BOKEH BOKEH BOKEH - The Good and the Ugly

Really like the second one Lee!

thatkatmat wrote in post #11538953
Some interesting Bokeh

Hi all,

I just stumbled into this thread, certainly a mix of DOF and Bokeh. This above shot to me is a great example of Bokeh. I will add my own sample but wanted to share my appreciation for this shot!

To me these are DOF:

Mookalafalas wrote in post #11571243
Wow, an impressive pair of shots.

Flo wrote in post #11571274
Really like the second one Lee!

Thanks

ToferPhotography wrote in post #11572632
To me these are DOF:

BOKEH:

Tofer, I see your point here. It is odd that the term "bokeh" is used to refer to two quite different (but related) phenomena as if they were the same thing. It's not just in this thread, however, but pretty much everywhere. Photozone reviews, for example, lump them together under the same heading, as do most others. DOF, though, tends to have more meanings than the blurred background, so I don't think your terminology is going to catch on. I've seen the "circles" referred to as "oof highlights" and that would make a better distinction, I think, but is long and awkward. "Bokeh" itself means "disoriented and discombobulated" in Japanese (I think, my Japanese is just so-so). Perhaps we need to find a new, short distinction to import from a foreign language.

Tiff calls it "Smoosh". Works for me.

Mookalafalas wrote in post #11574178
Tofer, I see your point here. It is odd that the term "bokeh" is used to refer to two quite different (but related) phenomena as if they were the same thing.

The OOF highlights themselves are not the bokeh.
Bokeh refers to the quality or rendition of the blur, which is most easily evaluated by looking at the OOF highlights. There is bokeh whenever there is OOF blur, some good, some not so good. There are hundreds of threads describing what bokeh is on this forum, and how the term is misused to mean anything from: blur, the amount of blur, DOF, subject isolation, massive blur and probably a half dozen other things.

BTW.. As I understand it, the blur in the photo of the pine with consistent OOF highlights does illustrate what is generally considered nice bokeh.

Bokeh is the out of focus areas of a photograph, it does not refer to the quality as you can have good and bad Bokeh. The popular misconception is that Bokeh refers only to the highlights in the out of focus areas.

jj_glos wrote in post #11576609
Bokeh is the out of focus areas of a photograph, it does not refer to the quality as you can have good and bad Bokeh. The popular misconception is that Bokeh refers only to the highlights in the out of focus areas.

It is all about quality:

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …aphy/technical/​bokeh.html

http://www.rickdenney.​com/bokeh_test.htm

Even wikipedia got it right.
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Bokeh

jj_glos wrote in post #11576609
Bokeh is the out of focus areas of a photograph, it does not refer to the quality as you can have good and bad Bokeh. The popular misconception is that Bokeh refers only to the highlights in the out of focus areas.

hairy_moth wrote in post #11577012
It is all about quality:

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …aphy/technical/​bokeh.html

http://www.rickdenney.​com/bokeh_test.htm

Even wikipedia got it right.
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Bokeh

Go look at the original post of this thread and you will see it's not about technical definitions about bokeh, but about having fun posting shots of any kind of "smoosh"!

tonylong wrote in post #11577172
Go look at the original post of this thread and you will see it's not about technical definitions about bokeh, but about having fun posting shots of any kind of "smoosh"!

+1,000,000,000