Mark, I don't find the bokeh of the posted shot particularly pleasing. It just seems a bit harsh to me. Maybe there's just too much OOF area relative to the sharp foreground subject (which looks superb). I like my bokeh more like that shown in the attached shot of my daughter (which I've posted before). Obviously, what's in the OOF background area affects the look significantly. I've found these kinds of leaves pleasing to my eye and frequently set up my shot to use them. Perhaps some will find the darker areas in this example distracting but they don't bother me.
I'd have to agree that I am not a fan of the type of what I like to call "In Between Bokeh" in Mark K's shot.
However I'd have to also say that the Bokeh behind your lovely daughter looks fake to my eye David ... like an airbrush rendering of plants rather than subtile reality.
I think it serves to illustrate the degree of subjectivity involved with all this, and how we form our individual preferences ... because it is science in the service of ART.
Personally, many of my own preferences were formed less from a system of optics and more from specific lenses from various systems including 35mm optics known for their OOF properties: Contax C/Y 55/1.2 85/1.2 & 135/2, Contax 645: 55/3.5, 80/2, 120/4, 150/2.8, 350/4 ... Leica Pre-ASPH M35s, 50/1.4, Noctilux, 75/1.4, Leica R 35/1.4, 80/1.4, 180/2 ... all of the 200 series lenses especially the 110/2FE, 250FE and 350FE ... H/C 100/2.2, 300/4.5 and 150/3.2 with the 1.4X, 300/4.5 ... Canon 85/1.2, 135/2, 200/1.8 and 300/2.8 ... Nikon 28/1.4 at certain distances, 85/1.4 and happily the new 200/2VR ... and I'm still playing with some of the ZF optics on the Nikon to determine preferences.
Contrasted to that are some of the worst optics I've experienced for OOF areas: the Contax/Zeiss 50/1.4 (God awful), and some longer Nikon lenses which turned any foliage background into a double lined can of worms.
A few random OOF examples plucked from the Drobo that are from various optical choices: