PDA

View Full Version : Bokeh - Geoffrey Crawley's definition


Roger Hicks
08-10-2009, 02:10
'...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, 02:42
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.

jonmanjiro
08-10-2009, 05:47
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 :rolleyes:

maddoc
08-10-2009, 06:05
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” 。。。:rolleyes:

Roger Hicks
08-10-2009, 06:11
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, 06:22
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

Oscar Levant
08-10-2009, 10:31
Compare "wine talk" with "bokeh talk" and you easily understand the fanciful (putting it kindly) terminology.

emraphoto
08-10-2009, 10:58
is this good bokeh or bad bokeh?

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox_VPage&IID=2TYRYD9PWNMU&CT=Image&IT=ZoomImage01_VForm

i'm not sure i get this bokeh thing?

Roger Hicks
08-10-2009, 11:03
is this good bokeh or bad bokeh?


Yes.

Cheers,

R.

Dave Wilkinson
08-10-2009, 11:05
is this good bokeh or bad bokeh?

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox_VPage&IID=2TYRYD9PWNMU&CT=Image&IT=ZoomImage01_VForm

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

emraphoto
08-10-2009, 11:06
Yes.

Cheers,

R.

AHA! now i get it.

bmattock
08-10-2009, 11:07
is this good bokeh or bad bokeh?

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox_VPage&IID=2TYRYD9PWNMU&CT=Image&IT=ZoomImage01_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_toronto_realtor/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, 11:09
"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, 11:13
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, 11:17
"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.

emraphoto
08-10-2009, 11:25
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, 11:36
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, 11:40
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, 11:46
all is good bill. i have been prone to a jumpy reaction myself.

Roger Hicks
08-10-2009, 11:54
all is good bill. i have been prone to a jumpy reaction myself.

Halleluja, Brother, you are not alone...

Cheers,

R.

lorriman
08-11-2009, 03:39
The Mike Johnston luminous landscape article doesn't define bokeh as the quality of the out of focus areas, but as <i>the</i> out of focus areas, consistent with the japanese.

bmattock
08-11-2009, 03:44
The Mike Johnston luminous landscape article doesn't define bokeh as the quality of the out of focus areas, but as <i>the</i> out of focus areas, consistent with the japanese.

If bokeh merely means 'out of focus' then there is no good or bad bokeh, only bokeh or no bokeh. And you may be right about the Japanese original meaning of the term - I have been told by people who speak Japanese as their native tongue that the term cannot be correctly explained or understood in English, that there is no literal translation for it. Fine with me.

I use the term as it has come to have meaning in English, which defines the quality of out of focus areas. Is this wrong? Sue me - but be ready, because you'll be suing a lot of people who also believe they know what it is incorrectly.

alcaraban
08-11-2009, 04:04
"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?

Well, it fits the definition of "bad bokeh", but in this case "good" is not always preferred to "bad". In classical tonal western music, there are "good" chords and "bad" chords (dissonance), but a composer will use the bad ones to his advantage. The same happens with appareance of OOF areas.

They should have called "bokeh A" and "bokeh B", I guess, or made a Donutness Scale.

jonmanjiro
08-11-2009, 04:28
If bokeh merely means 'out of focus' then there is no good or bad bokeh, only bokeh or no bokeh.

Exactly.

The term bokeh is derived from the Japanese active verb bokasu which means to befog, smudge, smear or render out of focus. Bokeh is what you get after you've done your bokasu-ing, and means the OOF area. Anything more and you're describing the bokeh.

例 → 人物を撮るときは開放絞りにセットして後ろをぼかすといいですよ^^

historicist
08-11-2009, 04:49
What word do the Japanese use to describe Bokeh in the western sense, i.e. a subjective description of the quality of the out of focus areas? Or do they just describe it, without a specific word?

I remember the first time I visited Japan the topic came up of what Japanese loan words are in English, and I gave Bokeh in the photographic sense as an example. One of the girls i was talking to had been a professional photographer, and thought it really strange that the word could be used to describe the quality of a lens rather than someone being absent minded etc.

jonmanjiro
08-11-2009, 05:15
Its a loan word, but not one that most Japanese are aware of, and judging by your experience, not one that some pro photographers in Japan are aware of either. 

