Learning bokeh

[bmattock]

As I mentioned, the term 'bokeh' simply was not part of the American photographer's lexicon when I was learning photography. I only heard about it much later.

Interestingly, I found a Google News archive description of 'helwa bokeh' from 1990, in which the Japanese PM used the term to describe removing Japanese troops from peacekeeping duties. It was translated as 'peace senility'. I do not know if 'helwa' was 'peace' or 'senility' in that context.

Looking next at Google books, I found only archaic references to the "Dakota" native American language, which described 'bokeh' as 'hanging fire' (referencing a gun).

More recently, I found Roger's description in his book, "Hollywood Portraits" from 2000. He described bokeh as "the quality of the out-of-focus image."

Gerry Kopelow was more descriptive in "How to Photograph Buildings and Interiors" in 1998 with "''Bokeh'' is a Japanese word that refers to the surprisingly wide range of aesthetic properties associated with out-of-focus images. For example, small out-of-focus highlights are rendered by some lenses, such as the famous Leitz Summicron series, as soft-edged circles, by others, such as the older Schneider Xenotars, as asymmetrical teardrops, and by others, such as the otherwise exquisite Zeiss Planars, as multi-sided geometric forms."

In 2000, Tom Ang described bokeh in "Silver Pixels" as "Subjective quality of the out-of-focus image projected by an optical system, usually a photographic lens."

In 2005, 'bokeh' was entered into the book "New Words," by Orin Hargraves, as "one of the hundreds of words that enter the American lexicon each year."

Since the early 2000's, the list of descriptions of the word 'bokeh' has increased exponentially. There are even engineering papers that attempt to describe how 'bokeh' may best be produced by a given lens design.

Whatever 'bokeh' is, it clearly has arrived.

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by StaaleS

The 'bokeh' concept was introduced by Mike Johnston, of the Online Photographer fame. It simply refers to the rendition (ie of the blur) of the out-of-focus areas, as opposed to blur caused by camera shake or subject movement for instance; you can have good bokeh or you can have bad bokeh, the term itself is value-neutral. The word is stolen from the Japanese 'boke' fairly recently, the final 'h' is just tacked on to give an idea of the pronounciation. It is of course rather practical to have a single word to describe 'rendition of out-of-focus areas' without having to type 'rendition of out-of-focus areas'

Actually, that was a rather late entry into the field.

Earlier (1997 in Photo Techniques magazine) was apparently this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

That is the earliest entry I have found online. Of course, with web pages, once does not know conclusively when it was first published.

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

I do find this an interesting subject, because it seems to be an amateur grass-roots discussion, which has found its way into even the teaching environment (and into sales literature).

In some quick searching (Google Scholar is fascinating, one could spend all day there), I find references to patents for software related to bokeh, patents for lenses that purport to product uniform 'good bokeh' at different focal lengths and apertures, and engineering papers describing the effect. So I concur that it has certainly taken off.

I have often thought of bokeh as a term that needed to exist - there simply was no word for what many of us think it means, so bokeh was seized upon and put to use immediately. Doesn't happen that often, so it's interesting.

As a fan of photographers like Thomas Struth, Robert Polidori, I still find large percentages of out of focus areas, look too much like a magazine ad, in many cases. The more subtle out of focus in you airplane engine is more to my liking, purposeful without screaming.

Thank you. I try to consider as many aspects of creative control as possible when I have time to think about and set up a shot. I have a long way to go, but composition, focus, aperture, and shutter speed are not all there is to photography. My experiments don't always succeed, but there is intent behind them in many cases.

EDIT: With regard to your last statement, I have also noticed that macro photography has gained new interest since the introduction of point-n-shoot digital cameras that can focus to 1 cm or so. Since digicams with small sensors produce huge amounts of OoF areas regardless of aperture, but normally produce none at all, I think that may have fostered some consideration of 'bokeh' into the common parlance, since now happy snappers could produce it themselves quite easily (or something like it, if 'bokeh' does not please one's palette as the appropriate word to describe OoF on macro shots here).

