Gumby
Veteran
Indeed... Wikipedia will verify your definition, but even in the professional culinary world there are many who don't know that. Some believe that umami is more related to the number of times one smacks their lips after eating something yummy, than to a real and measurable "thing".
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Gumby
Veteran
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
That's it!
Well, the good thing about bokeh, for bokeh lovers, is how easily great bokeh is achieved: anyone can do it all the time... You just need to buy a lens and click the shutter.
Cheers,
Juan
Pico
-
DougFord
on the good foot
[FONT="]For me, Bokeh is a singular pictorial element among many. It’s a technical byproduct of lens design. [/FONT]
[FONT="]There are both creative and technical reasons to eliminate all OOF areas or not; to any degree.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Be it good bokeh, bad bokeh, lots’a bokeh or no bokeh. Of the photographs that interest me, the existence or non-existence of bokeh is integral to the photograph.[/FONT]
Bokeh Czar
[FONT="]There are both creative and technical reasons to eliminate all OOF areas or not; to any degree.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Be it good bokeh, bad bokeh, lots’a bokeh or no bokeh. Of the photographs that interest me, the existence or non-existence of bokeh is integral to the photograph.[/FONT]
Bokeh Czar
Finder
Veteran
Never mind what it looks like. How is it pronounced?
alexnotalex
Well-known
There's almost always an out of focus piece in every photo I find pleasing, so it's an important part.
Some photos for me are destroyed because it's ugly or alien looking or agressive...
Wonderful composition, perfect exposure, tone transition + ugly alien bokeh = "eewwww, shame"
Bad composition + beautiful smooth, buttery, luxurious bokeh tending to gently swirl = "eewwww, shame"
so not overrated for me, YMMV
Some photos for me are destroyed because it's ugly or alien looking or agressive...
Wonderful composition, perfect exposure, tone transition + ugly alien bokeh = "eewwww, shame"
Bad composition + beautiful smooth, buttery, luxurious bokeh tending to gently swirl = "eewwww, shame"
so not overrated for me, YMMV
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
"...the Bokeh Filter is an excellent reminder of why it's still good to do some things in front of the lens... - Norman Chalk, Photographer"
E.g., putting the lens cap on before pressing the shutter.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Towards the end of the 1990s, a new word entered the photographic lexicon. Originally spelled boke, it was soon changed to bokeh, to show that it wasn't supposed to rhyme with coke or soak. Now it is pronounced bow-kay or bow-kehhh, according to preference. Although the word is hopelessly over-used by some people, it is far from useless, as it replaces the somewhat cumbersome phrase that was in use before: the quality of the out-of-focus image.
Cheers,
R.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Yes, I agree, and as for me, a bokeh obsession is what got me interested in the characteristics of various lenses. That coupled with my quest for a lens' certain ability to render space in a sort of juicy 3D way, as well as being able to hunt for MF lenses that I might actually be able to afford...
Sharpness often bothered me... but that's because up until recently I had been using a small sensor digital P&S. Sharp but flat and lifeless. Like peering at gourmet food that's been wrapped tight in plastic wrap.
I had been hungering for the ability to express the space, the atmosphere between the objects I was aiming at, and I think that might be why there seems to be a popular interest in general.
Recently I've discovered that bokeh in and of itself isn't the end all and be all of the rendering either. There's something else...
Something between the sharpness and the blur that if I were to follow, I suspect might lead me down a rabbit hole into a sort of theosophical spiritual realm in which objects, "especially lenses" are imprinted or imbued with a spirit or energy from the images they've taken.
Something about an old lens. The way it captures light. It seems the energy doesn't all pass through. Perhaps some of the energy is imprinted to the glass like an as of yet undiscovered record of the life images that have passed through it.
Just something to think about as we all ponder the inexplicable nature of the nature we visual observers visualize.
bizarrius
the great
i find the power of having bokeh in my pictures like setting priorities.