I often read/hear the expression ボケ味 (bokeh-aji), which is literally bokeh-taste. Some of the words I hear/read that are used to describe the bokeh-taste are いい (ii or good), 悪い (warui or bad), 柔らかい (yawarakai or soft), 硬い (katai or hard). For example:

ボケ味がいい
ボケ味が悪い
ボケ味が柔らかい
ボケ味が硬い

No doubt there's more but these are the basic ones. I also hear/read the terms 前ボケ (mae-bokeh or bokeh infront of the point of focus) and 後ろボケ (ushiro-bokeh or bokeh behind the point of focus). If you can read Japanese, there's also this Wiki page about bokeh (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9C%E3%82%B1_%28%E5%86%99%E7%9C%9F%29). Not sure if this is a まともな答え but I've had a few too many sake's to manage anything more comprehensive tonight :rolleyes:

JoeV
08-11-2009, 05:48
Personal bokeh history: I first came across the word and its meaning from "Camera and Darkroom" magazine, in the early 1990s, in an article that unfolded the entire bokeh concept, for the first time, to the American reading public. I may still have that article, in a stack of old "Camera and Darkroom" magazines on my darkroom shelf, arranged in 3-ring binders.

Parenthetical note: As far as I'm concerned, the downfall of popular photographic journalism began with the demise of C & D.

One concept I recall from the article was that the appreciation of bokeh in photographic imagery derives from the Japanese sense of appreciation of 2-dimensional works of art in general, whereby traditional Japanese art employs the entire field of the canvas, and the "empty" spaces of the field are just as important as the parts of the image plane occupied by "objects". This may derive, to some degree, from the Zen Buddhist cultural persepective of traditional Japan. This view differs dramatically from the western view of objectivism, whereby the depiction of material objects within the otherwise "empty" plane of an image field is all about the object itself, while the background is subservient to the primary subject matter.

This traditional Japanese view of two-dimensional artistic appreciation extends to photography, where in the case of images employing selective focus the out of focus areas are appreciated for their tonal qualities just as much as are the sharply focused areas for theirs. The entire image field is considered part of the photographic treatment, whereas in western photography the use of selective focus is to isolate objects in space.

These differences in the ways that cultures appreciate art are what fascinate me about the bokeh discussion, and seem to be lost in all the noise of the moment. The appreciation of the entire image field, soft or sharply focused, seems to be an aesthetic that's been missing from western art since perspective entered the picture with Brunaschelli (sp) and single-point perspective (of course, such concepts have been re-explored since with abstract expressionism). It fascinates me that Japanese culture has been able to preserve intact some sense of appreciation for these more traditional modes of art interpretation. I think this is the crux of the matter pertaining to the importance of bokeh; without the understanding of the cultural background, I can certainly understand why so many people in these discussions seem jadded, almost "anti-bokeh" in their derisiveness of the topic. The differences between those that "get" bokeh and those that don't lie in fundamental differences in the ways that two-dimensional image fields are aesthetically understood.

~Joe

Roger Hicks
08-11-2009, 06:05
. . . The differences between those that "get" bokeh and those that don't lie in fundamental differences in the ways that two-dimensional image fields are aesthetically understood.

~Joe

Or perceived. Which can be part cultural, part brain-wiring as a result of the haphazard nature of learning to make sense of what we see as small babies.

In other words, a Japanese may perceive bokeh differently from a Briton, because of culture, but he may also be more or less sensitive to it than another Japanese, because of individual brain wiring.

Cheers,

R

bmattock
08-11-2009, 06:17
@ JoeV - Well said.

@ Roger Hicks - Ditto.

