Bokeh - Geoffrey Crawley's definition

Roger Hicks · 08-10-2009

'...good bokeh (preservation of subject shape in out-of-focus planes)': Amateur Photographer, August 8th 2009, page 39, in a superb article about Paul Rudolph. This is the best [EDIT: or at the least most useful and objective] definition I have ever read, which is not surprising when you consider who said it. AP is worth buying just for Geoffrey's stuff.

Apologies for yet another bokeh thread but I thought that many might not bother to look at yet another post in one of the dead-horse threads.

Cheers,

R.

lorriman · 08-10-2009

Well, isn't the japanese meant as "fuzzy", ie blurred. So really bokeh is the out of focus areas of a picture and not the 'appearance' or 'quality' of the out of focus areas.

Granted, however, that the adoption of a foreign word doesn't always mean the literal translation. For example atheism was defined by theists as "to deny the gods/god" and not the literal greek which is closer to lack of theism, ie. agnostic.

digitalintrigue · 08-10-2009

Uh, bokeh and religion in the same thread!

jonmanjiro · 08-10-2009

I first heard the term "bokeh" used as an adjective modifying "baba" i.e. "bokeh baba". In this case "bokeh" means senile and "baba" means old woman

maddoc · 08-10-2009

Japanese "boke" means "indistinct" or " fuzzy" in photography (originally it means "faded color"), describes the state of mind best called "dementia" or talking nonsense. Reading the many threads and articles about "boke" makes me think that some of the authors seems to ”ぼける”　。。。

Roger Hicks · 08-10-2009

All right, rather than 'best' let's say 'most comprehensible and useful' (first post edited to reflect this).

As I have said elsewhere, a friend enthused about 'the quality of the out of focus image' (of the Apo Lanthar) long before 'bokeh' entered the English language.

I've heard various translations of the Japanese word as applied to subject other than photography, and fully appreciate Gabor's point about its usage in photography; but as it appears to have lodged itself in the photographic consciousness, I can't see a better way of defining it.

Cheers,

R.

maddoc · 08-10-2009

Roger,

I think the definition you just cited is indeed the most useful and precise. Just today, I also found a very interesting article on this subject at "luminous landscape" but lost the link. It might have been from the same author you have cited but in this case I suffer from "boke" ...

Cheers,

Gabor

Roger Hicks · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

I have begun to relax on Bokeh. I think it is something many amateurs are using as road to understand photography outside of the "snapshot."

Dear Fred,

Broadly, I agree with what I quote above and with much of the rest of your post. But if the word is to have any meaning at all in English -- and I suspect there is a place for it, though not as exalted a station as it sometimes seems to receive -- then Geoffrey's definition seems to me to be very useful indeed.

Cheers,

Roger

bmattock · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

I have begun to relax on Bokeh. I think it is something many amateurs are using as road to understand photography outside of the "snapshot." It is an unstoppable phenomena on the amateur web.

To me it is too much focus on technique and too little focus on method and content [and context].

But it seems to hold a great fascination for those seeking a creative direction. I don't like calling anyone down on their work, unless they are in a class expecting it. I am not a critic [writer] and really do not see the point of discouraging any form or exploration. Who knows where it might take someone?

But frankly this whole Bokeh thing mystifies me. But I am pretty mystified by "signature" and "drawing" and a lot of other things I find discussed on the web.

While the concept of bokeh remains somewhat mystifying to me in that the definition is amorphous and fluid, I do understand that different lenses render out-of-focus areas in a given photograph differently, and not just under different apertures, but from lens to lens. This I see clearly, and I do not quite understand how others do not.

If you can see the donut-shaped out-of-focus areas created by mirror lenses, that's a good (albeit extreme) example of 'bad' bokeh.

On the subject of good or bad bokeh, I'm less clear, because it appears to me to be purely subjective. Bokeh I might like can be 'meh' to others, and vice-versa.

