Is bokeh completely subjective?

[FS Vontz]

Isn't everything?

 

[Boniface XIII]

Everything is subjective..

No. Not "everything" is subjective: only some things are, unless one is a die-hard solipsist.

Objectivitity still holds its place in a neo-paranoid New World where accidentally bumping into a fellow-passenger when jumping on a crowded NYC bus triggers an automatic "sexual harassment" lawsuit...

 

[Boniface XIII]

Isn't everything?

No. This is one of the most fatal mental diseases of the age.

 

[aizan]

bokeh itself is not subjective, just what somebody thinks of it.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

No. Not "everything" is subjective: only some things are, unless one is a die-hard solipsist.

Objectivitity still holds its place in a neo-paranoid New World ...

Yes, there's an objective reality at the basis of everything whether or not anyone can observe it directly or indirectly.

I'd thought that bokeh was, by definition, purely subjective--an aesthetic consideration of the quality of OOF rendering. However, because bokeh should be largely a result of lens design--given the same scene, two lenses each of different formulae will render the OOF areas differently--perhaps, if one can point to the physical characteristic that produces this sort of bokeh as oppoosed to that, one can then quantify (precisely or approximately) the effect of lens design on bokeh.

 

[ampguy]

Well... let's see if we can get this back on track...

For those of you who agreed that OOF areas of different lenses can be quantitatively measured, you are correct. You can look at a specific area of an OOF portion of an image from different lenses and see a black in one, and a white in another.

With either your eyes, or a densitometer.

I'm focusing on the objectivity of OOF areas between different lens, not on the subjectivity of the looks. I agree that "distracted" "neutral" and "pleasing" are subjective terms.

Most of the people I know agree for VOIP, that Skype's voice quality "sucks" (but is free), and that Vonage is better than Skype, but may not be as good as a land line.

The ITU-T has a subjective scale of 1-5 MOS (Mean Opinon Score), since with VOIP, and the use of different codecs and DSP, you can't just measure quantitative things like S/N or bandwidth to tell you which sounds better for a voice telephone call. Check it out. Maybe there is a need for a MBS (Mean Bokeh Score), which I would acknowledge is subjective.

But, like with repressed mother lust images, the quantitative based technologies of say a Summilux 35/1.4 pre asph, will always have a higher subjective MBS than say a CV 35/1.4, just as Vonage has a higher MOS than Skype.

 

[ferider]

But, like with repressed mother lust images, the quantitative based technologies of say a Summilux 35/1.4 pre asph, will always have a higher subjective MBS than say a CV 35/1.4, just as Vonage has a higher MOS than Skype.

Proove it, Ted, via a repeatable blind test. 🙂

 

[Boniface XIII]

Yes, there's an objective reality at the basis of everything whether or not anyone can observe it directly or indirectly.

I'd thought that bokeh was, by definition, purely subjective--an aesthetic consideration of the quality of OOF rendering. However, because bokeh should be largely a result of lens design--given the same scene, two lenses each of different formulae will render the OOF areas differently--perhaps, if one can point to the physical characteristic that produces this sort of bokeh as oppoosed to that, one can then quantify (precisely or approximately) the effect of lens design on bokeh.

Yes .

 

[Turtle]

Which lens produces what is factual; what you like is subjective. Where things get even messier is that some decide one lens to have 'nicer' bokeh than another based on wildly different shooting consitions. Tiny changes in focus distance, backrgound distance, tectures and shapes etc all make a difference. I find it funny when people decide lens A has awful bokeh, based on a shot or two online, with no idea how any other lens would have dealt with the same scene... or prefer one lens over another based on shots where the distance focused is 10 or 15cm different on two lenses... when that cam make an epic difference.

Personally I dont like crazy bokeh. I like neautral creamy bokeh that does not distract from where I want to place the focus, and therefore the eye. So far my 35 summarit has proven the smoothest I have ever used below 50mm.

 

[NickTrop]

No. This is one of the most fatal mental diseases of the age.

Okeeey, well if that's your subjective opinion, I subjectively disagree. - You appear to be die hard Reverse Sophist. I'll stick with Occam's Razor and Descartes - thank you very much, as my logical justification for being a Sophist over your logically fallacious "argument" - the good ole ad hominem attack (by direct inference, sophists suffer from "fatal mental diseases" according to you), offered by you to support (rather weakly I might ad) your counter position. And, all this over a discussion about the out of focus areas of a picture?!?! 😱

 

[ampguy]

how?

how?

I am not even sure if I can buy this lens, without it having focus shift, or I would, seriously.

