View Full Version : Bokeh vs shallow Depth of Field
So when is it good Bokeh or just shallow depth of field? Lets discuss...
Definition:
Bokeh (derived from Japanese, a noun boke 暈け, meaning "blur" or "haze") is a photographic term referring to the appearance of point of light sources in an out-of-focus area of an image produced by a camera lens using a shallow depth of field. Different lens bokeh produces different aesthetic qualities in out-of-focus backgrounds, which are often used to reduce distractions and emphasise the primary subject.
When the term Bokeh is used it usually refers to the aesthetic quality of the OOF part of the image; not just the fact it is OOF.
Using recent images of mine - is this good Bokeh or just OOF background?
Please post your own images to the thread for discussion as well !
I had to clone out a 2nd powerline on this one as well.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3595/3492580549_285b40af90_o.jpg
Iceberg Rose
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/3471407083_391a3c4785_o.jpg
DzRbenson
23-05-2009, 1:27pm
I would say #1 is Bokeh and #2 is DOF.
Here are a few of mine, First 2 are Bokeh I think, the last is just good DOF control
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3344/3436630991_185509549d_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/3454575233_23030f2722_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3316/3436631365_0a5abf57f0_o.jpg
DzRbenson
23-05-2009, 1:33pm
Just having a read about Bokeh and there are some interesting thoughts, I think the line is blurred from what is OOF DOF and what is Bokeh, they may overlay at a point.
"Bokeh describes the appearance, or "feel," of out-of-focus areas. Bokeh is not how far something is out-of-focus, bokeh is the character of whatever blur is there. "
Just having a read about Bokeh and there are some interesting thoughts, I think the line is blurred from what is OOF DOF and what is Bokeh, they may overlay at a point.
"Bokeh describes the appearance, or "feel," of out-of-focus areas. Bokeh is not how far something is out-of-focus, bokeh is the character of whatever blur is there. "
Exactly! So what is good Bokeh? - hence this thread. I agree with your assessments above.
The pleasing aesthetic aspects of the background are what is important.
DzRbenson
23-05-2009, 1:42pm
If its just out of focus to me that is what it is, however if there are highlights that are OOF and certain shapes, that starts to create Bokeh.
I've heard good bokeh described as 'creamy'. To me, there is a smoothness and lack of shape to it. I don't believe that a busy background that is inadequately out of focus or blurred could ever have good bokeh.
Here are my bokeh offerings...the colour in the first is deliberate :D
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3391267870_4bd0a76d24_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3580/3371866360_58f21e86a1_o.jpg
I think the first is bokeh...the second would be debateable.
Steadyhands
23-05-2009, 2:25pm
First, here's an example of extremely shallow DoF. F1.2
No.1
http://www.steadyhands.net/photogallery/albums/temp/2009/image43139.jpg
Pleasing background? Subject isolation?
No.2
http://www.steadyhands.net/photogallery/albums/temp/2008/image39312.jpg
Smooth Creamy background. Is it just out of focus or good Bokeh.
No.3
http://www.steadyhands.net/photogallery/albums/temp/2008/image33863.jpg
arthurking83
23-05-2009, 2:43pm
The way in which I see(and judge) bokeh:
Magpie shot. Technically bad bokeh if you try to maintain the line that good bokeh is supposed to be pleasing, but in that magpie image the nervous looking bokeh isn't so bad.
It probably stems from the fact that it's uniform, and it makes a mottled lke effect which you'd normally see as a backdrop for a portrait studio... so in this particular case it looks more than acceptable. But if it were my lens at those settings, I'd be watching that kind of bokeh carefully.
Rose shot. Perfect bokeh! You can clearly make out the shapes of the background and it's 'buttery' smooth, or creamy as the regular terminology dictates. I'd have no hesitation in using that lens with now much care to how the bokeh would be rendered, as long as it's rendered consistently nicely across the aperture and focus distance range.
DzR's images:
#1 bokeh looks like it's bordering on being nervous(top right corner). It's starts to show a small level of nervyness, even though it's looks well controlled, as there is a nice smoothness coming out. Another lens I'd be careful of if I want good bokeh.
#2 better bokeh. There are small circular highlights, but you can see that the circle is not perfectly formed or defined, mainly at the edges of the frame.
#3 that looks like a slightly more closed down aperture setting(I haven't checked the exif data for the vitals :D). Bokeh is bokeh and regardless of how well you control DOF it makes no difference as to how well a lens's blur will render. You can minimise the impact of bad bokeh by varying aperture and focus distance to the subject, but the only way you can make bad bokeh look OK is by PPing it with gaussian blur(or whatever)
I have two 50mm primes and from memory the Siggy 50/1.4 renders bokeh much nicer than the Nikon 50/1.2 at wider apertures. I think(from memory again) at about f/4 or so, the Nikon 50 is quite ok.
Heck! even the damned 500mm mirror lens can produce 'good' bokeh, and we all know how badly they render bokeh with their ugly donut shaped highlights! But used in a specific manner, it can enhance the image in a weird manner....
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/gallery/files/1/0/_DSD0334.jpg
once again.. it is technically bad bokeh(as it's from the mirror lens) But I think it looks appropriate for the scene, and was rendered how I wanted it to be. I wanted it to be a ghoulish looking scene, and I remember whilst in Adelaide, Nicole was with me when I decided it was time to bring out the mirror lens for this scene and take many steps back, where I could have just used the 80-200/2.8, but it wouldn't have created the blurred donut rings to try to make the ghoulish faces I wanted.