Meaning that besides the power of setting priorities in my frame on where i put stuff and how close I'm to what, i even have the power to prioritize with bokeh.
photography is amazing.
Meaning that besides the power of setting priorities in my frame on where i put stuff and how close I'm to what, i even have the power to prioritize with bokeh.
photography is amazing.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Reminds me of that old British comedy on TV???. "My name is pronounced Bouquet, not Bucket." lol
I've been pronouncing it Boke like as in Coke, and Uh as in Duh... Oh well, nobody I know cares about any of it anyway.
robbeiflex
Well-known
IMO it's overrated. An important tool, but as long as bokeh is not obtrusive or distracting in some way, then it's the overall composition that counts. Bad bokeh can easily ruin an otherwise decent photo, but good bokeh doesn't make a bad photo any better.
Cheers,
Rob
Cheers,
Rob
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
wgerrard
Veteran
An understanding and an appreciation of bokeh, i.e., what a lens does with the background, are useful. An obsession with bokeh, to the point that it becomes the most important attribute of a photo, seems to me to be self-defeating. Photos have foregrounds and backgrounds. The point of interest is usually in the foreground.
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
I can make the case that focus is not very important in a photo either, unles it's done badly.
People say that oxygen isn't very important, unless you aren't getting any.
People say that oxygen isn't very important, unless you aren't getting any.
principe azul
Ian
Blur is important in how it relates to what's in focus: is it a supportive background? is it blurred enough not to compete with the subject? are there conflicting colours? etc. etc.
Bokeh, in the sense of the quality of out-of-focus rendering, isn't usually a dealbreaker, but it can help make a photograph with a less distracting background. The worst case here, for 99% of tastes, is mirror-lens doughnut bokeh.
Also, if you have, say, a typical cafe shot of your companion across the table, and a waiter is blurred a couple of tables away in the background, it makes a difference whether:
- the waiter is still fairly sharp and competes for attention with the sharp, in-focus subject
- the waiter is 'nicely' blurred (to your taste)
- the waiter is blurred enough to form a pleasing , recognisable gooey shape
- the waiter is so blurred he forms a shape that melts into the table and ends up looking pictorially distracting ("I can just make out something in the background, but it looks like a giant spider")
-the waiter is completely blown out, with the result there's a large blob of colour you didn't expect that detracts from your companion
Using an RF, of course, there's some unpredictability to this.
I've had photos where I've felt the bokeh (in the sense of blur quality) was a dealbreaker, usually where a row of ceiling spotlights has turned into double-lined pentagons. In a photo of something straight, like a stepladder, this might be okay, but with a photo of something rounded, like a person, this seems to set up a tension. Though this is mainly because the lights are so bright against a dark background, which brings us back to how blur interacts with the subject.
Bokeh, in the sense of the quality of out-of-focus rendering, isn't usually a dealbreaker, but it can help make a photograph with a less distracting background. The worst case here, for 99% of tastes, is mirror-lens doughnut bokeh.
Also, if you have, say, a typical cafe shot of your companion across the table, and a waiter is blurred a couple of tables away in the background, it makes a difference whether:
- the waiter is still fairly sharp and competes for attention with the sharp, in-focus subject
- the waiter is 'nicely' blurred (to your taste)
- the waiter is blurred enough to form a pleasing , recognisable gooey shape
- the waiter is so blurred he forms a shape that melts into the table and ends up looking pictorially distracting ("I can just make out something in the background, but it looks like a giant spider")
-the waiter is completely blown out, with the result there's a large blob of colour you didn't expect that detracts from your companion
Using an RF, of course, there's some unpredictability to this.
I've had photos where I've felt the bokeh (in the sense of blur quality) was a dealbreaker, usually where a row of ceiling spotlights has turned into double-lined pentagons. In a photo of something straight, like a stepladder, this might be okay, but with a photo of something rounded, like a person, this seems to set up a tension. Though this is mainly because the lights are so bright against a dark background, which brings us back to how blur interacts with the subject.
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
Is 'silence' an important element of musical composition?