Bokeh is dead - Long live SOFA! [Archive]

Pherdinand

04-26-2005, 05:14

We all use the word Bokeh from time to time. We all think we know what it means, but in fact i personally only have a vague definition for it, not to speak about the original Japanese meaning. So why force such an ugly word into our thesaurus?

Ruben Blaedel invented a much better one: SOFA. Let me quote him:
"I have renamed Bokeh to SOFA - A sofa should be soft and comfortable and Soft Off-Focus Areas or Silky Off Focus Areas gives more meaning to me than Bokeh :-)"

So answer this poll please, based on your true feelings for the Bokeh and this new acronym, SOFA.

Pherdinand

04-26-2005, 05:48

Hmm. Why does this thread not show up between the 'active today' ones???

Nikon Bob

04-26-2005, 06:57

I went with who cares. Most of the public would not comment on that particular quality of a photo so does it really matter if it is generally not noticeable to most people? It is a good subject for "experts' to argue over as it is a subjective opinion that is expressed.

Bob

Pherdinand

04-26-2005, 07:57

Hmm. While i agree that most of the public won't comment on it, it does not mean that it has zero contribution to the general oppinion about an image. Most people don't realize neither care about why they like or dislike an image; this includes simpler things like "blown out highlights" too.
Of course, the whole poll is a bit sarcastic, not very serious from my part. I find it laughable when photographers have serious fights about the value of bokeh oops i mean SOFA in images. It's okay to discuss it but it should be somewhat subjective.

Nikon Bob

04-26-2005, 08:46

Yeah. it is laughable to have to have serious fights over BOKEH/SOFA, but it is common. You can drive yourself nuts (and everyone else) striving for perfection or settle for good enough and just enjoy. There are more topics with graver consequences out there that justify getting your nicks in a knot over.

Bob

RUBENatHOME

04-26-2005, 09:29

now we are getting somewere :-)

Solinar

04-26-2005, 11:00

I voted for Bokeh, as it is an established term. Silky smooth out of focus areas has a nice ring to it, but I want to name my next dog, "Bokeh", just so I get stay practice with "good Bokeh", "Baddd Bokeh."

GeneW

04-26-2005, 12:31

When I saw the term 'bokeh' a few years back, I assumed, given the weakness of spelling on the Internet in general, that someone has mistyped 'bouquet' and that others were following suit. I liked the idea of a len's 'bouquet' -- like a fine wine. I was rather disappointed to discover 'bokeh' was a real word, albeit Japanese :rolleyes:

Maybe we should start telling people that it is generally pronounced as in the French 'bouquet' :D

Gene

thmk

04-26-2005, 12:42

I voted SOFA... sounds smoother than Bokeh.

laptoprob

04-26-2005, 13:33

SOFA! Something new, something to renew talking or thinking about. Not as abstract as B****. The problem is the Photog world knows the other word...

Rob.

Kin Lau

04-26-2005, 13:52

You have to move this _out_ of "Something completely different", otherwise it'll never show on the front screen.

As Jorge explained, the "Something completely different" forum is for non-photographic discussions, so the threads here don't show up on the Most Recent list.

jlw

04-26-2005, 15:47

jan normandale

04-26-2005, 18:39

Hi Pherdinand

My dad used to say 'soft focus' for his pix. I voted option 3 the only reason being "don't". I love being a rebel about small stuff. joke

Re ; the bokeh/sofa discussion , in the words of Sam Goldwyn of MGM, 'include me out'

Jan

Krasnaya_Zvezda

04-26-2005, 19:29

Pherdinand

04-27-2005, 02:42

RML

04-27-2005, 02:51

Bouquet is also a nice word... and has an ever better ring to it than SOFA (which, to be fair, now starts to sound like a venereal desease :p ). Plus, "bouquet" would cover the topic pretty neatly.

So, another poll to decide whether SOFA's gonna become "bouquet"?
And perhaps in a couple fo weeks time we can have a poll to change "bouquet" into "(b)okay"? :p

Socke

04-27-2005, 02:58

Bokeh is only important to people who need an argurment for their use of Leica glas instead of every other manufacturers glass.

The "lesson in bokeh" over at PN comes to mind which is IMHO more a lesson in not to use Canon E-TTL and why one should read the EOS flash guide :-)

berci

04-27-2005, 03:05

Down with BOKEH, it does not make sense unlike SOFA, which does. #:-]
The coolness factor of BOKEH is 0.
SOFA's coolness factor is at lest 1.

Pherdinand

04-27-2005, 03:07

:) i never used a Leica glass... is that why my bokeh sucks?

You know what's really stupid? A few days ago i tried to check the SOFA of my own eye. No joke. It was in the evening after an intensive lubrication of my throat with focusing fluid so that could have been the trigger, but you know in the evening the pupil is wide open and it's easy to focus in front of the object and then you can just check. I have to say my eyelenses' SOFA is not very pleasant, but i can't describe what's the problem with it. Might also be a personal thing.

Stu :)

04-27-2005, 03:27

Bokeh is just not Leica glass, Zeiss as well. And Black & White Photography has started including it in it's lens tests, example being the last copy I saw with CV's new 35mm/1.2 on test.

I like the term Bokeh, sounds like a proper camera term.
SOFA Just sounds, well... for lack of decent words; girly.

Stu :)

PS. I voted for the third option.

jmilkins

04-27-2005, 03:56

I voted "ichi". If the Japanse came up with the concept , or at least first tried to describe it, they should get to name it. And us Western cultural imperialists should settle back into the sofa and enjoy the images produced....!

All meant of course with a friendly ;) and no intent to insult anyone!

Roger Hicks

04-27-2005, 05:35

Sofa, so good...

Genie Andersen says of her comments on bokeh in B+W that it's not something she's very sensitive too (I'm not either) but it was probably just about worth mentioning.

You'll find it's also mentioned in Frances Schultz's test of the 75/2 Summicron in the same magazine in a couple of months' time. We (Frances is my wife) are sending the article out in a few days...

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

FrankS

04-27-2005, 05:51

This reminds me of a children's book called "Frindle". I like the idea of trying to influence the photographic community by introducing a new word. If it takes hold, we, and especially Ruben, can take credit for it.

Mike Richards

04-27-2005, 05:59

SOFA = Status of Forces Agreement, a NATO acronym. It's already taken. I vote for bokeh.

tom_f77

04-27-2005, 06:01

I think it has to be sofa. That way we can all tell people to sit on it whether we believe in it or not. You can't really do that with bokeh...

A few days ago i tried to check the SOFA of my own eye. No joke. It was in the evening after an intensive lubrication of my throat with focusing fluid so that could have been the trigger, but you know in the evening the pupil is wide open and it's easy to focus in front of the object and then you can just check. I have to say my eyelenses' SOFA is not very pleasant, but i can't describe what's the problem with it. Might also be a personal thing.