I that case the bokeh actually looks good(to me).. and normally if I use the 500mm for what it was intended for, that is long reach, I almost invariably gaussian blur the horrid looking donut highlights out in PP.
many really fast primes will usually render bokeh badly at their two fastest aperture settings, I noticed that the Siggy looked a bit better than the Nikon(AF-S) in that respect, after all I wanted a fast prime so it has to work best at it's fastest.. even though the Siggy cost more, was bigger, heavier, and!!...... a Sigma, not a Nikon!! :rolleyes:
I think as with most forms of art(and bokeh really is about art) it's very subjective and some people just like different.
I think that totally obliterated backgrounds, of which you see lots of in bird photos taken with super tele lenses, is not bokeh... it's just a blurred background, and as long as it's not over exposed too much, it'll always look nice.
Any lens can do that if it allows a great amount of subject isolation, ie. can focus close enough on a subject that is far from the background.
Anyhow!.. I'll post some comparos taken with my two fifties.
OK, here goes nothing :D
As I think of it, bokeh is how the out of focus highlights appear in the image, no highlights no bokeh, with most images it should be soft at the edge like a feathered brush in a paint program, sometimes it looks like a doughnut this being (imho) the worst, with some cases it is very distinct like in my example below, a very sharp dedicated macro lens with a lot of very bright highlights, you can even count the number of blades in the iris (they are octagons so 8 straight blades), in this case (imho :p) improving the image.
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/9946/dewongrass9587pc3.jpg
Where as this is most definitely oof due to a verrrrry narrow dof :action: with only a few highlights providing some bokeh.
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/1078/doff56dr7.jpg
Cheers David
wow, there are some superb images here.
the oof area is boke (often mispelled incorrectly of 'bokeh :) ). we then need to describe the boke. boke can set a good lens apart from a really good lens. in japanes, boke means haze or out of focus. it has nothing to do with highlights in the boke or out of focus area. boke is always used in conjuction with another describing word/s such as harsh, nice, painterly et al. boke on its own tells us nothing.
JM Tran
23-05-2009, 6:10pm
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d84/endless_photography/_IGP6099-1.jpg
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d84/endless_photography/IMGP0003.jpg
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d84/endless_photography/_IGP1553.jpg
JMT... Like #2 the best - if we talk about quality of light - #3 is just DoF.
Good examples.
Kym, you can't say #3 is just DoF. You can say #3 has a shallow DoF. Every image has DoF, whether its large, small or otherwise. If an image has an out of focus area, then it has boke. Whether it is pleasing boke or not needs to be clarified and is entirely at the discretion of the viewer.
Kym, you can't say #3 is just DoF. You can say #3 has a shallow DoF. Every image has DoF, whether its large, small or otherwise. If an image has an out of focus area, then it has boke. Whether it is pleasing boke or not needs to be clarified and is entirely at the discretion of the viewer.
I think the terminology is interesting. You make a good point.
Most take the term Bokeh (at least colloquially and in most photographic press) as a qualitative term; which is why i started the thread.
Yeah - to me #3 above is just shallow DoF.
But #2 has a very pleasing OOF light; aka Bokeh.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bokeh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh (refers to Japanese boke)
http://www.idigitalphoto.com/dictionary/bokeh
http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Bokeh/
yeah Kym, am American editor coined the term bokeh in lieu of boke to stop confusion.
I am out of my league here but maybe it is when the out of focus foreground and or background tells a story like in the second pic above, it is a lady on a night out in town, even though we don't see her or the city.
I would call this DOf but the first of the flowers are more surreal to bring out the colours of the flowers and the backgroud has no story to it.
Maybe this is the bokeh.
JM Tran
23-05-2009, 8:18pm
I can see where Kym is coming from, regarding the pics that I posted from my travels, 1 and 2 definitely screams out BOKEH straight away, whereas when you look at the 3rd the first thing that comes to my mind is oh wow look at that DOF, not bokeh - hence the reason I posted 3 different types of bokeh/DOF photos for debate
but if u were to rate the most aesthetically pleasing in terms of bokeh, then #1 takes the cake IMO
wow look at that DOF
...or lack thereof
arthurking83
24-05-2009, 8:12am
....
but if u were to rate the most aesthetically pleasing in terms of bokeh, then #1 takes the cake IMO
My personal preference for rating bokeh(and I always use that spelling as it's relating specifically to photographic material, and not Japanese vocabulary).. using JM's samples; #2 has better bokeh, whereas #1 is just a shallow DOF, with a nice pattern.
Technically speaking any lens with the ability to focus closely can produce the 'bokeh' seen in #1, but it's much harder to produce in #2, and the lens needs to be a great lens to do that.
#3 looks a little harsh from the center right to the far RHS, where I can see vertical lines, not completely uniform and thus distracting.(curious as to which lens?)
I've rated all of my lenses in terms of bokeh rendition(taking the 500mm out of the equation)and the Tammy 17-50 is certainly my weakest lens(despite how good the lens actually is!) then the 50/1.2 up to about f/2, and all of the others seem to get better(my Tammy 70-200/2.8 is not as good as the Nikon 80-200/2.8 I used to have though.