@ jonmanjiro - Again, we seem not to be communicating well. I have said that I am prepared to believe that the word 'bokeh' does not have the same meaning in the West that it does to the native Japanese speaker; and here's the important part - I DO NOT CARE. I appreciate bokeh as it is understood in the West. I could give a dull thud what it originally meant in Japan. I lived for a time in Japan, I speak a little Japanese, I 'get' that I'm just a baka gaijin, but I do not buy into the notion that some words just can't be explained to Westerners. We took the word and made it mean something else, so too bad, so sad. When I say 'bokeh', I mean it the way Westerners have understood it to mean, not the way it may have meaning in Japan. I don't care what the Japanese think of it.

historicist
08-11-2009, 06:48
I'm not entirely convinced by the idea that the concept of Bokeh stems from the difference between western and oriental modes of perception (though its a really interesting idea generally).

It seems to me that the concept of Bokeh which emerged in the 90s is fundamentally western, since the English use is rather different from the meaning in Japanese (i.e. a description of the aesthetic quality of the out of focus area vs. just saying that the area is fuzzy in a literal sense). Plus, if I am interpreting Jonmanjiro's post rightly (?), the Western usage of bokeh was imported back into Japan, i.e. it is a usage which did not originally exist in Japanese. This would also explain why the Japanese photographer I met had never heard of it.

What seems more likely to be the case is that there was a shift within western photography around the 1990s towards interest in Bokeh and, no suitable word existing for it, one was found from somewhere. I've no idea why the Japanese word got chosen though historically loanwords often come into use because the concept already exists in the language from which it got taken (I'm not familiar enough with either the Japanese language or photography to know). The cynical side of me thinks that hints of oriental mystique might have had more to do with it.

Often those that don't 'get' bokeh are from an older generation who perhaps developed their ideas before the concept became part of the mainstream.

btw, the differences between oriental and western perspective don't seem entirely analagous to dof because oriental perspective doesn't devalue/distinguish the background (nor does a lot of post-renaissance western painting). I take your point about the importance of empty space though.

Roger Hicks
08-11-2009, 07:02
I'm not entirely convinced by the idea that the concept of Bokeh stems from the difference between western and oriental modes of perception (though its a really interesting idea generally).

It seems to me that the concept of Bokeh which emerged in the 90s is fundamentally western, since the English use is rather different from the meaning in Japanese (i.e. a description of the aesthetic quality of the out of focus area vs. just saying that the area is fuzzy in a literal sense). Plus, if I am interpreting Jonmanjiro's post rightly (?), the Western usage of bokeh was imported back into Japan, i.e. it is a usage which did not originally exist in Japanese. This would also explain why the Japanese photographer I met had never heard of it.

What seems more likely to be the case is that there was a shift within western photography around the 1990s towards interest in Bokeh and, no suitable word existing for it, one was found from somewhere. I've no idea why the Japanese word got chosen though historically loanwords often come into use because the concept already exists in the language from which it got taken (I'm not familiar enough with either the Japanese language or photography to know). The cynical side of me thinks that hints of oriental mystique might have had more to do with it.

Often those that don't 'get' bokeh are from an older generation who perhaps developed their ideas before the concept became part of the mainstream.

btw, the differences between oriental and western perspective don't seem entirely analagous to dof because oriental perspective doesn't devalue/distinguish the background (nor does a lot of post-renaissance western painting). I take your point about the importance of empty space though.

I don't think I can disagree with a word of that.

Thanks,

R.

maddoc
08-11-2009, 07:06
Repeating my comment in Joe`s thread about boke(h):

These series dealt directly with the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the impact of the A-bombs rippled through practically all of the photography of the time, from Eikoh Hosoe’s collaborations with Tatsumi Hijikata in Man and Woman and Kamaitachi, to the are, bure, boke (rough, blurred and out-of-focus) aesthetic of Provoke in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

[from: http://www.eyecurious.com/hiroshima-6-august-1945/] (http://www.eyecurious.com/hiroshima-6-august-1945/%5D)

One of the famous "are, bure, boke" aesthetic of Provoke photographer is Daido Moriyama. Looking at his work and that of Japanese photographers from the era before WW II might shed some led into the original meaning of "boke".

JoeV
08-11-2009, 13:12
I appreciate all who have contributed to this discussion; often, philosophical art discussions degenerate into semantic arguments over "what is art" or "what is truth," to no resolution.