I hope you performed this experiment with one eye only, otherwise it's hard to avoid double-line bokeh that makes the wiriest zoom look like a well worn leather three seater :)

Tom

andrewch

04-27-2005, 06:17

I voted for SOFA. Bokeh sounds angular, while Sofa sounds soft and rounded. ;)

JoeFriday

04-27-2005, 06:29

I don't get it.. what's wrong with 'bokeh'? it's an easily identifiable word and upon seeing it, the reader knows instantly what it refers to.. either that, or s/he instantly knows that s/he doesn't know what it is, but can look it up very quickly and get an answer

imagine being someone new to photography and wondering why everyone is referring to furniture.. and then trying to google "SOFA".. you'd get about 18 million responses.. 12 of which would have something to do with lenses

and I agree with Stu.. bokeh sounds technical, which it is.. SOFA sounds... girly

cbass

04-27-2005, 06:46

This forum has already made significant contribution to photographic lexicon: the notorious "GAS"; which can be used as a noun or a verb - very cool.

Now, can someone please come up with a snappy term for "paralyzed by the decision over which camera gear to pack for a trip"?

Thank you.

JoeFriday

04-27-2005, 07:24

DANG... Decision About Necessary Gear?

snaggs

04-27-2005, 07:31

Personally, I like "Bokeh", its a nice word which sounds ot of focus, and given the fact that it originated in Japan, I think its a bit arrogant to reject it since its Japanese. After all, we do expect the rest of the world to learn english (or at least American).

Lets embrace other cultures yeh? Or shall we find a new name for Lasagne too? Like MCNP, "meat cheese 'N' pasta".

Seele

04-27-2005, 07:47

Sorry for coming in late.

I prefer the use of the word "bokeh" as it describes something that existing words in the english language cannot
articulate successfully. Sure, it means the characteristics of out-of-focus blur, and it also includes the characteristics of how the imaging quality transitions from being in focus to out of focus.

The Japanese had developed a whole vocabulary to describe bokeh characteristics; I cannot see how "soft off-focus areas" or "silky off-focus areas" can encompass it.

BJ Bignell

04-27-2005, 08:03

I picked "Bokeh" because I like how people get all riled up when you use the word.

"It doesn't exist!"
"It does exist!"
"It doesn't matter!"
"It matters most!"

Always good for a laugh! :D

Pherdinand

04-27-2005, 08:30

BJ :D finally a well-based choice.

dphotoguy

04-27-2005, 08:39

SolaresLarrave

04-27-2005, 08:44

I like SOFA, but never sit on mine. Can I still use BOKEH?

Now... I like too what I said in one of Taffer's comments: the OOF zone.

Has a nicer ring to it. Like hit-in-the-stomach ring...

Will vote when I make my mind. That is later. Meanwhile, this thread is getting to be too much fun!

pareshpandit

04-27-2005, 09:02

bokeh!

why? coz that's what it started with; sofa is an attempt not an alternative...

btw, would u call a 'rangefinder' an 'overlapper' just coz it goes better to explain its unique characteristic for general public ?! :bang:
nooooo!...
so, there u go! :D...

PP

p.s.: btw, if u wanna know the turth, my mom cares for none! ;)

hoppinghippos

04-27-2005, 20:54

einolu

04-27-2005, 21:19

bokeh because it sounds/looks japanese, and because its impossible to pronounce.

mtokue

04-27-2005, 22:13

Yes "Bokeh" is Japanese, but, if you were to take a survey in Japan, I would imagine that less than 25% of people would associate the word/term with Photography letalone a quality to discribe/value Lenses.
The word/term "Bokeh" is most often used as a derogatory/negative comment about a person who is forgetful/negligent. ( sort of like the "dumb blond" :eek: kind of saying)
Although not solely intended for women :D .
ie: Hey Bokeh, or He's/She's is a Bokeh.
FWIW, "Bokehtelu" is when someone is acting in that manner, but you suspect that it is done on purpose. But could also be used to discribe a Photograph that is out of focus. (Not to discribe OOF areas)

Mike.

snaggs

04-27-2005, 22:31

Since its been repeatedly stated that everyone in Japan knows about Leica, Im sure they'd all know about Bokeh eh? :)

berci

04-28-2005, 00:03

Oh man! Overlapper! That's what we need.
www.overlapperforum.com A forum for overlapper photographers about the finest overlapper cameras. #:-]

RML

04-28-2005, 00:33

My overlapper doesn't provide any sofa.
And right now I'm having a gas attack for some mcnp. :p

RubenBlaedel

04-28-2005, 01:24

this has been fun indeed :-) x 1000 -
I will sit on my SOFA and enjoy a Coffee Table Bookeh on Photography !
cheers Ruben

GeneW

04-28-2005, 02:07

The word/term "Bokeh" is most often used as a derogatory/negative comment about a person who is forgetful/negligent. ( sort of like the "dumb blond" :eek: kind of saying)
Aha! So true bokeh is only achieved when you leave on the lens cap while shooting !! :D

Gene

RubenBlaedel

04-28-2005, 02:29

if good bokeh is more likely to be found on Leica glass perhaps the word shoul have a German sound to it - Zofa

Rocamadour

04-28-2005, 04:26

And right now I'm having a gas attack for some mcnp.
nonono! You cant use that word, its all proto-germanic, west-germanic and greek... doesn´t say anything about what a lasagne really is! :D

Interesting though, how people want to replace a word that they claim not to fully understand, against another which suddenly makes everything clear...

Huck Finn

04-28-2005, 05:16

SOFA is losing in the poll! Can I vote again? Here in America, our motto is: "Vote early, vote often."

RubenBlaedel

04-28-2005, 06:18

Boke means fuzziness or dizziness* talking about good dizziness is like talking about drugs or the feeling you have after a rollercoaster ride!

Even though the SOFA is LOL it does describe the term more precise it could be QOOFA - Quality OF OFF FOCUS AREAS - but Bokeh say's nothing exept for japaneese speaking people.

This year I was on a board that selected the years best danish book productions and I had to talk about bokeh to the rest of the board as several of the most imposant books llacked good bokeh - som were done with optics that made you seasick from looking at the off focus areas.

So what ever Bokeh should be called it should include "Quality" and "off/out of Focus"

* I have qoted some stuff below from
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

WHAT IS BOKEH ?

Bokeh describes the rendition of out-of-focus points of light.

It describes the appearance or "feel" of out-of-focus backgrounds and foregrounds.

Differing amounts of spherical aberration alter how lenses render out-of-focus points of light, and thus their bokeh. The word "bokeh" comes from the Japanese word "boke" (pronounced bo-keh) which literally means fuzziness or dizziness.

cheers Ruben

dnk512

04-28-2005, 06:42

You do no like "bokeh"? Hah! Then try "chiaroscuro":

http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/c/chiaroscuro.html

Sorry, but I learn to LOVE bokeh. The term seems bad/hard/stupid when I first came across it. Even the concept did not mean much back then. But now, almost all my (artistic?) pictures have well chosen out of focus elements. Many times such out of focus areas occupy most of the frame. I agree with the comment before (Pherdinand), People never "comment" on bokeh, but it is included in what makes them like a picture.

Lately I do not use lenses with bad bokeh -OR- I use them under controlled situations (almost all lenses are capable of good bokeh for some combination of distance, lighting, aperture, subject).

Rocamadour

04-28-2005, 07:02

My point is that the word bokeh already exists as a description of what we mean.
Thus, the problem doesn´t seem to me, to be so much about which words could describe what is meant better and replace it, but rather how is bokeh to be defined...

Pherdinand

04-28-2005, 07:43

Rocamadour...your comment seems to say, there's this word 'bokeh' meaning something, let us find an exact physical reality that we can associate with it. I think it should be the other way around - we should point at those things we want a word for, and then look for the best word to describe it. But i might misinterpret what you've said.

furcafe

04-28-2005, 07:49

It seems that I missed the memo. What the heck does S.O.F.A. stand for?

BJ Bignell

04-28-2005, 08:03

How about combining the two? BOSO, BOKFA, SOKEH, SOFEH, BOKEHSOFA? How about we call it the "softareasurroundingthefocusarea." How about BREAST? They're also soft and comfortable to look at. HAHA...just kidding.
I would agree to using BOKEHSOFA, but only because it has the word "bokeh" in it, and I could be sure that using it would get people worked up.

I think I'm going to start using "bokeh" and "bokey", and perhaps "Pocky", to all mean the same thing when I have to write about anything related to the OOF areas in a photograph. That ought to keep people on their toes.

Huck Finn

04-28-2005, 08:27

It seems that I missed the memo. What the heck does S.O.F.A. stand for?

Furcafe, SOFA = "Soft Off Focus Area" or "Silky . . ." I like the term because sofa make me think soft. ;)

jorisbens

04-28-2005, 09:01

I really like the term bokeh, because it sounds nice, but mysterious. It has some incomprehensible connotation. It has the same mystical atraction as a nice bokeh :angel:

Rocamadour

04-28-2005, 09:20

Pherdinand, from my point of view we have this word, bokeh, wich is used for explaining a phenomenon with vague defenition. The problem with "bokeh" is that it is not possible to hear from the word what it describes. Now, this is not an unusual problem for a word, but the lack of a good description for this one makes it more notecible. A discussion here of how to describe the phenomenon would therefore be a good thing in my opinion.
From that, it is possible to either continue to use "bokeh" (like we use a lot of loan words) or make a new word from the description, like for example SOFA.
Two things, in my mind, speaks for the continued use of the existing bokeh word:

First, a new word that would keep its description in it, would be very static. It wouldn´t be satisfactory unless it had a perfect defenition from birth, if it only came close to explaining what we wanted, there would always be a need for changing it as better descriptions came along. Furthermore it would be hard to change the definition if needed.
Secondly bokeh is a word that already exists and is used for the exact same thing that the new word would explain, which gives it a lead, however a small one.
On the other hand it would probably be easier to spread a defenition together with a new word, than the defenition of an existing one alone.

Now, in spite of the impression from the lenght of this post, this is not a really important issue for me, and I will gladly use whatever word that becomes used to talk of such delicate matters!

Pherdinand

04-28-2005, 09:32

ok, you cleared it up in my mind, thanks. I think i agree.
However, i like the SOFA idea :D :P

Pherdinand

04-28-2005, 09:33

By the way,we are talking here about something visual and there's not one photo attached...!!! Unacceptable.

So,is this a good sofa or a bad bokeh?

laptoprob

04-28-2005, 09:41

Looks OK to me, Pherdinand.

I am trying to find the new thread button to announce my Summicron DR for sale. who can help me?

Rob.

cp_ste.croix

04-28-2005, 11:04

I'm in for Bokeh, because 1) I dislike acronyms and 2) all my cameras are Japanese, so I feel I owe them at least a word in the lexicon of photography.

I got kind of confused though...in Canada, we pronounce it Boke eh? :)

RayPA

04-28-2005, 12:12

I don't care for "off focus," and prefer "out of focus," or OOF. So I would say SOOFA. SOFA is something you set your ass on, but then again SOOFA sounds like loofa which you use to scrub your ass. So, I'm voting for Bokeh. BTW, I pronounce bokeh like O.K., rather than "bouquet". Am I wrong?

taffer

04-28-2005, 12:43

The dangerous thing about SOOFA is that it can easily be mistaken by a Leitz accessory, think of it.

'Oh I'm tired, I'd like to sit down somewhere but can't decide between a CHAIR and a SOOFA, but then I could also look for an open SBLOO and have a bit of SOOKY-SOOKY before ending my night at the 12585 or even maybe at the NOOKY-HESUM if I'm feeling dangerous...'.

Naa, I prefer the out of focus or OOF :) Remember also that some lenses don't render SOFA but HOFA (for harsh out of ...) but then that's near HOFFA and all starts again :D

aizan

04-28-2005, 12:48

i say we throw a hyphen in there and get rid of the h: bo-ke.

hoot

04-28-2005, 15:01

I'm in for Bokeh, because 1) I dislike acronyms

Isn't BOKEH an acronym, too? I always thought it stood for Blurry Outlines Kaleidoscoping Exquisite Haze.

Jarvis

04-28-2005, 15:32

Bokeh ? .... Bokeh ? .. ..... define Bokeh, define SOFA, my interpretatation is probably different than yours, it's like discussing aggitation techniques, all leads to nowhere really ... just a matter of what you like and what not ... .. .....

Roman

04-28-2005, 16:20

Jarvis

04-28-2005, 16:37

hehehehehe

RubenBlaedel

04-29-2005, 00:13

.....
I like the term Bokeh, sounds like a proper camera term.
SOFA Just sounds, well... for lack of decent words; girly.

Stu :)

PS. I voted for the third option.

Remember Arnold called the democrats girly Men - and now the democrats are selling Arnold dolls in pink skirts at their conventions labeled girly man ! :-)

Stu :)

04-29-2005, 03:24

Oscar,
the word for HOFA already exists - it's called NIKKOR <ducking for cover>!
Roman

Stands up claps

"Well done to that man, good call!"