My best lens for bokeh is the Nikon 105VR, closely followed by the Sigma 50/1.4.
All that means is that when I use a certain lens, I either have to consider the background or not.. it's that element of thinking about your photography, referred to in another thread.
Actually! I think I just figured out why I seem to prefer the Tammy 28-75 over the 17-50, even though the 17-50 is the sharper of the two lenses. On the (lower res)D70s, sharpness was everything and trying to extract (more)detail was more difficult, so the 17-50 was favourite. Now with the D300, detail isn't as important as there is 'enough' of it for my purposes, but overall image quality is important, and the 28-75 has good to excellent bokeh rendition.
Kym I forgot to comment on your OP, my opinion on the first pic is that it has a pleasing boke, or a pleasing OOF area. The second image has plain boke; not pleasing, not unpleasant. :)
JM Tran
24-05-2009, 10:54am
ok the lenses used were
1# old Vivitar 70-210 f4.5-5.6 (not sure which series but its MF)
2# Pentax DA40 Limited f2.8
3# Sigma 17-70
all shot on an old Pentax DL.
so yes, in regards to Arthur, the pancake prime provides superior bokeh out of those 3 lenses, as its much superior optically:)
Dylan & Marianne
24-05-2009, 11:12am
I'm personally not sure what I would call this image I took a while back.
probably just shallow DOF I think.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/3102499649_fdd136c178_b.jpg
This one my wife took of me I think is a demonstration of DOF . Usually I associated bokeh with blurred subject matter with some form in the background - how about when it's in the foreground?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2318/2125927787_773e321248_b.jpg
Us motorsport photogs may not be thought of as using the artistic elements of photography and on occasions can be heard saying its not the back ground that is important but the subject. I can assure you though we take a lot of time and care with backgrounds and the way we use them ether to include them as an integral part of the image or to blur them out to isolate the subject. We actually use more than DOF to achieve this, SS and panning is another weapon we use. So dose a bokeh have to be smooth and creamy I think not it can add other things by being just the opposite. The first image the background blur is achieved with DOF the second by SS. Would you call them both bokeh?
Steve, given Bokeh is a subjective term at best (but a very important one) I think both images have valid elements.
That is the blur adds to the image is a pleasing manner.
Isn't bokeh the rendering of the OOF area of the image be it creamy, streaked, detailed or doughnut like depending on how and with what lens was used. So DOF has a roll to play in the detail in the OOF areas, limiting or enhancing the bokeh of the back ground. With the shot bellow if I had have used a smaller aperture the bokeh wouldn't have been rendered so nice and smooth, It would have had more shape and detail to it (like Kym's 1st photo)
80-200 f/2.8
arthurking83
24-05-2009, 2:51pm
..... With the shot bellow if I had have used a smaller aperture the bokeh wouldn't have been rendered so nice and smooth, It would have had more shape and detail to it (like Kym's 1st photo)
80-200 f/2.8
That to me is where bokeh(as an aesthetic element) is a non event.
It's too blurred to be able to distinguish if the bokeh is smooth or not, so maybe you could categorise it as too much bokeh.
It's unobtrusive, and doesn't add anything to the image, as if to say that this lizard is in a rainforest, or washing machine or whatever! :p
if we go by the meaning of bokeh as : derived from Japanese, a noun boke 暈け, meaning "blur" or "haze".... where the main operative word there is derived!!, so that bokeh(as distinct from boke) is a derivative of the word blur or haze, and we then apply it as a photographic term, then in your lizard shot I think you have too much bokeh(but only because it doesn't tell us anything about the animals background(if that makes sense??)
The 80-200/2.8 has beautiful bokeh, and was one of my faves for a long time, so even down to f/8 it will still produce great(quality, not quantity) bokeh.
All you've done there is to totally isolate the subject, and not give us an insight as to it's surroundings.
Think of bokeh as the bouquet(smell) of a flower/plant/wine/fruit... it can be to much, and it can be too strong or horrid, or pleasing, but it's always subjective, and I think the term was coined to differentiate between total blur(as you've showed in that sample), and the subtle hazing of a background with meaning. ie. How does it enhance the image.
both dtoh and JMTran both posted images of flowers where there is some structure to the background, and it's probably the (blurred :p) border of when to start assessing the quality of the bokeh in an image.
Arthur, just because a person added a 'h' to the end of the boke for his own benefit, it doesn't change the meaning of the word. i guess we can all have our own interpretation of what boke is, and we can even spell it incorrectly if we must, but it doesn't change the fact that if we like it (whatever it is we define as boke), we will try to reproduce it whenever the need or want arises. Some won't pay any attention to it and others will spend thousands of dollars to get it just as they want it.
Sorry Arthur, I'm with Slide on this one, i too think the difference between a shallow DOF and bokeh is that bokeh is the "next step" beyond a shallow DOF. In bird photography it is used to great effect to isolate the subject but still providing an environment where the subject is. To make my point I have included a shot I took recently. The front to me is a shallow DOF, allowing the subject a location, e.g. lying in the grass, however, to prevent the bird from disappearing into a busy background I made sure the background was a blurred (hazy) as possible giving it a creamy bokeh. But like you say, it's subjective, and I don't think we will ever get everyone agreeing to a specific definition that we can definitively say that is bokeh and that is just shallow DOF.