[Chris101]

While the quasi-Japanese term seems to have originated toward the end of the last century, the concept of a blurred background used to isolate an in-focus subject is as old as photography. In his book Looking at Photographs, Szarkowski shows us some early bokey in this portrait by Hill and Johnstone, made in 1845:

[jonmanjiro]

Originally Posted by bmattock

Interestingly, I found a Google News archive description of 'helwa bokeh' from 1990, in which the Japanese PM used the term to describe removing Japanese troops from peacekeeping duties. It was translated as 'peace senility'. I do not know if 'helwa' was 'peace' or 'senility' in that context.

really bad translation but ...

heiwa (not helwa) = peace
bokeh = senility

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Chris101

While the quasi-Japanese term seems to have originated toward the end of the last century, the concept of a blurred background used to isolate an in-focus subject is as old as photography. In his book Looking at Photographs, Szarkowski shows us some early bokey in this portrait by Hill and Johnstone, made in 1845:

Does he conclude that to be intentional? for artistic effect that is, I’ve not read the book

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by jonmanjiro

really bad translation but ...

heiwa (not helwa) = peace
bokeh = senility

Domo arigato. My Japanese is rather limited to terms for 'bring me more beer' and 'yes, more of that please' picked up in disreputable parts of Naha, learnt some 25+ years ago.

[lorriman]

To my mind bokeh of some kind is essential for a whole class of semi-formal, contextual portraiture, and of such a quality that it doesn't distract from the subject. My brother strongly disagrees and prefers to have everything in focus which I think verges on the immoral, but then he always was the black sheep of the family.

[jonmanjiro]

Originally Posted by bmattock

Domo arigato. My Japanese is rather limited to terms for 'bring me more beer' and 'yes, more of that please' picked up in disreputable parts of Naha, learnt some 25+ years ago.

sounds like a pretty good way to spend some time in okinawa

btw probably more accurate to translate heiwa bokeh as "peace induced stupor".

[tritiated]

The abundance of small sensor point and shoots and cropped dslr creates scarcity in the possibility of using of the most shallow depth of field, so it's percieved value is higher. And hence there is saturation of the market!

[Rob-F]

Originally Posted by tritiated

The abundance of small sensor point and shoots and cropped dslr creates scarcity in the possibility of using of the most shallow depth of field, so it's percieved value is higher. And hence there is saturation of the market!

Not sure I follow that. I think you are suggesting that there is a high demand for equipment that can be used for shallow DOF, since most of what is in use now is incapable of shallow DOF, increasing the value of such gear. But then the market would not be saturated; instead, the gear would be hard to get. I must be reading you wrong.

[Chris101]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Does he conclude that to be intentional? for artistic effect that is, I’ve not read the book

Szarkowski didn't comment on the bokey per se. He wasn't usually concerned with technical aspects of photographs. But he did mention that Hill and Johnstone often used softness in their work. In fact pictorial and portrait photos of 19th century photography often exhibits bokey (or off-subject blur that may pass as bokey. )

My point is, that the name may be new, but the effect has been a part of photography from the beginning. I agree though, that now that it does have a name (however you spell - or pronounce - it) the use of background blur has become much more common. No doubt due to the proliferation of fast lenses, which make it easy to produce.

[MikeL]

OOF stuff can't make a photo, but to me, it can break a photo if it is too noticeable and distracting. Shouldn't be too noticeable. One thing I like about medium and larger formats is that the OOF stuff is soft but things are still recognizable- a chair in the background is still a chair (unless wide open, long focal length)- and not too abstract.

It has been interesting watching the photographs in the local paper change over the years. Way more images with a thin depth of field, and ultra-wide angle. I guess that will become the norm eventually, and then things will shift back.

[maddoc]

Part of the concept of boke (blurred) in photography comes from the "are, bure, boke" (rough, blurred, out of focus) era of the Provoke editors, founded in 1968 by Takuma Nakahira, Yutaka Takanashi, Koji Taki, and later Daido Moriyama. "boke" means in it's original form simply "out of focus" and there is no "good" or "bad" boke...

