not it's existence.

Here we go again, you just said "The assessment" That means you are ASSESSING something that, ALREADY HAS EXISTENCE, yet in the next breath you say it's VERY EXISTENCE depends on it's assessment. How can you assess something that only exist if you assess it? You need it to exist in order to ASSESS IT, understand?

What we have here is a failure to communicate.
I can only reiterate that blur and bokeh are distinct concepts, the latter being a subjective assessment of the former.
Agree with that or not as you wish.

xarqi wrote in post #16442992
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
I can only reiterate that blur and bokeh are distinct concepts, the latter being a subjective assessment of the former.
Agree with that or not as you wish.

Nope, you can't assess something that isn't real first and. You don't assess something in to existence. There is no definition that is not definite. Bokeh, by default, is blur due to dof. Unless you can DEFINE what it is beyond blur due to dof, and you can't, then it is blur due to depth of field, that simple. It's a cool word, and some folks couldn't accept that it just means blur due to dof, so they wanted to make an artsy definition and ended up with gibberish that isn't a definition at all. But to each his own. I have fun just asking folks who have accepted the gibberish concept of it to explain it and define it for us, and when they can't we get to see all kinds of distortions and word play. So I enjoyed the debate, thanks.

guitarjeff wrote in post #16443055
Nope, you can't assess something that isn't real first and. You don't assess something in to existence. There is no definition that is not definite. Bokeh, by default, is blur due to dof. Unless you can DEFINE what it is beyond blur due to dof, and you can't, then it is blur due to depth of field, that simple. It's a cool word, and some folks couldn't accept that it just means blur due to dof, so they wanted to make an artsy definition and ended up with gibberish that isn't a definition at all. But to each his own. I have fun just asking folks who have accepted the gibberish concept of it to explain it and define it for us, and when they can't we get to see all kinds of distortions and word play. So I enjoyed the debate, thanks.

Nope, 'bokeh' is the quality of the background blur which lies outside the DOF zone.

Restating what I posted in post 25 of this thread, by the guys who collectively popularized the concept 'bokeh' in the 1996 publication of Photo Techniquies:

In his 1996 article, Merklinger stated, "Japanese apparently refer to the quality of the out-of-focus image as 'bokeh'." Later in the same article he amplifies, "Bokeh, the quality of the out-of-focus image, is determined by the set of brushes: the circles of confusion characteristic of the lens, its aperture and how far out-of-focus it is." © Harold M. Merklinger, Halifax, Canada 1996.

The same issue of Photo Techniques also included an article by Oren Grad. Some of the salient points and terminology from Oren Grad‘s article:

•bokeh refers to the rendition of the out of focus areas of a photograph, and may be classified as good or bad bokeh.
•good bokeh softens the objects in front of the plane of focus (mae-boke).
•Out-of-focus background objects (ushiro-bokeh) lose detail but maintain their shapes and tones.

@guitarjeff:
What an odd world you must occupy where only that which can be measured has reality.
How high is the sky?
What are the units of beauty?
What of Heisenberg and Gödel?
How many concertos equate to a symphony?

These are of course rhetorical, but rhetoric seems to be more important to you than that other subjective (and uncertain) concept, truth, so they may stimulate some cogitation.

Or just more rhetoric.