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/544313773_s9chf-XL.jpg
I mean, when it comes down to it, bokeh can't exist without a shallow DOF (in my opinion) so maybe as you say, it comes down to the viewer (or the guy smelling the wine) as to their taste and definition. Interesting thread Kym.
I mean, when it comes down to it, bokeh can't exist without a shallow DOF (in my opinion) so maybe as you say, it comes down to the viewer (or the guy smelling the wine) as to their taste and definition. Interesting thread Kym.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3386/3430646977_d1b8378731_o.jpg
I disagree.
Ive always considered Bokeh as just a shallow DOF that has some kind of pleasing effect to the eye pattern wise in the background ...
Will have to look out some of my shots for examples that suit what I think it is :)
Crikey! How far off the planet can a discussion go?
Bokeh is an English word, with a perfectly simple English meaning. It is the quality of the out of focus part of an image. It is not the amount of blur, it is the quality of the blur.
Like most other English words, it is derived from a foreign-language word. English is made up out of a huge assortment of similarly borrowed foreign words, especial from French, Latin, and German, but also from dozens, probably hundreds, of other languages.
It is commonplace for adopted English words to drift away from their original foreign-language meaning, and equally common for the opposite to occur - the foreign-language meaning changes, leaving the borrowed English meaning the same as the meaning the foreign-language word had hundreds of years ago in France or Germany or wherever it came from. The meaning of a word in English is the meaning the word has in English. The meaning the word once had, or now has in a foreign language is irellevant.
In English, the meaning of Bokeh is perfectly clear: it is the quality of the out of focus part of the image. Nothing more, nothing less.
Read more here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-04-04.shtml or here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml
milspec
24-05-2009, 4:17pm
While I appreciate the lesson in linguistics ;) I would like to mention that I found this topic quite interesting. Thanks :)
Crikey! How far off the planet can a discussion go?
Huh? This is AP - //lel universes are the norm ;) :rolleyes:
<snip>In English, the meaning of Bokeh is perfectly clear: it is the quality of the out of focus part of the image. Nothing more, nothing less.
Absolutely Bokeh is a term that is subjective.
But also there seems to be a common understanding of what Bokeh is and is not (its not just shallow DoF OOF bits).
Maybe we should be concentrating of what makes good Bokeh (aesthetically pleasing Bokeh if you will).
Milspec, it's a bit like that scene from the Discworld. Igor and friends are in a seedy bar. Apropos of nothing in particular, Igor says:
"This beer tastes of horse piss."
The big, ugly barman gets nasty, Igor's friends rally around and a big blue ensues: Igor just sits there while the fight goes on. After the dust settles and the bar quietens down again, Igor says, plaintively:
"I didn't say I didn't like it."
Most interesting thread indeed. :th3:
Some beaut examples of pleasing and not so pleasing backgrounds and it seems to be very much a subjective matter according to the viewers tastes.
The one question that hangs in my mind is how many photographs are actually taken with the background rendition in mind?
Or are 90% of the pleasing "bokeh" laden photos we see just a coincidence of the subject matter at the time, lens quality, aperture, focal length and lens to subject distance?
Would the photo that someone regards as having a great "bokeh" be considered as ruined if it were taken 1, 1/2 or 1/3 stop faster / slower?
It really is a bit like visiting the Australian National Gallery, I looked at a collection of works by one very prominent artist and there wasn't a single one that didn't make me shudder but obviously I just don't get it because our taxes had paid millions to acquire those works.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
In English, the meaning of Bokeh is perfectly clear: it is the quality of the out of focus part of the image. Nothing more, nothing less.
that's my understanding of the word :food04:
arthurking83
24-05-2009, 5:22pm
Personally I use the term Bokeh(as Tannin says it's not Japanese we are referring too, it's purely photographic terminology, and derived from a Japanese term) but we are free to interpret it in our own manner or as we see fit.
(I think it's usually best to keep it's meaning and spelling as constant as possible so we can each relate to it in the same way, but there is no expectation to do so.)
but for Alan's purposes, as well as Slide(and again the manner in which I use the term)
Each referenced definition has one common recurring theme(regardless of whether it's the quality of the blur or the blur itself we are trying to refer too) but they all use the meaning that it's the point light source, or quality of the point light sources we are trying to examine.. not just blur
eg.
... In out-of-focus areas, each point of light becomes a disc.
and
... visually we prefer smooth gradations and spherical out-of-focus highlights: this is good quality bokeh.
and from the wiki:
is a photographic term referring to the appearance of point of light sources in an out-of-focus area of an image
these are all quoted texts from Kyms links!
In the images with smooth creamy blur.... it's just that, smooth creamy blur.
And smooth creamy blur is only smooth creamy blur, not bokeh, as the point light sources have been completely obliterated! :D
If there are no point light sources, how do we attempt to describe bokeh, if bokeh is trying to describe point light sources? As there are no point light sources to deal with, it becomes an example of shallow DOF/subject isolation.
Alans image has bokeh, but it's in the foreground, not the background, that produces the point light sources.
Whether that bokeh is good or bad is dependent on your POV.
