R
roguewave
Guest
Doug is correct. The out of focus area is the technical term, but it's not always relegated to supporting a central character. It can tell it's own story, sometimes in a more intriguing or discrete fashion.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Interesting Thread!What does bokeh mean to me?
Someone needs to counter the sentimental mainstream of this thread, I'd rather it was someone else but here goes. Bokeh means [to me] out of focus; and casually conceived photographic images telling me what the lens thinks when I really want to see what the photographer thinks. I tend to associate 'bokeh' photography with ordinariness and lightweight imagery which does not sustain my attention. I make a distinction between the necessity of shooting wide open in poor light when the photographer has no option but to accept what wide open apertures bring, and the obsessive wide aperture photography with fast shutter speeds which seems to be prevalent in forums.
When I think of the photographs which I would consider masterpieces of the medium, I cannot recall one image which would be represented in a 'bokeh' thread such as this. It is those masterpieces which inspire me, not out of focus rendering of light ideas. Sorry folks, the bokeh mainstream is not for me.
................ Chris
Michiel that is a poetic thought, I like the idea of it being "as looking through tears".Interesting Thread!
Well, if you think of out of focus bokeh as looking through tears, you can consider it as sentimental, although not all tears are due to sentimental reasons. What's wrong with sentiments anyway?
Michiel - I don't, and to play with your allusion - the world seen through my tears looks like crap and not like anything meriting a photograph. I think of most 'bokeh' examples as formulaic, sometimes lazy, and simplistic photography. Where you appear to see poetic creation, I tend to see uninteresting repetitions of a very worn path. Has a masterpiece of the medium ever been made in daylight with a Noctilux?... if you think of out of focus bokeh as looking through tears....
Still one of my favorites of yours Peter :thumbup:
M7 75 lux - quality of OOF renditon is nmy definition - subject matter and true focal point must POP as well as before and after gradation out of focus must be gentle and pleasing - like a soft kiss.
Chris, perhaps you are confusing content with technique? Bokeh often presents itself in sentimental close ups of smaller objects like flowers and pets because that's what gets shot a lot ... and if that's what people want to shoot, it's their choice. But mixing up the two may be "diffusing" the subject at hand.Michiel - I don't, and to play with your allusion - the world seen through my tears looks like crap and not like anything meriting a photograph. I think of most 'bokeh' examples as formulaic, sometimes lazy, and simplistic photography. Where you appear to see poetic creation, I tend to see uninteresting repetitions of a very worn path. Has a masterpiece of the medium ever been made in daylight with a Noctilux?
.............. Chris
Marc - I'm pretty sure I'm not confused [though un-confused enough to know that a confused person would say that]. Many of the images I have seen in bokeh threads are indeed unconvincing amalgams of content and technique, often appearing that the photographer has 'switched off' and left it to their lens' wide-open effects to bail out their image. I really do want to see what photographers can do when 'switched on', in which case just about any technique can be used for great photography.Chris, perhaps you are confusing content with technique?......
That particular novelty has worn very thin.As to the Notcilux comment ... why would anyone use a lens made for the dark in bright light (except for the novelty of doing so) when a Cron would work better?
Yes, I think you are missing something ... the quality of the OOF areas. A pile of slithering damp worms in the background ... or something that looks like a shot of fuzzy bacteria on a microscope slide isn't all that desireable.I'm not sure I completely understand the current use of the term bokeh.
I thought it was a description of the nature of how a lens renders the oof areas in an image. More of a technical artifact than an artistic choice. If I were to imagine a decision-making process in my head about an approach to a specific shot, I wouldn't say "I want that whole area to be bokeh." Rather, I would say, I want that whole area to be out of focus (to whatever degree seems appropriate)."
In-focus and out-of-focus are the only two states one can achieve through the settings of a camera/lens combo. And those states are present in every photograph ever taken, by amateurs and masters alike. How those two states are rendered are (for the most part) lens-specific. Hence all the discussion about specific lenses that do one or the other very well.
Have I missed something?
Who's the arbitrator of "great" ... you?Marc - I'm pretty sure I'm not confused [though un-confused enough to know that a confused person would say that]. Many of the images I have seen in bokeh threads are indeed unconvincing amalgams of content and technique, often appearing that the photographer has 'switched off' and left it to their lens' wide-open effects to bail out their image. I really do want to see what photographers can do when 'switched on', in which case just about any technique can be used for great photography.
That particular novelty has worn very thin.
................ Chris
Again, I think "Bokeh" has become the term for the relative quality of OOF areas ... for lack of a better term. There is OOF wormy and OOF smoothy ... "Bokeh" ususally designates this ... as in ... "That Bokeh is awful", or "That Bokeh is sweet!"Thanks LJL, that was pretty much what I thought. Maybe I need another cup of coffee or another read through the whole thread, but I was beginning to think that folks were substituting bokeh for focus.
On a more personal note, while I absolutely love the stuff, I'm sorry the word bokeh has become so popular. I think we may be stuck with it. I felt a real relief when prints made by ink jet printers began to be called just that, instead of the weirdly pretentious "giclee" prints.
Please ignore any of this if you find it irritating, it's been hot and humid for a week and I'm lapsing into "old curmudgeon" mode.
Actually, I do understand that. To quote from my first post: "...How those two states are rendered are (for the most part) lens-specific. Hence all the discussion about specific lenses that do one or the other very well. I probably could have been more clear.Yes, I think you are missing something ... the quality of the OOF areas. A pile of slithering damp worms in the background ... or something that looks like a shot of fuzzy bacteria on a microscope slide isn't all that desireable.