However, I do have a good 40/1/4 that I can take photos with, and a summilux. Both wide open, random close ups. Then strip out the exif info. and let people guess which is which.

Proove it, Ted, via a repeatable blind test. 🙂

 

[Boniface XIII]

Okeeey, well if that's your subjective opinion, I subjectively disagree. - You appear to be die hard Reverse Sophist. I'll stick with Occam's Razor and Descartes - thank you very much, as my logical justification for being a Sophist over your logically fallacious "argument" - the good ole ad hominem attack (by direct inference, sophists suffer from "fatal mental diseases" according to you), offered by you to support (rather weakly I might ad) your counter position. And, all this over a discussion about the out of focus areas of a picture?!?! 😱

I wasn't even addressing you... What happenned here?

I din't proffer an "argument"...

Much less, I didn't "attack" anyone.

The syntax in your post prevents me from replyiing, as it is askew.

No offence meant against you, brother, as I don't even know who you are.

All I did was drop a few Kopeks in the RFF piggy-bank.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

Okeeey, well if that's your subjective opinion, I subjectively disagree. - You appear to be die hard Reverse Sophist. I'll stick with Occam's Razor and Descartes - thank you very much, as my logical justification for being a Sophist over your logically fallacious "argument" - the good ole ad hominem attack (by direct inference, sophists suffer from "fatal mental diseases" according to you), offered by you to support (rather weakly I might ad) your counter position. And, all this over a discussion about the out of focus areas of a picture?!?! 😱

This might turn rather interesting. However, B XIII referred to solipsists, not sophists, so there's no ad hominem vis sophists, as the reference was only to solipsists who indeed believe that nothing exists outside one's mind, and therefore all is subjective. (I actually like solipsism, as I'm not entirely convinced any of you exist. It's hard to be humble when one is the centre of the universe.)

Question for OP: by black and white, do you mean readings on a pixel-by-pixel or grain-by-grain level?

 

[NickTrop]

I wasn't even addressing you... What happenned here?

I din't proffer an "argument"...

Much less, I didn't "attack" anyone.

The syntax in your post prevents me from replyiing, as it is askew.

No offence meant against you, brother, as I don't even know who you are.

All I did was drop a few Kopeks in the RFF piggy-bank.

Relax - I'm just being a wiseacre, having fun. Don't mind me. All good.

 

[ampguy]

It doesn't matter

It doesn't matter

print or on screen.

Just take 2 images from 2 different models of lenses of same focal length. Focus at 1 meter at F2 or wider, and examine the artifacts of the OOF region with mixed random lighting and parallel and non-parallel solid lines.

Image 1 will have circles, some hollow, some solid, some in-between, and/or the presence or absence of confusing double lines, of probable low MBS that Image 2 will not, have and vice versa.

Note to self: Create Wikipedia entry for "MBS" 😀

This might turn rather interesting. However, B XIII referred to solipsists, not sophists, so there's no ad hominem vis sophists, as the reference was only to solipsists who indeed believe that nothing exists outside one's mind, and therefore all is subjective. (I actually like solipsism, as I'm not entirely convinced any of you exist. It's hard to be humble when one is the centre of the universe.)

Question for OP: by black and white, do you mean readings on a pixel-by-pixel or grain-by-grain level?

 

[Nikkor AIS]

Taken with Leica M7 and 50 1.0 Noctilux @ 1.0



Taken with Nikkor 28 1.4 AF D on D3 @ 1.4



Taken with Nikon 45 2.8 ED PC on D3 @ F2.8

I like all kinds of bokeh.

 

[Boniface XIII]

Relax - I'm just being a wiseacre, having fun. Don't mind me. All good.

Excellent. Me too! 🙂

 

[J J Kapsberger]

Taken with Nikkor 28 1.4 AF D on D3 @ 1.4

Hmm. He seems to hail from somewhere south of Edmonton.

 

[Gumby]

Has anyone here ever heard of the field of "psychophysics"? I believe it is a methodology for statistically quantifying subjective opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysics

But if y'all are satisfied with "my opinion is right and yours is wrong"... then, have at it!

 

[kuzano]

Subjective-Objective

Subjective-Objective

The only way bokeh could be objective is if you described the physics of bokeh without rendering a qualitative opinion of what makes bokeh good or bad.

Human beings are not naturally wired to remain opinion-less on much of what they discuss.... hence internet forums where we can rant, lie, tell tall tales, be totally bizarre in our self importance, and blow smoke up one anothers A__ without fear of being penalized.

In that case, most of what you read on the internet about bokeh IS subjective.