Is Bokeh an overated property of an image?

Is Bokeh an overated property of an image?

  • Yes

    Votes: 191 51.8%

  • No

    Votes: 157 42.5%

  • I used to be decisive but I'm not so sure now

    Votes: 21 5.7%
  • Total voters
    369
  • Poll closed .
Gabor, Jon:

ども　ありがとう、なるほど　ねええ

This is my point. This is exactly how a Japanese tobacco company or liquor company would describe their flavor, in katakana as "fresh flavor" or "tasty" rather than oishii.

wakatta?

Context is everything. This is where Wikipedia, web, and modern periodical writing can throw a wrench in the mix.
 
ampguy said:
Gabor, Jon:

ども　ありがとう、なるほど　ねええ

This is my point. This is exactly how a Japanese tobacco company or liquor company would describe their flavor, in katakana as "fresh flavor" or "tasty" rather than oishii.

wakatta?

Context is everything. This is where Wikipedia, web, and modern periodical writing can throw a wrench in the mix.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't get your point Ted.

チカン is also often written in katakana. Nothing to do with advertising there.
 
Hi Jon

Hi Jon

I agree with this kanji, and the associated definitions on that yahoo jp link.

My point was in reference to Gabor earlier mentioning that the word had morphed from an original Japanese meaning to something else, and then re-imported back to mean what it does again in Japanese.

Just my opinion though. Believe what you want here though, it's all good with me.

jonmanjiro said:
Nope. This kanji → 暈

暈す

暈ける
Click to expand...
 
ampguy said:
My point was in reference to Gabor earlier mentioning that the word had morphed from an original Japanese meaning to something else, and then re-imported back to mean what it does again in Japanese.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think that's what happened. Just my opinion. :)
 
Here's an interesting fact, I looked up the the word Boke in the Oxford English Dictionary. Apparently it's Scottish for vomit. No wonder they respelt it with an H on the end.
 
tlitody said:
Here's an interesting fact, I looked up the the word Boke in the Oxford English Dictionary. Apparently it's Scottish for vomit. No wonder they respelt it with an H on the end.
Click to expand...
Ooops! :eek: But I think the ending H was intended to induce pronunciation more nearly like the Japanese.
 
I think alot of photographers get -way over- anal retentive about "bokeh". If it's a great photograph, I don't care about the "bokeh".
 
I don't know if I would go so far as to say bokeh is overrated but I will bet you on one thing...if you have an ounce of photography in your soul the first time you took a picture that exhibited bokeh regardless of it's quality you were excited about it... ;)

Personally I am trying to master DOF with various camera/lens combinations...I am a beginner so to speak...the bokeh is sort of like a side effect of that attempt to learn DOF to me nowadays I guess...it was more important to me at the start.
 
Last edited:
Nope - not overrated. In portraiture the OOF area takes up - what, 2/3rds of the print most often? There is most definitely "good" bokeh that looks like a watercolor wash and adds to the image, and "bad" bokeh that looks "nervous' and like a drunk person seeing double, which detracts from the image. "Bokeh" is not an overrated quality in a portrait lens - it's way more important than sharpness and is right up there with color rendition. Casual viewers of your photo will know it's special based on good "bokeh" way more so than resolution or sharpness. Also, bokeh is an optical quality that's difficult to add at all in post, and never looks quite as good as natural optical bokeh even when it's well done. It adds a diminesional quality and causes pics to "pop". Color, bokeh - underrrated. Sharpness, resolution, mild vignetting, performance wide open, various chromatic aberations - all vastly overrated especially since many of these can be corrected in post, trivially, now. Flare control is also important.
 
I haven't read the whole thread, but I think bokeh is overrated only when it is, by itself, what makes a photo interesting.
 
The most interesting thing about the concept was that it entered the Western lexicon from Japan at a time when many folks in Western photographic communities were obsessed with sharpness and lines-per-millimeter of resolution. It was nice shock to the system to flip the resolution-as-end-all-be-all conversation on its head.

Overrated? I don't think so. Who is doing the rating? Where is it published? Are they mistaken in their calculations, these "overraters"? If any part of your image distracts from what you are trying to say, then it is "bad," from an image-maker's point of view. If you are condemned to use a lens that causes your viewers nausea for the kinds of images you routinely produce, why wouldn't you want to address that part of your image-making process, even if that meant selling your bad-boke-baby and buying a 50 Summicron?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom