Good bokeh? Bad bokeh?

On 2012-07-09 05:21:51 -0700, James Silverton said:

On 7/8/2012 8:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-07-08 16:54:03 -0700, James Silverton
said:

Le Snip

What on earth is "bokeh"? A definition please since I can't find it
anywhere else but this ng.C

Then you haven't been looking very hard, next time try Google.
If you had been following this thread you would have found Tony Cooper's
contribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh


Marvelous! I can't see any real use for it *to me* and I would have
wished Tony had coined his word from Latin or Greek which might have
allowed me to deduce its meaning. "Bokeh" is not in the OED nor even
recognized by the Thunderbird spell checker.

If at anytime you might want to describe the characteristics of a
particular lens with regard to the OOF areas due to shallow DOF, you
might well see a real use for the word "bokeh".

"Bokeh" is certainly not a word Tony "coined".

As for using Latin or Greek origins to formulate a word so that you
could deduce its meaning, you might consider that contemporary English
has many words with origins further afield than Latin or Greek, ranging
from Afrikaans, Arabic, through Hindi, and Japanese to Zulu.

"Bokeh" has been part of the photography lexicon since at least 1998.
Information you might have gleaned if you read and comprehended the
Wikipedia article.

Regarding OED, you might want to update the edition you are using.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bokeh

....and you seriously have complete faith in a Windows, or
Mozilla/Thunderbird spell checker?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Pablo wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson escribió:

Look down in the lower left corner, where there are three
different objects, probably tree trunks, that are more or less
vertical and more or less white. Notice that each of them
appears as an out of focus double object, with a "ghost" offset
horizontally. That is probably caused by a combination of an
over correction for spherical aberrations and an astigmatism.
It contributes to what will generally be a relatively harsh
bokeh in areas with many bright vertical lines. An example
would be a background of grass in bright sunlight.

Other than that, the harsh bokeh of your image is not a product
of the lens so much as it is the high contrast between the
background and the subject. I don't see changing the color as
at all significant. Anything bright with even minimal detail is
not going to help.

One point: I just remembered that I forgot to attach the hood for that shot.
It was a very bright day, with the sun directly overhead (as is often the
case here).

Might this have had an adverse effect?

I can't see anything in the image which suggests excessive flare from
a direct sun, so apparently it didn't have much effect.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 7/9/2012 9:12 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-07-09 05:21:51 -0700, James Silverton
said:

On 7/8/2012 8:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-07-08 16:54:03 -0700, James Silverton
said:

Le Snip

What on earth is "bokeh"? A definition please since I can't find it
anywhere else but this ng.C

Then you haven't been looking very hard, next time try Google.
If you had been following this thread you would have found Tony Cooper's
contribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh


Marvelous! I can't see any real use for it *to me* and I would have
wished Tony had coined his word from Latin or Greek which might have
allowed me to deduce its meaning. "Bokeh" is not in the OED nor even
recognized by the Thunderbird spell checker.

If at anytime you might want to describe the characteristics of a
particular lens with regard to the OOF areas due to shallow DOF, you
might well see a real use for the word "bokeh".

"Bokeh" is certainly not a word Tony "coined".

As for using Latin or Greek origins to formulate a word so that you
could deduce its meaning, you might consider that contemporary English
has many words with origins further afield than Latin or Greek, ranging
from Afrikaans, Arabic, through Hindi, and Japanese to Zulu.

"Bokeh" has been part of the photography lexicon since at least 1998.
Information you might have gleaned if you read and comprehended the
Wikipedia article.

Regarding OED, you might want to update the edition you are using.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bokeh

...and you seriously have complete faith in a Windows, or
Mozilla/Thunderbird spell checker?

No, I sometimes disagree with any spell checkers but they *are* an
indication of usage. My OED is the up-to-date online version available
via my public library. To me "bokeh" sounds like something dreamed up by
the pretentious Hyacinth Bucket of British TV.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

Floyd L. Davidson escribió:

Pablo wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson escribió:

Look down in the lower left corner, where there are three
different objects, probably tree trunks, that are more or less
vertical and more or less white. Notice that each of them
appears as an out of focus double object, with a "ghost" offset
horizontally. That is probably caused by a combination of an
over correction for spherical aberrations and an astigmatism.
It contributes to what will generally be a relatively harsh
bokeh in areas with many bright vertical lines. An example
would be a background of grass in bright sunlight.

Other than that, the harsh bokeh of your image is not a product
of the lens so much as it is the high contrast between the
background and the subject. I don't see changing the color as
at all significant. Anything bright with even minimal detail is
not going to help.

One point: I just remembered that I forgot to attach the hood for that
shot. It was a very bright day, with the sun directly overhead (as is
often the case here).

Might this have had an adverse effect?

I can't see anything in the image which suggests excessive flare from
a direct sun, so apparently it didn't have much effect.

But disregarding the hood issue, the background being under the midday sun
would seem to be an issue. So either I should avoid taking photos at midday,
or make the adjustments and use a flash. No?

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php

Pablo wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson escribió:

But I won't post it without your permission.

Post away. I posted the link to ask for advice - it's no work of art of
which I'm proud :-)

http://apaflo.com/misc/pablo1.jpg

The cropped version is

http://apaflo.com/misc/pablo2.jpg

It may not be a great work of art, but it certainly is an
interesting experiment in image editing! There are several
variations that may or may not appeal to any given person more
or less than these two versions. For example a little brighter
on the background, or even less contrast. The sharpening
applied to the tree trunk also creates something that depends on
who looks at it, because every little bright spot on the lower
part of the trunk is emphasized. For some people that might
look better if the lower part of the tree trunk had less
sharpening.