Point light sources can also blend into continuous lines and sometimes they form nervous looking lines, and other times they produce smooth looking lines, see JMT's and CypherOz's images to see how nervous those point light sources are drawn. not alwasy a bad thing, as they can just create an unusual looking background.. but blur is blur, and bokeh has definition.
Luminous landscapes webpage shows very clearly how good bokeh is formed, and that's usually endemic to the lens all the way through the lenses variable settings(eg. the Nikon 105VR).
many times an image is commended on it's bokeh(good bokeh, creamy bokeh..), and you'll usually find the repeated pattern that the lens itself produces good bokeh, as opposed to the obliterating blur(in the background of Alans image) that any lens can produce(as long as it has the ability separate the subject from the background(eg. the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 which has bad bokeh!!).
Usually you'll find that if the lens renders (proper) point light sources as perfect circles but with the brighter outermost rings(as my Tammy 17-50 does) it can be prone to bad bokeh if the background is not watched carefully. Still does render nice bokeh, but it won't usually be regarded as creamy.
The main idea of bokeh is similar to things like MTF charts and stuff like that, they need to be understood in a certain manner to be useful. One of the things I love about good - excellent bokeh is that it gives me another element of consideration when I'm trying to decide on a new lens(certainly did that with the 105VR!.. over the 90Tammy).
I knwo of two lenses that try to deal with bokeh as a hardware solution(from Nikon and Sony) that change the way bokeh is rendered. I still have my eye on the Nikon 105 or 135 DC lenses, but it's a frivolous items and I can spend my money more effectively ATM. I'm not going to frivole (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=30977&page=2&highlight=frivole) yet(thanks Mrjorge for a new expression of insanity :D)
I just took a few samples with 4 of my 50mm lenses, and one reference image with the 105VR(as it's one of the legends of all time!).
(as LuminousLandscape examines on their bokeh webpage with a sense of scientificness I can't hope to reproduce), it shows how much nicer the 105VR can draw circles, in a uniformly lit manner, followed by the Sigma 50/1.4 then the Tammy 28-75, and finally the Nikon 50/1.2 and Tammy 17-50.
From that(knowledge) I have never thought about bokeh when I use the 105VR, as I know it will always render very nicely, and to a lesser degree with other lenses, but with trepidation with a few lenses too.
Problem is though, I'm currently stuck! My PC is cooking the CPU, crunching many billions of numbers trying to render a rather large GPS map. After nearly 24hours, non stop and overnight so far, it less than 1/7th of the way through the process! :eek: CPU has been at 100% all the while which means opening any Nikon NEF's atm is a futile effort in waiting.
And I really want this map! :D
I'll post the samples soon.
The main point to remember on the linguistics of the term is that it's not the Japanese term for haze or blur. For that you use the term boke. So to allay any confusion as to what we are trying to explain in photographic terms, I think bokeh, as coined by whoever did so, is more appropriate. Otherwise I'd be cringing at every bad attempt at derivative Greek words within the English vocabulary too!
The term photography itself is something I'd be cringing at, but as it's an Anglicised term derived from two Greek words, it's quite easy to accept (they being photos graphos ... light drawer/artist/painter.
how can the word boke or bokeh mean 'the quality of the oof area'? if i was to say that the canon 1.4/50mm lens produces boke, what does that tell me? it doesn't say if it is good, bad or otherwise. all it tells me is that it, like most any lens, can produce an out of focus area in a background or foreground. the fact that i need to accompany the word boke with a describing word/s tells me that the word boke is not in itself a term to describe quality...the word preceeding boke tells me that (distracting, pleasing, harsh et al). this means that boke can only be the oof area, nothing more. The chap that changed the spelling of boke did not intend to change the meaning of the word.
Bahh.
How can the word "height" mean 'the tallness of something"? If I was to say that you have height, what does that tell us? It doesn't say if you are tall or short or medium. All it tells us is that you, like any human, have some vertical dimension. The fact that I need to accompany the word "height" with a describing word/s tells me that the word "height" is not in itself a term to describe vertical size.
In short, "bokeh" is exactly like "height" (or a zillion other English words) - it is only useful in combination with other words to qualify or quantify it. Perfectly normal part of the language. Nothing to see here, move along please.
arthurking83
24-05-2009, 7:02pm
how can the word boke or bokeh mean 'the quality of the oof area'? if i was to say that the canon 1.4/50mm lens produces boke, what does that tell me? it doesn't say if it is good, bad or otherwise. ...
Exactly as Tony says, it's used to describe the quality of the OOF areas, and I've never heard anyone use the term as you describe here.. where lens ABC/123 has boke or bokeh, only that it has good/bad/creamy bokeh. That in itself is the key to fully appreciate that bokeh is describing the quality of blur... not just quality, but quality of blur(more to the point, point light sources of OOF areas)
so as per definition:
if bokeh = (quality of OOF area)
then:
**** + (quality OOF area) =
xxxx + (quality OOF area) =
(it's your choice to add whatever extra dimension to **** or xxxx)
creamy, good, bad, nervous....
... the fact that i need to accompany the word boke with a describing word/s tells me that the word boke is not in itself a term to describe quality...
I think it's exactly that reason why it is! As you are quantifying the quality, you have to define the quantity in words not amounts (because the words quality of precede the the word blur).
The term quality tells me nothing about it's description, just the part of the essence or characteristics of the noun.