I will also say that some observations of bokeh appears be based on a belief rather than on actual results - I've accidentally (and then later on purpose as an experiement) posted photos mislabeled as being from lenses which they were not, and gotten responses based on what people thought they were. I try not to do that just to fool people or make them appear foolish, but I've certainly noted it to myself. Placebo effect?

However, for me, bokeh in an of itself was never really the issue. Instead, selective focus techniques are a vital and necessary part of what I consider mastery of the craft.

People seem to think in two dimensions regarding photography. That is, they consider aperture, shutter speed, focus, and composition or framing - and then they ignore other aspects that they can (if they choose to do so) creatively control - leaving them more or less completely to chance.

One knows, of course, when to use a faster shutter speed and give up f-stop in a given situation, but it is usually based on the situation, such as action shots, right? Why would one not also consider the wider aperture (or narrower) when composing any other type of scene? Just because I'm taking a photo of a non-moving barn or a posed portrait, I still have available to me a wide range of accurate exposure settings (in fact, more choices). Just exposing correctly is fine, but why not take control over depth-of-field as well for creative purposes?

I suspect that with your remark about amateurs, you're talking about people who have discovered out-of-focus effects that can be had by opening up a lens all the way and moving in close, etc. Extreme out-of-focus backgrounds result, and the effect can be dramatic, and effective, but as you say, it is often overdone, somewhat like my opinion of Ansel Adam's use of the red filter. Too much for the sake of drama. And indeed, we have people here on RFF who state that they typically only use lenses wide-open. It appears that they have fallen in love with the effect of extreme OoF, without regard to the creative use of it - they have in essence turned the volume up to eleven.

I explore creative control of my photography constantly. I am always engaged in learning more about exposure, which I feel very few people understand even approximately (or they would not spout drivel about 'sunny 16' like gibbering baboons), and the relationship between focus and aperture (selective focus) as well. I may be flirting with being more of a technician than a photographer, but I find it fascinating nonetheless.

And 'bokeh' is in the mix for me with OoF and selective focus techniques, since I do accept that different lenses have a different way of rendering OoF areas. I try not to use terms like 'drawing' but they are basically accurate. A rapid-rectilinear lens and a tessar lens will produce different effects in the out-of-focus areas themselves, even if aperture and distance to subject and media size are compensated for. If the difference exists (and I posit that it does), why not use it to best advantage?

Oscar Levant · 08-10-2009

Compare "wine talk" with "bokeh talk" and you easily understand the fanciful (putting it kindly) terminology.

Dave Wilkinson · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

Pretty much. If some were actually asking for critique, I would probably ask them to go back out and try the photo again with the background in sharp focus, paying close attention to what is back there, and moving left or right to make it work with the primary subject. But really no one is asking, they are pretty much telling, and being pretty didactic at this point in time.

So yeah, I get it, but bokeh is like -- well -- it just happens.

Nice Avatar

Fred....you old fuddy-duddy, just put that slow f1.4 Nikkor on top of those papers, put on that nice 55mm f1.2 (leave the aperture ring alone) and join the 'IN CROWD'

Dave.

emraphoto · 08-10-2009

is this good bokeh or bad bokeh?

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/...mImage01_VForm

i'm not sure i get this bokeh thing?

Roger Hicks · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by emraphoto

is this good bokeh or bad bokeh?

Yes.

Cheers,

R.

Dave Wilkinson · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by emraphoto

is this good bokeh or bad bokeh?

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/...mImage01_VForm

from the picture, and the 'keywords' on the right - I'd say sh#t bokeh!

Dave.

emraphoto · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Yes.

Cheers,

R.

AHA! now i get it.

bmattock · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by emraphoto

is this good bokeh or bad bokeh?

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/...mImage01_VForm

i'm not sure i get this bokeh thing?

As far as I can tell, it's not an example of bokeh at all. It's an out-of-focus photo, where the fact that it is not focused adds to the immediacy and sense of urgency of the photo.

Consider this. A lens can be said to render colors in a particular way, right? It can be high-contrast or low-contrast, right? This is well-understood. It also renders the out-of-focus areas in a particular manner. That's bokeh.

