Boke(h)y Hokey Pokey

[RJBender]

Dave,

Well, there are smooth out-of-focus areas and distracting out-of-focus areas. Stuff in the background is not supposed to compete with your subject for attention.

These writers can explain it better than I can:

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf
http://www.pathcom.com/~vhchan/bokeh.html

R.J.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Krispy Kremes, some say, are eevyl.

Good coffee makes it all irrelevant.

 

[RJBender]

Krispy Kremes, some say, are eevyl.

Good coffee makes it all irrelevant.

The very first Krispy Kreme donut store I ever saw was in Mobile, Alabama in 1981. When I drove by, there were 2 kids sitting on the dumpster behind the store eating some of the donuts that had been tossed in the trash. My first thought was those must be some damn good donuts. The kids weren't starving, BTW.

R.J.

 

[StuartR]

I don't like donuts, but I like bokeh. This means war.

 

[RJBender]

I don't like donuts, but I like bokeh. This means war.

Get a mirror lens and you can have donuts in your bokeh, Stuart.

R.J.

 

[StuartR]

Hahahaha, no, I don't like donuts. The mirror lens is for those of you who do like them, but also like bokeh...

 

[Sparrow]

Can anyone prove to me that bokeh is NOT subjective in nature?

curious about this bokey hokey pokey,
Dave

Yes I think I can do that; any image or image element can be judged “good” or “bad” if the observer relates that judgment to a recognised ascetic, so for instance something could be described as having a good classical composition. The value judgment here is supported by an accepted aesthetic idle.

As the out of focus area of a photo has as yet no proposed theory let alone generally accepted aesthetic any judgment must therefore be an opinion and described as such, liked or disliked not good or bad.

Ask your protagonist to explain on what aesthetic he bases his judgment.

 

[Trius]

Stewart: Some of us recognize more ascetics than others. Gandhi, Buddah are ascetics that are that are recognized by most, but your next door neighbour may be an ascetic but you'd never know it.

If one eats donuts, whether Krispy Kreme (yech), Dunkin' (dunno, it's been ages) or Tim Hortons (so-so for most varieties), one is probably not an ascetic.

But you can still like bokeh whether you are an ascetic or not. It's true, good coffee makes it irrelevant, but I'm not sure whether you can be an ascetic and like gourmet coffee.

And that is my aesthetic.

Sorry, I'd put in a donut animated GIF but RJ has used them all. There must have been a GIF flea market in O'Fallon recently.

 

[RJBender]

Stewart: Some of us recognize more ascetics than others. Gandhi, Buddah are ascetics that are that are recognized by most, but your next door neighbour may be an ascetic but you'd never know it.

If one eats donuts, whether Krispy Kreme (yech), Dunkin' (dunno, it's been ages) or Tim Hortons (so-so for most varieties), one is probably not an ascetic.

But you can still like bokeh whether you are an ascetic or not. It's true, good coffee makes it irrelevant, but I'm not sure whether you can be an ascetic and like gourmet coffee.

And that is my aesthetic.

Sorry, I'd put in a donut animated GIF but RJ has used them all. There must have been a GIF flea market in O'Fallon recently.

It was a great flea market! I saw some great deals on bokeh.

Have a donut, Earl.

R.J.

 

[amateriat]

My point of view was that it is, in fact, a subjective quality because we cannot measure it but we can say that "hmm.. I agree that really harsh bokeh sucks.. yet the sort of 'in between' bokeh ; the bokeh that is not harsh but at the same time not creamy smooth may be considered pleasing by some and vile by others"

No wonder I get a tad hungry every time the subject of bokeh comes up – it always sounds like a comparison of steel-cut oats and cheap instant oatmeal. 😀


- Barrett

 

[dcsang]

Thanks for the input on this guys..
I still believe it's subjective but I do concur that it must be related to the subject matter of the image.

That being said, I think we mostly can agree that "harsh bokeh" is something that would draw one's attention away from the subject matter where as "smooth/creamy bokeh" is something that does not detract from but instead enhances the subject matter.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong.. everyone except Joe who doesn't care about bokeh.. 😀

Dave

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Thanks for the input on this guys..
I still believe it's subjective but I do concur that it must be related to the subject matter of the image.

That being said, I think we mostly can agree that "harsh bokeh" is something that would draw one's attention away from the subject matter where as "smooth/creamy bokeh" is something that does not detract from but instead enhances the subject matter.

Andy Warhol's cans of soup, one could argue, are a bit "harsh" compared to the "smooth/creamy" renditions of Da Vinci. They each have their fans.