My LF Nikkor glass is razor sharp when in focus, but start shifting and tilting at large apatures... hideous. OOF Areas require dodging and burning with a special fine fishnet grey stocking wand.

Also I have a theory that OOF can be affected not only by the lens desgin, but also film or sensor used. The OFF effect that Leica 50mm/2 Summicron will be very different if you use say Fuji Acros compared to Kodak T-Max 3200.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the Voigltander's 21mm/4 bokeh/SOFA/HOFA/OOF areas look like. I took at couple of pictures today with pently of OOF (a hard thing to do too!).

Stu :)

RubenBlaedel

04-29-2005, 04:01

Hoffas body never showed up - Nikkors are harder to kill

Hugh T

05-01-2005, 05:02

I voted for Bokeh, although the word originally came from the Japanese Boke and someone put the ‘h’ on the end to get people to pronounce it right. It sounds more artistic than SOFA.
For those who don't think there is any value in the out of focus areas of a photograph, I suggest that you are missing out of a valuable creative tool. Have a look at my photograph of pumpkins here http://www.rangefinderforum.com/cpg/displayimage.php?pos=-9143 in my gallery. It was taken with my 1956 Rolleiflex (although not a rangefinder). The Zeiss Planar lens has very nice Bokeh which leaves the background softly out of focus while still being recognisable. The effect is to add depth as the pumpkins recede away and are more and more out of focus.
Some of you may still not appreciate a blurred photograph but that is personal taste.

Hugh

RUBENatHOME

05-01-2005, 05:25

love your pumpkin shot - simple but beautiful ! Strange though that a Planar on a hasselblad has a much harsher sofa - sorry bokeh

Doug

05-01-2005, 11:10

I'm sure the Hasselblad's Planar is not the same Planar as on the Rollei... The Hasselblad's mirror clearance must require a different optical formulation. What is surprising to me is that they're both called Planar!

Honu-Hugger

05-01-2005, 11:35

The basic concept is the same; Planar's are a six element symmetrical double-Gauss design. One of the first shots I took with a 50/1.4 Planar on an RTS II astounded me with its incredible "Bokeh," even though I wasn't especially looking for it -- it was really stunning (I wish I could lay my hands on the shot). There might be something about the Planar formula that lends itself to pleasing OOFA. I have this shot from a 120mm Macro-Planar, taken wide open with interesting OOFA but I'll leave it open to comment on whether or not others find it pleasing.

Doug

05-01-2005, 13:32

Honu-Hugger

05-01-2005, 13:50

Lovely tonality, D2, nice shot! The bokeh looks pleasant. The 80 Planar for Hasselblad must have been fiddled-with, to attain infinity focus that far from the film plane, right? I'd think the 120mm long enough to manage infinity "naturally"...

How about a 7-element Planar... the 35mm for Contax G.

That's a good question; I wonder how true Zeiss and others are to these long established trade names? We have a "Vario-Tessar" in a videocam and a "Vario-Sonnar" in a digital P&S -- I wonder if they are true Tessars and Sonnars? In a seven element Planar perhaps they put an element in the center? My knowledge of lens design is "challenged" to say the least:). I would imagine the point of focus can be manipulated by the shape of the lens surfaces while adhering to the design concept -- this is a good question for Dick Knoppow, I'll send an SOS.

Doug

05-01-2005, 15:19

I wonder how true Zeiss and others are to these long established trade names? We have a "Vario-Tessar" in a videocam and a "Vario-Sonnar" in a digital P&S -- I wonder if they are true Tessars and Sonnars? In a seven element Planar perhaps they put an element in the center?Good point about the "vario-" lenses; would they have the signature 'look' of their namesakes? You're right about the 7th element being placed in the center of the 35 Planar, apparently needed to broaden the field of view. Note the 35's rear element is larger than the front! Planar 45mm for comparison...

Hugh T

05-01-2005, 19:06

The Rolleiflex Planar is a 5 element lens and the Hasselblad Planar has 7 elements. Planar refers to a family of symmetric lenses as explained at the Zeiss site here: http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/01B0244EDEE3D1B141256A530037B4C8
I think the main difference in the Bokeh may be in the coatings. The modern lenses have multiple coatings which give sharper, more contrasty images. The older Rolleiflex has one lens coating. I had heard that some people prefer the older Rolleis because of the softer pictures. I had heard in the early eighties that the German philosophy for lens design was for maximum resolution but less contrast (softer) and the Japanese philosophy was for high contrast to give sharper images. The Japanese came out with the multiple coatings which the Germans now seem to be using. Ironically, the Japanese photographers seem to be the ones desiring the best Bokeh. The new Voigtlander 40 mm f 1.4 has multiple coatings for the rest of the world but has a special version with a single coating for sale in Japan because their photographers prefer softer pictures.
This is just my theory.

Hugh

Honu-Hugger

05-01-2005, 21:31

Doug and Hugh,
Thank you for including the link and the diagrams. The early Planar groups were symmetrical but inefficient -- I think that it was Taylor Hobson that modified the design to its present unsymmetrical design. No surprise that Zeiss claims on the site you linked to that "the Planar lens is the most successful camera lens design – and, by the way, the most plagiarized – ever created."

RubenBlaedel

05-02-2005, 01:29

I think the reason that the S-Planar 120 later ref. as Macro Planar has nice S... Bokeh is that it is not optimized for infinity where as the 80 CF - that I find harsh - is optimized for both infinity and max contrast'/sharpness* ('might not be the right optical words for it)
I have no idea if coatings affect S... Bokeh - should a pro-shade do the same then to S... Bokeh!
Cheers Ruben

Hugh T

05-02-2005, 08:56

One more post for those interested. I found a very good, concise article on Bokeh giving the origin of the word and some good examples here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-04-04.shtml

canonetc

05-03-2005, 08:29

I prefer Bokeh to SOFA. "SOFA" sounds cheesy and trailer-park. Implies an image of someone laying on his/her sofa or couch and shooting. At least Bokeh has some flair. What is Bokeh, by the way....? :)

Chris
canonetc

RubenBlaedel

05-03-2005, 09:08

2maneekameras

05-03-2005, 09:42

The out of focus areas of my goerz, leica, schneider, zeiss, et al glass looks much more like DAVENPORT than sofa or bokeh to me. darned awful very elegant nearly perfect outoffocus regions transmitted

kiev4a

05-03-2005, 09:46

I despise both words. How about "the out-of-focus background is pleasant?"

popitz

06-28-2005, 03:23

bokeh it is for me because that's how i knew it from the start and also because i live in japan :D

Bertram2

06-29-2005, 03:51

What I find remarkable is that almost 22% of the voters don't give a damn for OOF details ! :-))
I would not be so radical , a SLR zoom wide open can look terrible but I tend a bit to socke's opinion. My personal perception over the years is that the issue is discussed again and again mostly by that kind of camera owners ( not photogs) who spent their time to buy lenses and try to verify later with "test shots" what some gurus had said before about the lenses.