What that means is, if you were to quantify the term boke, then you may have to add creamy quality boke, where with bokeh, you would alternatively comment that it's creamy bokeh.
Hence the importance of the definition of bokeh as the quality of the OOF area.
By your previous definition that it's taken to mean only blur or haze or whatever, so when you see that smoothed out blur as in the background of Alann's image, well in your definition it has lots of blur(lots of boke) but it has nil Bokeh(in the same area) as you're trying to describe the quality of it.
ie. lots of, or 90% quality of blur doesn't make sense, whereas good quality blur does.(good being the descriptor(or adjective) of the characteristic)
.... The chap that changed the spelling of boke did not intend to change the meaning of the word....
maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but as it stands in photographic circles bokeh(not boke) is used to describe the quality of the OOF area, where the confusion in simply using boke is that you can also quantify the amount of blur.
hope that makes sense??
summary:
"lots of good boke"(makes sense), as does "good quality boke", or even "creamy boke".
The issue with using the term creamy with boke, is that you are literally describing the consistency or type of, rather than the parallel of smoothness of quality, because you haven't used the descriptors correctly to describe creamy quality boke. (bokeh has that inbuilt by default)
"creamy bokeh", or "nice bokeh", both make sense. But "lots of "good, creamy 90% bokeh" doesn't! :D
the term quality always needs an adjective to define what type of characteristic is being described.. it's either good or bad, or somewhere in between
I have both good knives and good quality knives.
The good knives are usually sharp when new, but may blunt easily when cutting fingers!
So they may really be bad quality knives, just that they feel good at the moment
(they are almost invariably bad quality knives, as I can only cut my fingers once and that's usually about it).
The good quality knives will always cut fingers, regardless of usage! :action3:
MarkChap
24-05-2009, 7:08pm
Well for me, if your image is sharp from front to back, it has NO bokeh, if through the use of DoF you have an out of focus area in your image you then HAVE bokeh, whether it is pleasing to a viewer or not then becomes subjective.
Look at the bokeh produced by a mirror lens, lots of little doughnuts representing the out of focus area achieved by the use of DoF, it is still bokeh but is it pleasing ??
well i disagree arthur, but no harm done. i am not sure where you get your definition of 'bokeh' from arthur, as it is not really a photographic term in the traditional sense. i guess that means that nothing is set in stone, and we will continue to share different views that will not affect our photography. we'll have to agree to disagree as they say. :food04:
arthurking83
24-05-2009, 7:28pm
....
Look at the bokeh produced by a mirror lens, lots of little doughnuts representing the out of focus area achieved by the use of DoF, it is still bokeh but is it pleasing ??
I'm not saying nuffin! :D
as for the definition of bokeh, it's in CypherOz's links in one of his posts to dictionaries, wiki, idigitalphoto.com(whatever that is??), etc.
Luminous landscape, et al.. all have the same description.
The Japanese apparently refer to the quality of the out-of-focus image as "boke". What is boke, and why are lenses different from one another?
... taken straight from the first paragraph in Tonys second LL bokeh link.
I'll go with: "that bokeh is understandably the beauty of the light in the OOF area". Few of us, if any have an understanding of the Japanese word boke enough to realise it's true meaning in relation to refracted light.
Having creamy or mesmerizing OOF regions is not enough, beautiful bokeh must actually add to the image composition. Bokeh is essentially OOF in in most pleasing situations may still have has good detail.
Humps n Bumps
24-05-2009, 10:30pm
When I started reading this thread, I was confused.... now I'm even more confused and I have a headache. So many varying opinions, and I'm still none the wiser. :)
I was advised by I@M to put this photo up as an example of bokeh/boke.
Nice snake HnB :th3: but even more interesting is the fact that there is another thread raging away about the merits of bokeh being the circularly lit out of focus background areas of a photo and your shot has it in bucketfuls.
I reckon you should link it into this thread as another example.
This photo was taken with a 7yr old p&s Nikon, on the macro setting. I have not done any editing other than to crop it down.
I'm putting up a second shot as well, same camera, same setting, because I think it fits in with the topic. By all means, CC away. ;)
#1
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/TheGrumpyGroup/BHPs/PPpic.jpg
#2
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/TheGrumpyGroup/Dragons/DSCN6240.jpg
jjphoto
25-05-2009, 8:41am
AS others have said, bokeh is about the quality of the OOF areas and this is of course subjective too. It has nothing to do with quantity. Quantity comes from shallow depth of field. Quality comes from optical design and the right combination of optical aberations. A lenses bokeh can vary with focus distance and aperture too. The bokeh can also vary accross the frame itself. Example here (http://www.redbubble.com/people/jjphoto/art/1037816-3-no-standing) (click on the image when it opens in a new window to see a larger version), look at how the lights on the Bolte Bridge are smooth and evenly illuminated in the centre of the frame but are squashed, bent doughnuts of light towards the corners.
A shallow depth of field may give you plenty of blur but if the blur is harsh/jagged, then you might describe the lens as having poor bokeh.
Some of the latest modern lenses can be so well corrected that their bokeh can some times be less attractive than their predecessors. The most notable examples of this are the M series lenses from Leica, specifically the ASPH (aspherical) lenses. These lenses are generally so sharp and well corrected that they have few if any peers, however, many Leica M stallwarts prefer the older non ASPH lenses because they can have a smoother bokeh!