It was an expression to describe their style, an internal subversion against the optical clarity that had always passed as visual clarity in the photographic image.

For those interested:

Photography that Provokes

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Chris101

Szarkowski didn't comment on the bokey per se. He wasn't usually concerned with technical aspects of photographs. But he did mention that Hill and Johnstone often used softness in their work. In fact pictorial and portrait photos of 19th century photography often exhibits bokey (or off-subject blur that may pass as bokey. )

My point is, that the name may be new, but the effect has been a part of photography from the beginning. I agree though, that now that it does have a name (however you spell - or pronounce - it) the use of background blur has become much more common. No doubt due to the proliferation of fast lenses, which make it easy to produce.

Before the fast 35mm lenses started appearing in the 1930s I had assumed OOF areas were due to technical limitations rather than a deliberate artistic statement, well apart from the Pictorialists that is but then they blured everything

[Dave Wilkinson]

Just logged-on and found this thread flourishing in it's second day! - I find it quite amazing how so many can find so much time to discuss trivia!....whatever happened to all the meaningful stuff -- e.g. 'what shall I take on vacation?'.....'what shall I buy next-to impress you all with?'. I'm afraid some of the 'deep' stuff - of late surpasses my intellectual standing!
Dave

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by MikeL

OOF stuff can't make a photo, but to me, it can break a photo if it is too noticeable and distracting. Shouldn't be too noticeable. One thing I like about medium and larger formats is that the OOF stuff is soft but things are still recognizable- a chair in the background is still a chair (unless wide open, long focal length)- and not too abstract.

Dear Mike,

Yes, that's pretty much the way I feel.

Cheers,

R.

[Silva Lining]

Originally Posted by Dave Wilkinson

Just logged-on and found this thread flourishing in it's second day! - I find it quite amazing how so many can find so much time to discuss trivia!....whatever happened to all the meaningful stuff -- e.g. 'what shall I take on vacation?'.....'what shall I buy next-to impress you all with?'. I'm afraid some of the 'deep' stuff - of late surpasses my intellectual standing!
Dave

Yes, a "what bag for my best bokeh lens" thread is overdue... Truthfully though if anything this thread just goes to show that there are as many opinions as there are eyeballs....

[atestriwri]

Originally Posted by bmattock

It is true that your eyes cannot focus on everything at once, but one has to concentrate to notice that effect with one's eyes. Typically, the brain compensates, so the average person thinks they have sharp vision all the time, as if their eyes were 'stopped down' and they had maximum 'DoF'.

I have one eye that is still a bit wonky from diabetes and my eyeglasses prescription is not right for it - yet I can't get a new prescription made because it hasn't settled down and keeps changing. If I close my 'good' eye and think about it, I am quite aware of how poor my eyesight is in the other eye. If I leave both open, my mind compensates and I seldom notice that one eye is not anywhere near as sharp as the other. The mind is a fascinating and generally useful liar.

In that manner, I believe that the human eye / mind combination will often 'not notice' or ignore out-of-focus areas on a photograph, just as it does with what it sees in the 'real world'. If it isn't a jarring juxtaposition, it simply ignores it.

I believe that excessively OoF areas on a photo will cause the mind to stop ignoring OoF and transfer control to the consciousness to deal with. That's when people 'notice' out-of-focus areas and then they have to decide if it helps or hurts the photograph as a photograph. I think it is often done to excess, as I mentioned earlier. However, having said that, there is nothing wrong with excess if that is actually the intent of the photographer. But I think that quite often, intent is absent. Some tend to use the lens wide-open in order to get that '3D' feeling, without thinking about to what extent they could control the effect creatively. Like covering a Christmas tree with decorations - I've seen some that looked like a metalocalypse. There really is such a thing as 'too much', IMHO.