In other words for me bokeh is a relevant quality issue for shooting wide open,
but it is not as important or even decisive as the all-talk-no-photo-lens-tester-amateur-party tries to make it.

Watching these "testphotos" I sometimes think "man why don't you simply try to take a really nice good pleasing photo with this wonderful expensive lens instead of proving publicly your technical incompetence with poorely executed and poorely scanned test shots ??"

This isn'nt meant rude and I hope all those who ever have posted bokeh tests on RFF will not take it as a personal offense, I feel just so very tired of all this bokeh stuff and must get rid of my feelings from time to time. ;-)

Regards,
Bertram

laptoprob

06-29-2005, 09:25

Have you ever seen this site? Explains it very graphically!
http://www.flarg.com/bokeh.html
Rob.

dostacos

09-04-2005, 19:26

SOFA is losing in the poll! Can I vote again? Here in America, our motto is: "Vote early, vote often."

Huck it is time for the "CHICAGO VOTE"!

ah...execpt I am going to get the Chicago vote for Bokeh :dance:

For those of you from other countries, Chicago is known for getting out the vote INCLUDING but not limited to people that are dead...LOOOOONG dead, voting the graveyard gotta love it :D

Gabriel M.A.

09-04-2005, 20:52

A little taste of bokeh, and what a fast lens' full aperture can give you...

(I love Leica glass, but these aren't Leica samples; one's a Canon, the other a Tamron lens shot)

bmattock

09-04-2005, 21:10

Well, I don't care what anyone calls it...

Kodak Aero-Ektar 7 inch f2.5 - wide open, mounted on Pentax *ist DS.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Gabriel M.A.

09-04-2005, 22:15

In my somniferous stupor, I had missed the point of the original post. Duh.

Well, of course bokeh isn't just "out-of-focus". If you see the two attachments I posted, one has evidence of bokeh, the other one has no evidence of bokeh whatsoever. So bokeh is not an "out of focus area", and even less (unless you're sacrilegous) a "soft out of focus area". The problem has been that the "bokeh" word has been used so much by people that don't even know what it is that it has further confused those who didn't even know what it was in the first place.

Hence you have many people throwing the towel, and then crying that the Emperor has no clothes; but in this case he does, and sometimes they are gorgeous, sometimes they are a pain to look at.

To some it all tastes like chicken, and as long as it fills you up it's all good. Others are more, shall we say, selective.

So to each their own, no need to fight over it. In the end, it's about the photography, not the concepts. Leave that nit-picking to the forums (or forae, if you must) at Photo.Net, not here.

Doug

09-04-2005, 22:44

Well, of course bokeh isn't just "out-of-focus". If you see the two attachments I posted, one has evidence of bokeh, the other one has no evidence of bokeh whatsoever.If you read the references cited, you'll find that bokeh IS just "out of focus", and without any hint of what nature of out of focus. And both your attachments show considerable bokeh.

Here's a brief email comment from Roger, a very capable English<-->Japanese translator who has lived and worked in Japan for several decades...

Subject: Re: [CVUG] Nokton Bokeh
From: Roger Williams <roger@adex-japan.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:13:23 +0900
To: CosVoigtUser@topica.com

Roger rises to the bait...

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 23:57:41 +0900, Dean Johnston <dean@tbc.t-com.ne.jp> wrote:

> Although I live in Japan, and I know what the word means (e.g. bokeru, a
> verb for both being senile [become senile - with perhaps connotations of
> having a faded/blurred memory], and just for faded or blurred), I don't
> actually know exactly what the Japanese mean when they use it in relation to
> photography. I had assumed it was for anything blurry. Perhaps Roger would like to comment?

The word "bokeh" is usually used with the word "aji" as "bokeh-aji" where "aji" means taste or flavour, so the Japanese are recognising that the out- of-focus areas can have very different subjective feelings to them. All lenses have bokeh, i.e., produce blurry out-of-focus images, but what the images LOOK like can be rather different.

Hope this helps,

Roger

aizan

09-05-2005, 00:51

If you see the two attachments I posted, one has evidence of bokeh, the other one has no evidence of bokeh whatsoever.

yeah, can you explain this one?

Film dino

09-05-2005, 09:23

Bokeh of course- if it ain't broke don't fix it

Gabriel M.A.

09-05-2005, 10:45

yeah, can you explain this one?

No problem:

A very easy to read, slightly technical "explanation" of bokeh:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

Can you now see which one exhibits bokeh qualities of the lens, as well as oof and blur, and which just shows oof, blur but no bokeh? :)

aizan

09-05-2005, 12:48

uh...i'm just going to assume that was a joke...

Gabriel M.A.

09-05-2005, 14:00

I'm confused by why you think my last post is a joke. :confused: If you want me to further clarify what I said, I'd be glad to do so. If what I have posted is not understandable, then I'll try next time to make my post's language more general (I can only guess at this point that's what the problem is). I'll try to be more aware of that next time.

aizan

09-05-2005, 14:06

ok, so how does one have bokeh and the other not at all?

Gabriel M.A.

09-05-2005, 14:13

The first one (the grapes picture) exhibits the bokeh qualities of the lens (look towards the top center). The other one exhibits no concentration of blurred points of light which show the bokeh qualities of the lens, so you can only see the DOF effect of this lens.

In the first picture you can, of course, also see the DOF effect of having the lens used wide open, the blur, etc., but it is also because you can see how the points of light have been rendered in the oof area that you can see the bokeh quality of this lens. You can see how the cones of light render the smallest point(s) with a pleasing blur distribution around their edges. You cannot see any of this (well, I can't) in the other picture, because there are no "small points of light" that are in the oof area of the picture. That is how I evaluate bokeh first.

aizan

09-05-2005, 14:37

ooh, you're confusing bokeh with OOF circles. bokeh is the "appearance of OOF objects", not necessarily a visible disc coming from a point of light. backgrounds are often not pockmarked with contrasty, point light sources, so you can end up with a picture that has smooth bokeh from a lens that creates ringed OOF circles.