JJ
This has been a great thread. I love smooth bokeh.
arthurking83
25-05-2009, 10:50pm
Yeah, me too, and really who doesn't!?
.... but I also like 'different' bokeh too!
http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs41/f/2009/006/8/8/tree_hugger_by_arthurking83.jpg
did someone mention mirror lens? :o
:D
This photo was taken with a 7yr old p&s Nikon, on the macro setting. I have not done any editing other than to crop it down.
I thought that shot fitted in well with the discussion.
It contains plenty of out of focus background, quite a few of circles formed with light etc.
It seems to fit the definition of bokeh ( whether it is good, bad or indifferent is really in the viewers eyes I guess ) and I thought that with the roundish snake scales it fitted quite well.
I was looking at the shot thinking "are they donuts I see". Very nice quite a good shot very little donutting did you blur them in PP?
arthurking83
26-05-2009, 7:18am
Not in this case.
Generally I do blur them out, if they look too horrid and they're not adding anything to the overall scene, but in this case it's an attempt to make it look 'other worldly' or 'prehsitoric' something like that.
I've seen some nice portraits taken with a mirror lens too, where the doughnuts add another dimension to the overall look of the image.
As as I've already said, the reason I wouldn't classify a totally smoothed out background as bokeh, is because it's not actually showing us anything about the background, nor the quality of the lens, hence it's just good subject isolation.
Even the mirror lens can do that.
Now I wouldn't have a clue about this bokeh or dof
the green background is grass.
Dylan & Marianne
27-05-2009, 9:31am
very interesting read - I didn't think it would turn out to be a discussion of linguistics :)
I think I'm going to stick with keeping it simple for myself.
For me, DOF /blur / Bokeh, leadin lines, lighting, motion blur, negative space, vignette etc done to varying degrees are all tools to draw the eye to a subject without being redundant in the image itself.
I hope this post doesn't generate any controversy lol
Make your own Bokeh !!
http://www.diyphotography.net/diy_create_your_own_bokeh
:rolleyes: :D :p
Sports Bokeh
http://www.peakactionimages.com/gallery/main.php/d/91676-2/RVC_6159.jpg
http://www.peakactionimages.com/gallery/main.php/d/97848-2/APL_0812.jpg
http://www.peakactionimages.com/gallery/main.php/d/97994-2/APL_1166.jpg
http://www.peakactionimages.com/gallery/main.php/d/86245-2/S14_9722.jpg
shaped bokeh is fun!
i'm with AK83 in that bokeh describes quality, and you need point light sources. without point light sources to take shape from passage through the lens, i feel it's just OOF areas.
I gave up trying to make sense of bokeh
First issue is that sometimes you can have a lot of background diffusion, but technically bad bokeh. e.g. the 85 f/1.2 lens gets its oof highlights chopped off by mirror box clipping. Is it bad or good? Looks nice, but not as nice as the perflectly round ellipses imo
http://dawei.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p1013744486-3.jpg
Bokeh is so subjective it's hard to really judge, especially because it's impossible to control for factors like DOF and perspective when comparing lens bokeh.
e.g. It's generally regarded that the 85L has better bokeh than the 35L. Does it?
http://dawei.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p71236181-2.jpg
http://dawei.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p99673289-2.jpg
I think the 35L shot looks more pleasing, but is it because of better bokeh? or because the OOF highlights are more round? Or because the f/1.2 shot is too OOF? Or is it because the perspective of the 35L shot is more favourable? Who knows?
It's near impossible to evaluate JUST bokeh.
As as I've already said, the reason I wouldn't classify a totally smoothed out background as bokeh, is because it's not actually showing us anything about the background, nor the quality of the lens, hence it's just good subject isolation.
so in situations such as this Arthur, I would call that 'indistinct or plain boke' as opposed to good or bad boke, but as 'boke' refers to the out of focus area, it is boke nonetheless. you could also describe a 'slight' boke or a 'light' boke in other situations.
pollen, to me at least, the shot of the 85mm above is not as pleasing as the 35mm. i'd take that 85mm back for a refund :)
At least to me, Boke/h just refers to how a lens renders the out of focus portion of an image. Therefore they are intimately related and more or less describing the same thing and hence I woudn't classify any pic as bokeh vs shallow dof.
A shallow depth of field image usually has out of focus areas (unless it is of a flat object) and that area however nice, creamy, smooth, ugly, having shape,form/no shape or form, having highlights/no highlights etc. is still the boke/h. Just add a descriptive word in front of the word to say something about that out of focus area.
Below are two abstract images comprising of only bokeh or out of focus things.
Since both images have no part in focus, I don't think you could say one has shallower dof than the other. They differ only in how the lens renders this out of focus area and I can say eg. I like the bokeh of the top one cos its smoother/creamier or I like the bottom one cos it has more shapes and forms or whatever.
brindyman
07-08-2009, 3:36pm
i think in JMT's if the #2 was creamy boka it wouldnt fit the scene as well so i think in that sense its carried out very well :)
I've always understoood the meaning of bokeh as the 'quality' of the oof areas of the photo, whether in the background or foreground. The quality of the bokeh in photos can be subjective but the meaning of the word 'bokeh' is not.