With regard to the word 'bokeh' itself - I sincerely doubt that I understand the word properly in the sense it may have been originally intended in Japanese. When I was learning photography as a youngster, I never heard the word at all. However, it has become useful to refer to 'pleasing rendition of out-of-focus areas' as 'bokeh'. I at least know what that means, and understand that concept, even if that is not properly 'bokeh'.

wonderful! thanks for the info..
However I think you should vary more examples to your writing much more interesting !

[nome_alice]

i've done the super bokeh, only got one hair in focus thing and moved on as most of us have but i do still hold out of focus rendering high on my list of priorities when choosing a lens.

i like lenses that give a nice smoothness when slightly out of focus - when it's more about a selective zone of focus rather than a heart melting background.

lenses that produce double lines to edges or doughnut highlights to me ruin what would have been a good shot if that rendering was more neutral.

click through to link to bigger view







PS. I read a blog rant somewhere that talked about the new "f8 and be there" has become "f1.2 and be lazy"

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by nome_alice

i've done the super bokeh, only got one hair in focus thing and moved on as most of us have but i do still hold out of focus rendering high on my list of priorities when choosing a lens.

i like lenses that give a nice smoothness when slightly out of focus - when it's more about a selective zone of focus rather than a heart melting background.

lenses that produce double lines to edges or doughnut highlights to me ruin what would have been a good shot if that rendering was more neutral.


PS. I read a blog rant somewhere that talked about the new "f8 and be there" has become "f1.2 and be lazy"

Yes, I think that 'more neutral' is exactly it.

In other words, there's 'bad bokeh' (doubling, etc.) and there's neutral bokeh. The bokeh is best which is least obvious.

The quality of the out of focus image is NOT the same as ultra-shallow depth of field with stomach-churning blur forming most of the image.

And I love 'f/1.2 and be lazy'.

Cheers,

R.

[cam]

coming from a small sensor camera where everything was in focus, i was delighted when i started with rangefinders and found i could make that selective... my eye started to become critical when i noticed even at f/8, i could tell where i had focused -- it was most definitely not the same as shooting a small sensor camera.

so i started to shoot everything i could wide open to hone my skills and instincts and along the way i fell in love with the look.

ulrikft's example is exactly why i love it.

is this wrong?

am i wrong in simply shooting to please myself, not giving a toss what any of you think?

[lorriman]

Originally Posted by cam

am i wrong in simply shooting to please myself, not giving a toss what any of you think?

No, you are quite right in dismissing their opinions. However it would be quite immoral of you to contradict my opinon.

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by cam

is this wrong?

am i wrong in simply shooting to please myself, not giving a toss what any of you think?

If you like it and it is what you intend, then keep doing it and enjoy yourself. Just be aware that there are people for whom the joy of max bokeh all the time has worn off, and they may not enjoy your photos. If you don't mind that, no problem. You're not the first I've heard say that, BTW. Some people apparently shoot wide open all the time, and that's their preference. It's all up to you to decide what you like.

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Yes, I think that 'more neutral' is exactly it.

In other words, there's 'bad bokeh' (doubling, etc.) and there's neutral bokeh. The bokeh is best which is least obvious.

The quality of the out of focus image is NOT the same as ultra-shallow depth of field with stomach-churning blur forming most of the image.

And I love 'f/1.2 and be lazy'.

Cheers,

R.

Hi Roger,
I have been following this thread to see if any ideas followed mine and I think that you and Nome Alice have arrived.
My def of Bokeh is "the subjective quality of the out of focus gradient". I think that this avoids the limitation to spectral highlights and includes all the tonal gradients. Granted the spectral highlights are where you are going to see the nasties, but to me it is the drift of the out of focus, from the focus plane to the background or foreground that will seem natural or not.
What seems natural to us may have to do with the slope of the gradient and whether the slope is smooth or jaggy. I think it also has to do with the size of the print and probably viewing distance, because COC and enlargement factor are involved.
BTW, I have some lenses where the foreground Bokeh is better than background Bokeh.
Bob