Doug

09-05-2005, 16:21

aizan is right; any and all blur due to out of focus is "bokeh". Bokeh has lots of different looks depending on the oof objects themselves, the distance to these objects, the light, the lens and its aperture, and probably other factors. Some lenses produce disks of OOF point light sources or reflections that are brighter around the outside than in the middle, and depending on the nature of the OOF background may produce bokeh that is characterized as "unsettled." If the disks are brighter in the center, it tends to have a smoother look. But the OOF blur is all bokeh, disks or no... :)

Edit: I had read Rockwell's comments on bokeh before, and looking it over again now. he does offer a very simple explanation of the spherical aberration effects, but the very simplicity of his explanation is, well, over-simplified. In my view, you can't draw the lines so sharply and say that one kind of spherical aberration produces bad bokeh and the opposite aberration gives good bokeh. There are factors other than spherical aberration at work, and bokeh isn't just good/neutral/bad, but is just different in various ways.

Gabriel M.A.

09-05-2005, 17:05

You're right. My bad. Like Galileo Galilei is quoted to have said in the Spanish-speaking world: "y sin embargo, se mueve..."

StuartR

09-08-2005, 18:04

BOKEH FOHEVAH represent! Actually, I like the term becuase it is funny, particularly if you understand japanese. It basically means fuzzy, but you can use it about people too...basically meaning that they are senile. So from now on when you talk about "bokeh afficianados" you will have to specify if you are talking about lenses or people who have a penchant for fogeys.

ClaremontPhoto

11-06-2005, 23:49

Hyacinth Bucket sums it up best.

(Brit TV)

JohnL

11-07-2005, 01:54

Bokeh.
We already know what it means, and we don't need another word, much less a TLA.
(TLA = Three Letter Acronym, not necessarily exactly three letters. An example of recursion)
:rolleyes:

Jocko

11-07-2005, 12:54

Hyacinth Bucket sums it up best.

(Brit TV)

Pronounced Hyacinth Bokeh? ;)

Gabriel M.A.

11-07-2005, 14:04

Pronounced Hyacinth Bokeh? ;)

Yoh pr-bly ry. ;)

ClaremontPhoto

11-08-2005, 00:39

Not Hyacinth Bucket 'the lady of the house'.

shutterflower

12-05-2005, 00:24

I vote for Cooke LF lenses' soft focus bokeh. mmmmmm. My dream lens for MF would be a real nice soft focus, mamiya glass, for an RZ67. The ultimate portrait camera.

Too bad I could buy. . . well pretty much any desirable RF for the price of the cheapest Cooke lens.

StuartR

12-05-2005, 00:53

Doug

12-05-2005, 00:57

mmmmmm. My dream lens for MF would be a real nice soft focus, mamiya glass, for an RZ67. The ultimate portrait camera.Does Mamiya offer a soft portrait lens for the RZ? I've been rather tempted by the 120mm f/3.5 for Pentax 67 that is softest wide open and gradually sharpens to around f/8, and is said to have a very pleasant kind of sharpness from there to the minimum aperture. But, it has a manual diaphragm and apparently a focus shift as the aperture changes... sounds a little awkward to use.

jdef

01-14-2007, 15:38

For me, bokeh is perfect. Since I most often shoot wide open with fast glass, the rendition of out of focus areas is very important to the look and feel of my images, and far more important than the ultimate resolution or contrast that sharpness freaks never tire of measuring (usually badly) and comparing. I think the problem some have with the term bokeh, is that it refers to a quality and not a quantity. I'm not surprised that the Japanese term is the most widely known and used. The attached images were all made with my Minolta 58mm f1.2, wide open.

Jay

John Robertson

01-14-2007, 15:40

Anything is better than Bokeh....... it sounds far too like a word in my local East of Scotland dialect which means to throw up or vomit!!!!!!!!

GeroV

01-14-2007, 16:07

I vote for Love Seat

Lovely
Outta
Vocus
Eemage

Showing
Entrancing
Artistic
Tones

clintock

01-14-2007, 16:17

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html

shouldn't it be spelled bo-ke and in italics? or better in the original kanji symbols?
ぼけ

peterm1

01-14-2007, 16:22

Gabriel M.A.

01-14-2007, 16:47

Many people can't tell the difference between "it's" and "its", "their" and "they're". Should we really be throwing the bokeh wrench in there? ;)

Gabriel M.A.

01-14-2007, 16:50

Shutterflower -- the market is great for Hasselblads these days, have you considered a 110/2 planar for the 200 series cameras? I got a 203FE and 110/2 lens for less than the cost of a new leica lens...had I bought it new 5 years ago it would have cost around 10,000.
I was offered one for $900; I think my heart corrected a beat or two.

I am conflicted, though, on the dependency on a battery by the 200 series. Main reason why I haven't taken the plunge on the Mamiya 645 Pro.

I did find a Mamiya Sekor C 80mm f/1.9, for relative peanuts. I didn't buy it; it's on hold. I haven't seen seen enough samples taken with this lens wide open.

IGMeanwell

01-14-2007, 18:38

Maybe it should be renamed LOOFA (light out of focus areas). For those who do not know a Loofa is something you use to exfoliate your skin or scrub your back in the shower or bath. Now if only I could think of a witty reason why LOOFA is a better name....

Lets start a contest. Why LOOFA?

LOOFA .... not bad

but .... your going to get a ton of confusion as to whether your talking lenses or showering techniques

Pherdinand

01-19-2007, 09:30

loofa is very close to the male horse's genital said in the ugliest possible way, in hungarian.
It's out of question.

johne

01-21-2007, 06:03

Could it be that the objection to Bokeh is cultural? West vs. east? How strange! Some suggestions smack of "purity of language" like some countries with their depart of preservation of the native tongue. Others suggest combining words to make new words - very Germanic. Oh well. Bokeh came from Japan and does the job intended,
Just a thought,
Johne

ICU

01-21-2007, 06:25

Semantics. Reminders me of when work changed the Personnel Department to Human Resources. Same functionality, but in my opinion diffferent connotations.

SOFA or OOFA more literal and bokeh has a more abstract aspect to me.

Gabriel M.A.

01-21-2007, 09:30

loofa is very close to the male horse's genital said in the ugliest possible way, in hungarian.
It's out of question.
Oh, sheez, thanks. Now I'll think of that when using the loofah. I wonder if "lather" or "conditioner" aren't a dirty word (oh the irony) in some other language.

Pherdinand

01-23-2007, 11:54

Lator is a male prostitute. Is that close enough, Gabriel?:)

Pistach

01-23-2007, 12:33

SDK

01-25-2007, 12:58

Sometimes I like the omnifocal approach to photography, for landscape or cityscape shots, and perhaps these are analogous to the way we perceive what we see. But any still photograph is ultimately a two dimensional abstraction from the four (or more) dimensional real world in time and space, and is not as true a representation as video or cinema moving images. It's actually quite interesting sometimes to go further into the abstraction way of photography, to represent what you do see, but what your eye and brain filter out: the out of focus blur.