The aspect of the bokeh discussion that fascinates me is that there are aspects of the recent history of photography that are seemingly ill-understood (at least by me), worthy of further exploration. At this seemingly late date, there is still new and fertile ground to be explored in the aesthetic and perceptive understanding of imagery. One would've thunk that there was nothing else worthy of exploration or discussion concerning softness of photographic imagery after the pictorialists over a century ago got through with it. But here we are, in the 21st century, and we are still attempting to understand the photographic history of other cultures, and how these alternative views have been cross-fertilized into western culture.

~Joe

John Robertson
08-11-2009, 13:26
Roger, I have trouble with the name!!
Bokeh or Boke!! in Scots, a word pronounced the same way, means the
action of being sick!!!!

i.e "the smell of fish makes me boak",(pronounced boke)

I wish it had another name!!!

Chris101
08-11-2009, 15:52
I have co-opted the concept and word even further, making it fully Americanized (well, westernized anyway) word. There is little ambiguity in it's spelling or pronunciation: bokey. I've been spelling it this way since 2002 and in some cases it's catching on.

The sound of it is less pretentious as well. Bo key.

maddoc
08-11-2009, 16:59
ぴんぼけをあわせてない。。。

Gabriel M.A.
08-11-2009, 17:18
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.

You heathen! :cool:


Next word on the chopping block: "chromes" vs. "slides"

Roger Hicks
08-12-2009, 00:09
You heathen! :cool:


Next word on the chopping block: "chromes" vs. "slides"

...trannies!

Cheers,

R.

historicist
08-12-2009, 00:40
..trannies!

How very topical ;)

johannielscom
08-12-2009, 02:30
...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?...


This is the sole reason for me to consider bokeh in shooting.

I shot a portrait of a homeless man in the street the other day and opened up the Jupiter-3 while the background was at least 12 mtrs away. Too many donuts can make a man sick:D Should have closed down to f2.8 I guess (so now I know).

Your avatar reminds me I should get the Mamiya out more, very nice camera.

@Roger: that definition is far more useful than the one I tried to conjure up :) Thanks!

jonmanjiro
08-12-2009, 04:32
@ jonmanjiro - Again, we seem not to be communicating well. I have said that I am prepared to believe that the word 'bokeh' does not have the same meaning in the West that it does to the native Japanese speaker; and here's the important part - I DO NOT CARE. I appreciate bokeh as it is understood in the West. I could give a dull thud what it originally meant in Japan. I lived for a time in Japan, I speak a little Japanese, I 'get' that I'm just a baka gaijin, but I do not buy into the notion that some words just can't be explained to Westerners. We took the word and made it mean something else, so too bad, so sad. When I say 'bokeh', I mean it the way Westerners have understood it to mean, not the way it may have meaning in Japan. I don't care what the Japanese think of it.

Getting off the base once in a while doesn't really constitute living in Japan, but whatever :rolleyes:

As for your comment "Again, we seem not to be communicating well" I haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Anyway, it matters not. Get out yer pen, open your dictionary to the "B" section, and write under "bokeh" whatever definition works for you. Problem solved :D

John Robertson
08-12-2009, 10:19
...trannies!

Cheers,

R.
yes Roger, I always have known this word as an abreviation for Transvestite, perhaps they DO want to show us their "trannies"
you never know what some people keep in their cupboards!!!:eek:

"Trannie" - a mannie with a fannie!!!:p

Roger Hicks
08-12-2009, 10:23
yes Roger, I always have known this word as an abreviation for Transvestite, perhaps they DO want to show us their "trannies"
you never know what some people keep in their cupboards!!!:eek:

"Trannie" - a mannie with a fannie!!!:p

Although I realized it when it was pointed out, I have to say that 'transvestite' is a very, very secondary meaning for me and I had quite forgotten it. Oh, well; you live, and if you live long enough, you re-learn!

Cheers,

R.

John Robertson
08-12-2009, 10:26
Although I realized it when it was pointed out, I have to say that 'transvestite' is a very, very secondary meaning for me and I had quite forgotten it. Oh, well; you live, and if you live long enough, you re-learn!

Cheers,

R.

