Old School

Robert Eva

Suspended / Banned
Messages
300
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
Does any one else find the term "Bokeh" annoying?
I know , I am probably being stuffy and all English etc , but I still prefer the term "depth of field"
Let rip guys!
 
bokeh is the rendering style of depth of field though isnt it? or is it actually depth of focus ;)
 
Bokeh - "the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens."

Depth of field - "the distance between the nearest and the furthest objects giving a focused image."
 
Depth of field or focus is a measurement, Bokeh is a quality, an effect a rendering of blur, you can't use one for the other because they aren't the same thing
 
Personally I'm not keen on using the term Bokeh, prefer to say the slightly more long winded, "out of focus area".

Though TBH I don't remember it being referred to much, back in the day.
 
Ah , ok, so they are two different things then ? From my film days only ever depth of field was talked about , where as in digital Bokeh is referred to more?
 
Last edited:
Nope. I still use film.
 
Personally I'm not keen on using the term Bokeh, prefer to say the slightly more long winded, "out of focus area".

Though TBH I don't remember it being referred to much, back in the day.

Bokeh is not synonymous with out of focus area.

Bokeh is a subjective assessment of the quality of the out of focus areas, typically around specular highlights.
 
Ah , ok, so they are two different things then ? From my film days only ever depth of field was talked about , where as in digital Bokeh is referred to more?
That's because the there's more nerds now.

Because technical points are easier to discuss than aesthetic ones, people who want to have an opinion on an image will discuss the technical right down to nuances like 'bokeh' rather than the actual image itself.

Just look at the critique sections, it's rare for an image to be actually critiqued, everyone talks about how sharp it is or exposure etc.
 
Does any one else find the term "Bokeh" annoying?
I know , I am probably being stuffy and all English etc , but I still prefer the term "depth of field"
Let rip guys!


Depends on how "POSH" you are,:D I must admit though my natural instinct Is still to call it "Out Of Focus" area.(y)

George.
 
Though TBH I don't remember it being referred to much, back in the day.
Yes it seems to be a new term not around when I started in photography. The closest was "circle of confusion".
But the expression "back in the day" is equally new. Shudder. I expect things were similar "in the night" too.
 
Yes it seems to be a new term not around when I started in photography. The closest was "circle of confusion".
But the expression "back in the day" is equally new. Shudder. I expect things were similar "in the night" too.

It was not around in English photographic literature back in 1940's but it might have been in Japanese literature.
It is rather easer to say Bokeh, when discussing the concept of the Quality of out of focus areas and how they are reproduced, than to say all that long hand.
The problem is, many less well informed photographers insist it means the Quantity of depth of field.

Even circle of confusion does not hack it, as that says nothing about quality as it is a measure of size.
 
Last edited:
Just look at the critique sections, it's rare for an image to be actually critiqued, everyone talks about how sharp it is or exposure etc.
.. given how upset some folk get when you start critiquing subjectively is it any wonder?
 
There's a few terms that make my skin itch, but generally due to their overuse or misuse/inappropriate use when it's the wrong term for what the user intends to say. Over-use frequently leads to misuse.

A strong candidate for 2016 in the overuse category has been "rendition".

"Bokeh" has been in the top ten for misuse for several years.
 
This is heading towards that thread about expressions you hate.

I don't mind someone using the wrong expression. But it irks when it sounds like someone is trying to sound especially clever or cool or hip though.
 
Last edited:
.. given how upset some folk get when you start critiquing subjectively is it any wonder?

I think that the "technical" critique is far more subjective than the artistic (for want of of a better term). I prefer to think of the subjective part as being whether I like it or not (e.g. I don't like the work Diane Arbus, William Eggleston etc. etc.) rather than whether it's good or bad. There's a lot you can say about composition etc. that is more objective than subjective.