The Japanese do love to invent short words for complex artistic ideas, while Westerners love their acronyms and contractions, like LASER, LED, NASA or Jasta. I'm rather ambivalent about the term boke, because it's not a concept the Japanese invented, like they did with the process of ukiyo-e woodblock printing, for example. The American Photo-secessionists loved their selective focus and blurring, even using techniques like smearing lenses with petroleum. Selective focus and blur characteristics have long been talked about by Western cinematographers.

I think it's fine for us to invent and use other terms in place of boke, though I prefer OOF (for out of focus) to SOFA, which looks like the synonym for couch to me. Although OOF does sound like what you say when getting hit in the abdomen, at least oof!'s not a real noun. The short phrase "defocus blur" would also be good as English jargon for the phenomenon.

clarence

02-15-2007, 06:46

A major photografic goal for me is to have everything in focus. The golden standard is our eye which has such a huge dof that we never see anything out of focus unless we put a finger right into one of our eyes. Often I use background redo's in Photoshop for many reasons including enjoing the side benefit to see everything in sharp focus. Bokeh is something purely artificial and extraneous to our visual world. It is already hard to match our visual perception let alone introducing such ugly exogenous artifacts. Why not be fond of aberrations, color fringing, flare,gosts etc etc. Once I made a stat on hundred of Photos of HCB. Just a couple were not all in sharp focus and they were the ugly ones. Sometimes Homerus sleeps....

The eye does not always have infinite depth of field. One reason why it's harder to see at night is that the pupil expands to let in more light and depth of field is reduced. If you do want to simulate the way the eye sees, then I suppose you could aim for deep DOF in bright light and shallow DOF in low light conditions.

Clarence

Trius

03-22-2007, 17:16

The eye does not always have infinite depth of field. One reason why it's harder to see at night is that the pupil expands to let in more light and depth of field is reduced. If you do want to simulate the way the eye sees, then I suppose you could aim for deep DOF in bright light and shallow DOF in low light conditions.

Clarence
Plus, when we really focus on something (such as when interacting with another person), our brain filters out the surroundings, such that we aren't even aware of OOF elements. So we think that everything is in focus, but it's not.

VinceC

03-22-2007, 17:57

The author of my 1957 Nikon Manual mentioned, almost in passing, that the human eye at any one moment can sharply focus on an area about equivalent to the field of view of a 135mm lens.

If you stare at something with one eye closed, and don't move your eyes, you see that this is more or less correct. It appears to be a combination of optics and brain-processing. If you don't move your eye, you can see outside the circle of sharpness, but for me it grows both optically indistinct and, for want of a better phrase, mentally though not optically vignetted.

However, our brains are marvelous at stitching together scenes. My entire field of view within the frames of my eyeglasses is equivalent to a 21mm lens. But if I pay attention to what's going on, my eyes are darting all over the place to put together my view of a scene.

foto_fool

04-22-2007, 20:38

Nope - gonna stick with boke (anglicized and shortened from "bokeh" because I'm not Japanese but am a semi modern guy/gal). Boke is an encompassing concept that goes beyond "soft" or "silky". In this sense, SOFA is an excessively restrictive description.

But as an acronym, the "S" in SOFA could also be "silly", "stupid", "stupendous", "sh***y", "scintillating", or perhaps counter to the proposition, "sharp". In this sense, the acronym is excessively vague and imprecise.

- John

foto_fool

04-22-2007, 20:43

So, if we adopt the new acronym, lenses with particularly excellent out-of-focus rendition might become known as SOFA kings? As in, "I'd really like to buy that new Summilux, but it's SOFA king expensive"...?

AAAAHH! now I'm really LOL - wish I'd read this part of the thread first! Thanks jlw. ALL my lenses are SOFA King expensive! SOFA King GREAT! and SOFA King likely to have my spouse sending me to the SOFA to sleep! HA!

- John

danwilly

05-29-2007, 07:29

Bokeh, now Sofa, I still don't know what GAS means.

PetarDima

05-29-2007, 11:01

Sofa?
only part of furniture :D

Bokeh 4ever

Wobbly

09-02-2007, 13:10

You mean "soofa" ?

PetarDima

09-02-2007, 13:14

You mean "soofa" ?

http://www.sofa.com/ :p

etrigan63

09-02-2007, 20:59

Bokeh, now Sofa, I still don't know what GAS means.

Gear Acquisition Syndrome - the mental disorder that causes RF owners to purchase more and more equipment, often including multiple bodies, copies of lenses, and sometimes vintage equipment so they can pad out their equipment taglines in all honesty.

landsknechte

09-02-2007, 22:49

If we're going to pick some other term, we really ought to pick a term that doesn't have a commonplace alternate meaning.

Blurrifaction?

350D_user

09-03-2007, 11:21

"Who cares"... I've used neither for at least a decade or so, and have no intention in starting anytime soon too. :)

DrLeoB

09-03-2007, 11:40

I went with bokeh simply because it suggests to me a better way to think about lenses in general - much like flowers or wines ....scents vary, appealing to some, not others but all still evocative of floral images for each of us, sharp tight rose buds with a gentle hint of attar or a big, flouncy iris with only a trace of scent.

I think rather than stick with the technicalopurist "bokeh" I will rather go with bouquet.

Rob-F

10-27-2007, 02:46

Someone on photo.net used "bouquet" instead of bokeh. I liked it, since the distinctive character of a wine is sometimes called its bouquet. If you think of lenses like wines, each with its own unique character, then it fits.

Works for me.

bottley1

10-27-2007, 03:30

How about "bollocks" No doubt as to its meaning!

Pherdinand

10-27-2007, 03:42

is that bollocks or bullocks spelled?:)

mike goldberg

11-03-2007, 19:23

When I first came into RFF I wondered what is this "bokeh" stuff everyone is talking about? Then, Wiki helped me out with the definition. My favorite 50 is
the J8... one of the bokeh kings.

Bokeh forevah... yeah!

d30gaijin

11-03-2007, 19:38

This is about the stupidest poll I have yet come across. If you can't figure out what the term bokeh means then how about doing a bit of research. It is well documented. SOFA can only be a lame acronym for dummies, slackers, and dopes. Do you fit those categories? I think so!

Dummies want to come into a hobby/profession and change the terminology because they're too impatient or too stupid to research or take the time to understand it. How about this, find another hobby with more simple terms you might be able to understand. Jacks comes to mind.