Take a look at this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_tor...or/2383620354/

An extreme example of 'bad' bokeh. It is a characteristic of the lens design. Everyone can see the 'donuts' here, right? So how can anyone deny that this lens has a characteristic signature in the way it renders out-of-focus areas? Other lenses do it too - just not in such an extreme manner.

emraphoto · 08-10-2009

"If you can see the donut-shaped out-of-focus areas created by mirror lenses, that's a good (albeit extreme) example of 'bad' bokeh."

believe it or not i have heard that mirror lenses are becoming all the rage in fashion circles (which clearly does not include me). seems folks like that "bad" bokeh.

i guess that sort of makes it "good bokeh" hey?

bmattock · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar Levant

Compare "wine talk" with "bokeh talk" and you easily understand the fanciful (putting it kindly) terminology.

A very good analogy!

And just like wine talk - these are attempts to put into words concepts which oenophiles understand and accept, but which elude those without the desire or capability to grasp them personally.

Just because one cannot 'get it' does not mean that it is not there. I'm not a wine aficionado, but I have no trouble believing the qualities they are trying to describe with their odd language exist, even if I cannot perceive them myself.

bmattock · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by emraphoto

"If you can see the donut-shaped out-of-focus areas created by mirror lenses, that's a good (albeit extreme) example of 'bad' bokeh."

believe it or not i have heard that mirror lenses are becoming all the rage in fashion circles (which clearly does not include me). seems folks like that "bad" bokeh.

i guess that sort of makes it "good bokeh" hey?

I addressed that earlier when I said that the difference between 'good' and 'bad' bokeh appears to be largely subjective.

However, may I also add at this time that there are many people, yourself apparently among them, who seem determined to 'not understand' and to heckle and ridicule the concept because you don't like it. I was trying to engage in conversation, but I see it was a fool's errand. Good day.

bmattock · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

If some were actually asking for critique, I would probably ask them to go back out and try the photo again with the background in sharp focus, paying close attention to what is back there, and moving left or right to make it work with the primary subject.

Sharp focus throughout? Group f/64 stuff.

Frankly, that leaves me cold. I use sharp focus when I think it works, and softer focus, or selective focus, when I prefer that. What's wrong with that?

emraphoto · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmattock

I addressed that earlier when I said that the difference between 'good' and 'bad' bokeh appears to be largely subjective.

However, may I also add at this time that there are many people, yourself apparently among them, who seem determined to 'not understand' and to heckle and ridicule the concept because you don't like it. I was trying to engage in conversation, but I see it was a fool's errand. Good day.

easy buddy, you're jumping the gun. i had a point with the mirror lenses. i am sorry if you have taken it otherwise. it was meant in good humor my man.

sometimes these things can be fun, right?

bmattock · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by emraphoto

easy buddy, you're jumping the gun. i had a point with the mirror lenses. i am sorry if you have taken it otherwise. it was meant in good humor my man.

sometimes these things can be fun, right?

Sorry. My snark meter was detecting maximum snottiness. My apologies. I'll send the thing off and have it recalibrated.

EDIT: There is a reason I'm gun-shy about that. I don't know if you recall the nasty troll we used to have here on RFF who liked to ask 'innocent' questions so he could launch his tirades. When someone asks a question and then ha-ha's the answer, I tend to assume that here we go again. My bad.

Dave Wilkinson · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by emraphoto

easy buddy, you're jumping the gun. i had a point with the mirror lenses. i am sorry if you have taken it otherwise. it was meant in good humor my man.

sometimes these things can be fun, right?

er...not really! but don't worry too much! I often get my wrist slapped here for trying to show good humour!.

Dave.

emraphoto · 08-10-2009

all is good bill. i have been prone to a jumpy reaction myself.

Roger Hicks · 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by emraphoto

all is good bill. i have been prone to a jumpy reaction myself.

Halleluja, Brother, you are not alone...

Cheers,

R.