When reading discussions about this topic on different forums I've seen many people confuse bokeh with dof, and some think that the oof areas of the photo ARE bokeh but they're not, it's the how pleasing these oof areas are to look at. Hence the dof can be too shallow but you can't have too much bokeh.
Too me creamy backgrounds are nicer.
Omytion
14-04-2010, 2:44pm
I've always understoood the meaning of bokeh as the 'quality' of the oof areas of the photo, whether in the background or foreground. The quality of the bokeh in photos can be subjective but the meaning of the word 'bokeh' is not.
When reading discussions about this topic on different forums I've seen many people confuse bokeh with dof, and some think that the oof areas of the photo ARE bokeh but they're not, it's the how pleasing these oof areas are to look at. Hence the dof can be too shallow but you can't have too much bokeh.
Too me creamy backgrounds are nicer.
My understanding was that It's simply a noun, not an adjective. Areas that are oof in a photograph, whether by human error or intent, have a bokeh that is the result of the lenses and the aperture and can be described in terms of patterning and subjective quality.
Thus the word bokeh is used in a similar way to "shadow" or "highlight". You would describe the DoF as "shallow"/"deep"/etc and the bokeh as "nice"/"horrific"/"creamy"/whatever.
haha!!! you guys are funny! :D
just go and take some friggin photos. :p
oh and my take... bokeh is just the oof bg (or fg) area of a photo which is affected by dof (and other things)
example: bokeh created by depth of field, subject isolation from bg materials and aperture shape.
http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/vv203/davidwhall/th_DSC_7785bb.jpg (http://s684.photobucket.com/albums/vv203/davidwhall/?action=view¤t=DSC_7785bb.jpg)
To me, "bokeh" has always been those gorgeous orb patterns caused by light reflection/flare in the background of the image, not just necessary just the OOF part in general.
This is an interesting subject that comes up quite regularly and there are many different ideas on what is the "right" Bokeh.
OK, firstly, I'm not an expert by any means! But, here is what my take on it is.
In the first shot, while not technically a good shot by any means, it is what I reckon qualifies as reasonable, or good "bokeh" (I shot it for that reason).
Then in the second shot it is what I would term simply an out of focus background.
http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/ac352/LJG_photo/LJG%20AP%20album/Bokeh.jpg
http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/ac352/LJG_photo/LJG%20AP%20album/OOF.jpg
As I said, I'm by no means an expert (or a drip under pressure as some would say haha)
and those are just my thoughts on it.
Omytion
15-04-2010, 2:25pm
"Those gorgeous orb patterns" are how you're describing the bokeh. In another shot with a different lens you may describe the bokeh in terms of "nasty angular orbs" or "chopped up".
Good bokeh is generally taken to be a smooth, unchoppy blur. But whatever the effects manifested, be they choppy, creamy or full of nougat goodness, they are the result of the aperture blades, the lenses and the chosen DOF acting on the lighting and hue contrasts in the area out of focus.
Just because there aren't lovely sparkly magical effects visible doesn't mean there is no bokeh, it just means the bokeh has no interesting characteristics.
Here is a link to a very interesting read on the subject. It is very long and technical but interesting. It will clarify a lot and some of us are probably off the mark with what we thought haha
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_35_Bokeh_EN/$File/CLN35_Bokeh_en.pdf
arthurking83
16-04-2010, 7:00am
They would both be classified as good bokeh, but I suspect that #2 would be very good bokeh.
The semi circular highlights in #1 let it down a little, as the highlights should always be rendered in a circular shape to be considered into the very good-excellent category.
An OOF background will be one where there is no detail in it to distinguish what it consists of, whereas in #2 you can clearly distinguish the rocks, even though they are blurred heavily.
DonUnder
02-06-2010, 2:25pm
Maybe we should be concentrating of what makes good Bokeh (aesthetically pleasing Bokeh if you will).
I con't think there can really be any answer to that particular question as it's down to preference and the role the bokeh plays in any given photo.
I con't think there can really be any answer to that particular question as it's down to preference and the role the bokeh plays in any given photo.
Any photo that you take is subject to the viewers 'preference', some may like a creamy blurred background, others may like more depth of field and sharper detail, but, as a photographer, your tastes often dictate the way you portray a person, scene or event.
Being as this is the new to photography forum, the original post is designed to create awareness in newcomers to the 'sport' as to how that elusive bokeh (spell it as you prefer:D) actually happens.
Many people take a photo and give little consideration as to how the final image will look with regard to the background and 'bokeh' especially when they are new to the 'sport'. Having once learned what depth of field is and having gained a knowledge of how and when to apply that depth (or lack of it) to a photo they then can set out to use that quality in their photos.
Many people have taken a photo that displays all the hallmarks of 'good bokeh' totally by accident and have wondered from that day on as to why they can't repeat the experience, presenting thoughts on it in a thread like this raises awareness of how the 'good bokeh' comes about and from that people look and think more about how they compose an image.
colemansmithadam
05-09-2010, 10:41am
Wow, my head. Very interesting but got bored of the linguistics battle.
I agree with those who said it's all in the eye of the beholder, many things come into play, it all depends on how you, the person behind the lens decides to compose the shot, did you want to keep an element of where the subject is or do you want your subject to jump out like the seagul shot. It's all relative.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.