With many images the effects are, to me, just very cut and
dried: it should be *this* way, period! On that image I would
expect that if I edited it again in a month it would turn out
very different. And a month later would be different again.
(Sunsets, fireworks and Northern Lights are all subject that
frustrate me greatly, simply because there is no "right" way,
and almost any difference is just as interesting as any other
way. So in 60 minutes it is easy to produce 60 equally nice but
different images.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 03:35:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Pablo wrote:
tony cooper escribió:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:54:03 -0400, James Silverton
wrote:

What on earth is "bokeh"? A definition please since I can't find it
anywhere else but this ng.C

Bokeh is the *quality* or *character* of out of focus areas.

It's a pretentious word used to describe the appearance of a
background that is out-of-focus. If you want to be *really*
pretentious, rave about the "creamy bokeh" your lens produces.

Pretentious it may be, but it works for most people.

It is not in any way pretentious. For example, "creamy bokeh"
is a very correct usage, and might be accurate (but not for your
image). Saying that an image "has great bokeh" is almost
meaningless, saying that it has "a lot of bokeh" is totally
meaningless. If it has any area that is not in focus, bokeh is
the quality of that area. It might be harsh, it might be
smooth, it might be pleasing, or it might be annoying. It
cannot be more or less though... :-)

The closest the OED gets is:

QED's closest has nothing to do with a word that essentially is
what we call a "term of art",

I know it gets your bowels in an uproar when one of your spelling
errors is flamed, but this one deserves to be commented on if only for
irony involved.

Now, protest vehemently with your usual inclusion of insults so I
can reply: QED - quod erat demonstrandum.

An interesting example there Tony! I got the idea right and the letter
wrong.

You always seem to it opposite!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Pablo wrote:
But disregarding the hood issue, the background being under the midday sun
would seem to be an issue. So either I should avoid taking photos at midday,
or make the adjustments and use a flash. No?

That is indeed a very common "rule of thumb". Midday is harsh...
fill flash it useful. And the "Golden Hour" is golden.

And a good editor is essential!!! :-)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 03:35:21 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Some people use it incorrectly to describe a background that is
out-of-focus (as intended) due to a shallow depth-of-fied.

That is *exactly* what it is *properly* used for.

No it isn't. It is properly used to describe certain aspects of a
background that is out-of-focus (as intended), but not a background
that is out-of-focus (as intended) where those aspects are not
present.

Bokeh is the character of the out of focus area.

1) It need not be background.
2) Any out of focus area has bokeh.
3) Intended or not is immaterial.

What you really wanted to say is simply that the amount by which
something is out of focus is not described as bokeh. *Any* out
of focus area has bokeh, whether it is greatly out of focus or
only slightly out of focus.

Bokeh is not something that there is a lot of or a little of...

The "background" is simply that: the area of the photograph behind
the subject. A photograph of a subject with a brick wall behind them
may have been taken with the settings that present the wall as
blurred, indistinct, and with the edges of the bricks undefined. Good
treatment, but not good bokeh.

That brick wall might well be background, but it might be within
the DOF and therefore would not have bokeh. But assuming it is
"blurred, indistinct, and with the edges of the brinks
undefined", why would that be "not good bokeh"? It might be
*great* bokeh! Or not. If it looks harsh and that is
distracting from the main subject, it would be bad bokeh. If it
is harsh and that makes the main subject look better... it could
be called good bokeh. The same is true of we swap "creamy" for
"harsh".

Granted that "creamy" bokeh is almost always more appealing than
"harsh" bokeh, but there have been some really interesting
examples demonstrating otherwise in particular instances.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

tony cooper wrote:
No one's shooting you down, Pablo. "I don't like the looks of the
background" would have described what bothered you about your image.
To narrow that down to the "bokeh" is, in my opinion, incorrect and
indicative of not seeing the real problem.

The background in that image is all an out of focus area.
Unless you are saying that it should be more or less out of
focus, then the character of blur in the out of focus area is
*bokeh*. If the contrast is not right, the color is not right,
the brightness is not right... those are all part of the bokeh
if they relate at all to the blur and the tone transitions
between different blurred areas.

The meaning of "bokeh" has only been generally used since 1998, and it
really didn't catch on with the average photographer until much later.
What should be avoided is *changing* the meaning to include anything
about a background that is blurred but pleasing or unpleasing.

Since when would that be a change? It is indeed the quality of
the blur... and "quality" implies heavily that it is either
pleasing or unpleasing that it refers to!

The only character not part of bokeh is the *quantity* of the
blur. And therefore quantity is also an invalid description for
bokeh itself.

Here is an authoritative source which specifically says your use
is to be "discouraged" and that the use you claim is wrong is
indeed precisely the only correct usage. I've added emphasis:

"The internet abounds with lens qualifications like "good bokeh"
and "bad bokeh" but strictly speaking this use of the word
should be discouraged. *Owing* *to* *the* *subjective* *implications* *of*
*some* *unquantifiable* *aesthetic* *value*, *it* *would* *be* *more*
*appropriate* *to* *speak* *of* *pleasant* *or* *unpleasant* *bokeh,*
*respectively.*"
-- http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

James Silverton wrote:
No, I sometimes disagree with any spell checkers but they *are* an
indication of usage. My OED is the up-to-date online version available
via my public library. To me "bokeh" sounds like something dreamed up by
the pretentious Hyacinth Bucket of British TV.

You, sir, seem to be more than a mite pretenious...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)