Pherdinand

11-26-2007, 11:53

Whoa, d30gaijin, thank you very much :D

The Doped Dummy Slacker

Pherdinand

11-26-2007, 11:56

by the way why don't you check the entry #4 and take a deep breath ;)
if something sounds too stupid, it probably is meant to be.

arbib

11-26-2007, 13:35

OK, I picked "Who Cares"....Call it whatever you want...I call it OOFA (Pronounced Oh-fa) ;) (in response to d30gaijin...Your post is so TRUE.....I call it Boken too. It is the nomenclature of photography....Just poking some fun at new acronyms)

If you want nice silky smooth out of focus areas....use a lens with 8 blades and up....But I seen some nice OOFA with 6 blade lenses too. The BG subject makes difference too. :)

I am more interested in the focal length more than the number of aperture blades used...I like more...but that is secondary. I can always apply a gaussian filter in editing if the OOFA is not what I want. :D

Now when I want a nice OOFA from the get go....I will use the lens that has more blades

Cheers

CK Dexter Haven

11-26-2007, 14:52

"A major photografic goal for me is to have everything in focus. The golden standard is our eye which has such a huge dof...."

Of course, it's all a matter of personal taste, but i would take the opposite approach. BECAUSE the eye works that way, i'm not sure what is the point of trying to recreate that. Wouldn't that then seem 'common?' Don't we get enough of 'reality' without having all of our art meant to duplicate it? And, we CAN'T duplicate it, so any attempt is either going to be some manner of interpretation, or a failure.

The eye as the "golden standard" is a concept too easily argued. This might also be analogous to a comparison of digital video tape versus black and white film. Compare your own Sony Hi-8 footage versus Hitchcock's Notorious.

crawdiddy

11-26-2007, 15:25

I'll stick with "bokeh," although I sort of like "blurrifaction." I don't think we need to go out of our way to obfuscate our meaning, or speak in language the general public doesn't understand. We have enough trouble being misunderstood as it is. Bokeh was a new term to all of us, a few years ago. Now it's established.

I happen to be a fan of the bokeh effect also. And of course the eye DOES have limited DOF. It's the darned Adobe PhotoShop brain that tries to clean up all the out of focus areas. That is, until presbyopia sets in, and then it's useless.

JoeV

11-26-2007, 16:06

I vote against "SOFA" because it implies a misunderstanding of the full ramifications of what Boke is all about: not whether the out-of-focus areas are 'soft' or not, but what is the quality of the out-of-focus area. There can be bad boke and good boke; harsh boke and pleasing boke. The term 'soft' is less descriptive of these subtle but important distinctions.

I'll also vote for spelling it B-O-K-E, with the assumption that this is the closest transliteration of the term from Japanese to English.

Aside from the affect that spherical abberation has on boke, the shape of the lens aperture also has a remarkable affect. Look at the harsh quality of images from consumer video cameras, then look at the shape of their apertures: rarely are they even 6-sided; many are just triangular, or wedge-shaped. These produce terrible boke. Many of the better-boke lenses have apertures of 8 or more blades.

I also don't understand the notion that the terminology doesn't matter; perhaps there are those who don't appreciate the quality of photographic images; one clear distinction that can be made between photography and all other visual arts, and even biological vision, is glass-lensed (i.e. refractive) images have limited depth of focus that's affected by the size and shape of the aperture, and the specifics of the lens itself. Before optical imaging began to affect painting, this phenomenon was never seen in art. And although biological optics are refractive, the human retina/optic nerve/visual cortex seems to adjust focus and piece together a composite image that appears to be widely in focus.

So my argument is that, if narrow depth-of-focus is uniquely photographic, why shouldn't we be precise on what we call this affect, and how we describe its quality?

~Joe

fgianni

11-27-2007, 01:17

And what you call SOFA if it is not soft, HOFA?

kuzano

11-27-2007, 01:25

Six Muntz ago, I culdnt even spel sailsman... Now I are one!!!

If it's not bokeh, why fix it?

Marc-A.

11-27-2007, 02:09

I like the Japanese "bokeh", so I'll stick to bokeh. But maybe you know that the origins of the term is debated; some people think it does not come from Japanese, but from French "bouquet" (bunch, as in a bunch of flower). When I write in french, I usally use the word "bouquet", because I prefer it, but I don't use "bouquet" when I write in English because nobody would understand ... maybe from now on ...
Best,
Marc

Paul Jenkin

12-20-2007, 06:00

So, what does "Bokeh" stand for?

"Blurred off-kilter etherial halos"? Too much time spent debating this issue IMHO. I have the lenses I have and they will produce the bokeh they will produce. I can't change it - so why worry about it??

Paul

MikeCassidy

02-05-2008, 09:30

If its Japanese it would be: bokeha or boke. There is a Japanese word [verb] bokeru: to fade, to dim.

M C H

02-05-2008, 10:25

From Harold Davis (http://blogs.oreilly.com/digitalmedia/2007/06/bokeh-and-the-zen-of-blur.html) at Oreilly blogs:

"Bokeh comes from the Japanese word boke (ぼけ), meaning blur. The terminology may also be derived in part from bokashi, a blurring ink wash technique used by great Japanese artists like Hokusai. (Bokashi also seems to be a Japanese composting method.)"

Bokeh also has the merit of at least not being redundant - what's with soft out of focus areas, anyway? As opposed to sharp out of focus areas?

Why throw out a term with decades of cultural meaning behind it simply because one hasn't taken the time to learn what it actually means?

As to the "boke" vs. "bokeh" comments, the "h" is added merely for transliterative purposes. Ota-sensei, a visiting Kendo hachi-dan who is living with me at the moment, spells his name variously "Ohta" and "Otah" since coming to the US. It merely draws out the "e" sound since without the "h" "boke" would be pronounced similarly to "broke."

MikeCassidy

02-05-2008, 12:09

I've seen 'n' by itself but never an 'h'; usually to draw out an vowel you write 'ee' or 'aa.' As in おたあさん.

I agree that I see no reason to throw out the use of Bokeh; unless its bad bokeh then maybe throw out the lens.

M C H

02-05-2008, 12:37

Yes that's true, Mike. As in Oosaka, which in English is all too often pronounced Osaka. Certainly "boke" is the correct rendering in Japanese (even if in Romaji!). But the "ke" syllable pair is better rendered in English as "keh," as it might otherwise be pronounced "kee" as in "き", or as a purely consonant ending as in "broke."

There is no single "h" in the Japanese syllabary, as you've pointed out. It's only necessary to allow English readers to pronounce it correctly.

MikeCassidy

02-06-2008, 06:26

On Japanesepod 101 [which I recommend to everyone] a user googled 'bokeh' and to quote:

Actually, a Google search reveals that someone named Mike Johnston worked on a magazine article and added “h” to boke because so many people were mispronouncing it… back in the March/April 1997 issue of Photo Techniques.

As a geek I'm embarassed to say I turned to my small Japanese Dictionary first not google!

There once was akendo school on Madison Ave. Is that your school?