I worked in Soho tax office for too long!!!:o

Gabriel M.A.
08-12-2009, 16:07
...trannies!

Looks like we got ourselves another Poll :D

Dave Wilkinson
08-13-2009, 04:26
...trannies!

Cheers,

R. now we have pannies ( or pany ) too!....I think it's some kind of camera!.
Dave.

mfunnell
08-13-2009, 04:49
"Transparency". Or maybe that's not American usage?

...Mike

JohnTF
08-13-2009, 08:31
Tranny-- second member in a classic car? ;-) Roger, if your vehicle is parked within sight of those young editors, would they point out if your tranny leaked? ---

I suppose if they were truly transparent, it would be the emperor's new clothes, perhaps translucencies? ;-)

As to Bokeh, am not sure if good and bad are terms that can be absolute, in that perhaps what is good bokeh might not be separable from the context of the remaining image, and of course is a result of a variety of factors -- glass choice, FL, aperture, perspective, position, subject, composition -- probably left a few out?

Certainly I have seen examples of pleasant and unpleasant bokeh that has been a significant negative or positive component, i.e. flaw or enhancement, within an image.

How great a factor -- well that depends, again context.

By experience I know I like the general quality of the oof image, by any name, of the Zeiss, Leitz, and some of the Cosina glass I own and use, so to cut down the fog of battle going on when shooting, I tend to trust those lenses, and try by instinct to perform some control while all the other things are processing during shooting, or supposed to be processing.

Sometimes you feel an image as you shoot, and sometimes you are even right. I suspect the more artistic among us might feel it more often.

Working definitions and discussion help awareness of one more factor in the process, especially much of what is said in this and other threads is helpful, thoughtful and of course social.

I still own lenses I am unsure of in terms of their bokeh, and I either will learn them, or not.

I accept the opinions of many posted here, and explore some of the neglected lenses in the house to a greater or lesser degree, but still hope the feeling of a good image aligns with the technology more often.

I do not suppose any very close examination will reveal too much to take all the intangibles out of the greater process, so perhaps the quest for some absolute might be of interest, and in the end, an interesting pursuit of one component of a good image.

Have not heard the lens producers specifically flogging bokeh, or a "bokeh race" -- perhaps I am not listening?

Oh, yes, thanks for some very interesting remarks by you guys.

Regards, John

Spider67
08-13-2009, 09:58
"Signature" and "Bokeh". I am speaking strictly of the way those words are used: Just like with wine lovers it is tempting to try to be regarded as an expert who can say which lens was used, by simply looking at a picture. I once made fun of the concept and got reprimanded by another meber who rightly pouinted out that many memebr could discern the lenses used in a comparison, by looking at the bokeh.
.....I think there is also the fear that if the term is accepted and spreads discussions on photography could become as snobby as Wine talk.

Roger Hicks
08-13-2009, 10:05
Tranny-- second member in a classic car? ;-) Roger, if your vehicle is parked within sight of those young editors, would they point out if your tranny leaked? ---


Dear John,

Good point. Ahead of transvestites and wirelesses, behind diapositives...

EDIT: Actually, no-one would point out if a Land Rover Series III leaked: "They all do that, sir..."

Cheers mate,

R.

JohnTF
08-13-2009, 14:25
Roger,

Afraid it was the third member in my Chrysler, and the guy working on it never added any 90W when I asked-- cost me $1000 in a car with 60K miles.

I was trying to be polite about yours, if it leaks the proper amount it keeps the rust off. ;-)

John

JohnTF
08-13-2009, 14:28
"Signature" and "Bokeh". I am speaking strictly of the way those words are used: Just like with wine lovers it is tempting to try to be regarded as an expert who can say which lens was used, by simply looking at a picture. I once made fun of the concept and got reprimanded by another meber who rightly pouinted out that many memebr could discern the lenses used in a comparison, by looking at the bokeh.
.....I think there is also the fear that if the term is accepted and spreads discussions on photography could become as snobby as Wine talk.

Still, there are dreadful and potable wines to begin with, the rest of us read Parker and pray for no rain in August in Bordeaux. ;-)

John