The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

What does "Bokeh" mean to YOU?

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.


 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
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
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? They appear in

Overall razorsharp images are the trend and mainstream as far as I can see.
I do like razor sharp images with endless DOF but why be so severe about some vague areas in a picture, and the beauty it can produce and the functionality it can have to make a subject stand out?
Eduard J. Steichen and Alfred Stieglitz were masters in it.
May be out of technical necessaty of the time, but it worked.
Today an artist as Gerhard Richter makes portrait photographs and paintings which are full of smooth bokeh. They don't look sentimental to me, but intriqueing. He must be an artist and no photographer.

As if light merely exists to present us the facts.
Did you ever see the tales on the wall in twilight?

Best regards, michiel
 

gero

New member
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 that is a poetic thought, I like the idea of it being "as looking through tears".

I like "move on" in your site
 
Last edited:

Chris C

Member
... if you think of out of focus bokeh as looking through tears....
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
 

fotografz

Well-known member


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.
Still one of my favorites of yours Peter :thumbup:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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
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.

While Bokeh is easier to describe in poetic terms, in actuality it is mimicking the nature of how the eye and brain work (i.e., scientific observation rather than artistic). As you stare at this posting on screen, what is behind your computer is not the "focus" of your brain ... it is there, but a fuzzy comprehension of it. To see it clearly, you would have to shift the eye/brain focus to it .... and then eye/brain then can't "read" the screen anymore.

IMO, the more that a lens mimics the nature of how we see, the better the Bokeh. All others then are "artistic" deviations from this ... which is also the users choice as a compositional or perceptual tool to convey ideas or personal perceptions.

Peter A's excellent portrait uses controlled out-of-focus to make you look at the woman's face or more specifically her eyes. It's a tool of "looking".

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? The Nocti is a lower contrast specialty lens designed to suppress night time specular highlight and flare, while seeing into the murky shadows ... thus the name "Nocti".

Here is my "sentimental" contribution to this Bokeh thread done with the superb Canon 85/1.2 @ f/1.2. It is a pure candid where I maneuvered to place the out of focus highlight in the background to continue the wave like flow of the woman's veil/hat. ;)
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
Here are some additional samples of Bokeh I like ... I felt compelled to search out kids, and pets ... :ROTFL:

Girl with strawberry (disaster about to happen?) ... done with a HC/100/2.2. Just enough Bokeh background to give it a sense of place.

Cowboy with his horse and dog ... with a H/C 150/3.2... this was for a commercial shoot, and the slicker he was wearing was the product. Soft OOF rendering of background lighting rather than sharp busy detail that could distract from the product. Creates a sense of multi-layered depth.

B&W of a guy with his dog done with an old time rock 'n roll M 90/2.8 (still one of my favorite M lenses) showing both front and back OOF areas to help drive the eye to the subject.

-Marc
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
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?
 

LJL

New member
Tim,
It is more about the character of that out of focus area in the image. Some renderings are smooth and soft, others may be more contrasty and harsh looking or holding angular edges. The design and characteristics of the lens has a lot to do with how it renders that out of focus area. For example, I love how my Zeiss 25/2.8 handles the in-focus areas when shooting on my M8, but I find the out of focus areas too contrasty, with too many angular edges and forms. The Noctilux, on the other hand, renders that out of focus area much more softly....almost too soft at times....and that creates a very different kind of separation between in focus subject and out of focus background. The less softened or smoothed background can at time be more distracting to the viewer, depending on the total composition.

I do look at the backgrounds that will appear in things that I shoot, and I try to think about what they may look like in the final image. If very distracting, I then try to shoot more wide open, if possible, to soften that distraction, rather than call attention to it.

LJ
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
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. :eek:
 

Chris C

Member
Chris, perhaps you are confusing content with technique?......
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.

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?
That particular novelty has worn very thin.

................ Chris
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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?
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. :D
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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
Who's the arbitrator of "great" ... you?

It's been eons since I've seen a Nocti shot of a noon beach scene. I guess the novelity HAS worn thin.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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. :eek:
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!"

Why not come up with a term of your own?
 

gero

New member
I think it is more than that. It is a first attempt at objectifying everything els that is not in focus in an image. It is a poor 1st try to understand IT, and the relationship to what is "looked at".
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
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. :D
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.

As for an alternative term, I'll have to think about that. But simply describing the out-of-focus areas as being pleasing or not pleasing seems pretty straightforward. Although, "slithering damp worms" does have its appeal.
 
C

ChrisJ

Guest
The word 'Bokeh' has subtle meanings in Japanese. Back in the 1980's I asked my Japanese pen pal to research bokeh as the UK photo mags were just catching up on it.

She went back to a letter printed in a Japanese magazine from the early 1970's from an Art studio in Tokyo bemoaning the fact that modern lenses are too precise and tend to have bad bokeh, they were having to revert to turn of the century doublets and triplets lenses on their full frame plate cameras to get what they termed as good rendition of the OOF parts of their Art images.

She also added that the word 'bokeh' usually has the connotation of blurry thinking i.e. an idiot. It is also a chant used in Japanese school playgrounds where they point at some unfortunate individual and shout 'bokeh, bokeh, bokeh' at them so it has connotations of childishness too.

She finished by saying that the consensus after a year or so was that the OOF parts should have no discernable shape and be as close as possible to a wet in wet watercolour. That's where the Japanese magazines left it, it wasn't till a decade or so later that the Western World magazines cottoned onto it and the discussion has raged since then.

In the original letter the word bokeh wasn't used, probably for the above reasons, it was only people who replied to the original letter that used the term as a derogatory remark implying they were chasing the rainbow and only childish idiots do that.

This explains why if you mention the word bokeh to a Japanese photographer He/She will just smile knowingly.

Chris
 
Top