I've had a high key image slated for being over-exposed; a purely technical critique but one that revealed a complete lack of understanding of purpose or intent. The same is potentially true of every other "technical" benchmark. It's often the case (O.K. in my experience, yours may vary) that people fasten on the technical because that is as high as their sights are set. Critique on other levels should at least promote thought - although I recall the old proverb "you can lead a photographer to water (preferably milky with a big rock bottom corner) but you can't make him think" :)
 
"As far as I can determine, bokeh first appeared as a term relating to Western photography in recent history when Mike Johnston introduced it in an 1977 issue of Photo Techniques magazine." http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...-and-science-behind-the-beauty-of-blur-part-1. That 1977 seems to be a misprint for the 1997 Mike Johnston himself refers to in a summary of his part in introducing the term to Western photography published by Luminous Landscape: https://luminous-landscape.com/bokeh-in-pictures/ .

I think the terms "bokeh" (blur) and "bokeh-aji" (the quality of blur) were terms in use in Japanese art criticism before photography. They gave Japanese photographers existing terminology and an interest in that area of photographic image quality and composition. Early lens designs were based on spherical lens elements because aspherical elements were too difficult and expensive to make. Spherical lens elements are not the theoretically ideal image forming shape. They produce a kind of distortion called spherical aberration. They attempted to correct this by introducing converse kinds of distortion to cancel it out. It was observed that the sharpest images with the most corrected spherical aberration introduced an unpleasant character to the out of focus areas. Balancing the image quality of the sharp in focus areas and the blurred out of focus areas was one of the many areas of compromise in lens design which lens makers struggled with, different designers choosing different compromises.

Portrait lenses were an area where photographers were particularly concerned about the quality of the out of focus areas. In the 1990s lens designers started experimenting with special improved bokeh portrait lenses. The outstanding example, still generally recognised as unmatchable in its bokeh, was the Minolta 135mm STF (Smooth Transition Focus), which used an apodization element to fade out the aperture edges, giving blurred highlight circles the look of Gaussian blurred point sources. They say they called it "Smooth Transition Focus" because it's not only the bokeh that's important, but the way the lens handles the transition between in focus and out of focus. The lens, updated for digital camera sensors with improved coatings, is still produced by Sony for its A-mount. A Sony E-mount STF lens is rumoured to be in development.

Like HDR, a lot of ridiculous nonsense is talked about bokeh, and like HDR a lot of bad photos have been produced by over-enthusiastic zealots who photograph everything with the widest aperture and worst spherical aberration they can get their hands on. Like the best HDR, the best bokeh simply improves the image without drawing attention to itself.

I'm grateful to Japanese photographers and lens designers for drawing my attention to this area, giving us the terminology, and designing lenses with which to explore it.
 
mono

get angry about "mono"

and.....coleslaw with walnuts in it


thats just nasty
 
The word definitely originated in Japan "Boke" the blur or haze in a photograph. I guess as Portrait/subject photographers began to use the effect to highlight their taken subject in the 50,s the word become more used.

I feel it did become a feature of the performance of certain lenses as to how they rendered the background in this genre.

I do have some fifty lenses from the 50,s and 60,s and all perform this function to different degree,s of what would be called the adjective used to describe Bokeh.:)
 
Ah , ok, so they are two different things then ? From my film days only ever depth of field was talked about , where as in digital Bokeh is referred to more?

From my film days the term I recall was "differential focusing". I much prefer that.
 
No more annoying than:
Pic
Tog.
Rendering.
Street photography.
Art.
Etc....Etc....Etc.....
 
I don't mind the term, but have had many discussions 'bout pronunciation..... ;)

I'm still preferring 'bouquet' as opposed to 'boh-keh' (2 separated words) or even 'bokker' LOL!
 
I don't see the problem. It is what it is.

I have some shots (sic :) ) of my son from about 20 years ago on Ectachrome showing some rather nice bokeh in the background.
Some portraits of my wife from 30 odd years ago on Kodachrome 25...

I was using it then, on film. It's not new. It's not digital.
 
Back
Top