What is Bokeh?
Bokeh is a word that many photographers throw around frequently here on PictureSocial Network. But only the more advanced members seem to really understand the term. I recently released a Post over at my blog Through the Lens that details exactly what bokeh is and how to achieve the effect in your photos. It's a really good read and there are lots of examples. Check it out if you're interested or want to learn more about the subject.
Through the Lens: Through the Bokeh
James Elliott
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by CameraClicker on -
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Davis on
-
This is "Circles of confusion" not bokeh!
-
Permalink Reply by CameraClicker on
-
This is a cut & paste from Wikipedia which certainly seems pretty succinct: The term comes from the Japanese word boke (暈け or ボケ), which means "blur" or "haze", or boke-aji (ボケ味), the "blur quality".
I don't see a difference between "bokeh" and "circles of confusion that are large enough to cause blur", except that circles of confusion have an English language origin and bokeh has a Japanese language origin.
-
Permalink Reply by nathan mccreery on -
The more complex things are, the simpler they become. I just made that up but it seems appropriate. I read the first article that I remember about "bokeh" in "Peterson's Photographic" years ago and it seemed like mumbo jumbo then, still does today. All this phenomena refers to is limited depth of field. Points of light in the back ground can be modified to look like anything simply by changing the shape of the aperture. The larger the opening and the larger the image size the more out of focus the background will be. I thought then, and do now, that the writer was just trying to make a name for himself by identifying some, already existing, photographic phenomena and attaching an exotic name to it. Just call it what it is, a very out of focus background.
-
Permalink Reply by James Elliott on -
I understand what your saying but there actually is more to it than just a "very out of focus" background. It's a style, or tool for a photographer to enhance their photographs. There's a difference between out of focus and bokeh. If done right bokeh can be beautiful and artistic, out of focus is just out of focus, and often times degrades a photo.
-
Permalink Reply by nathan mccreery on
-
James, I couldn't disagree more. I've been doing this for so many years. I've seen trends and fads come and go. The only constants are the unchangeable laws of physics and optics. What many refer to as "bokeh", which again I think is just an exotic term on an old phenomena, is just a very out of focus background. There are some things that can be done to change the appearance, such as heart shaped openings that can be placed over the front of the lens. However, the above example is just a very out of focus background. To say that one lens or the other has more "bokeh" than another is utter nonsense. Certainly a 300mm f 2.8 lens will have more 'bokeh" when focused on an object at ten feet, wide open, with a background at 50ft, than a 300mm f 5.6 lens under the same circumstances but only because of the difference between f 2.8 and f 5.6. It only would be true, that they would be different, if you could alter physical law or optical law. On my best day, I can do neither. As I said, I read the original article on this over 25 years ago in "Peterson's Photographic", which is now published under a different name. I thought it was nonsense then and I do today. I have good friend who used to write a column in "Camera and Darkroom" (now called "Photo-Technique") magazine about photographic myths. I used to tease him saying he should call it "Kicking over Sacred Cows". This one would fall into that category. While I have high regard for your photographs I do think you're off base on this one.
-
Permalink Reply by CameraClicker on
-
Merklinger's article from 1997 is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml
I think James blog had the link to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
Bokeh or boke is a Japanese word applied to the phenomenon all lenses produce, the circle of confusion. They go on to modify the term with either good, or bad, based on their view of what is pleasing or not. I gather from the articles that some lenses have a circle of confusion which is evenly illuminated and appears so, while others have a circle of confusion which is not evenly illuminated or which appears not evenly illuminated, and this has been judged to be bad, relative to even illumination which has been judged to be good. The shape caused by the aperture seems to be judged as well, round being better than other shapes.
Out of focus is the state of the circle of confusion being large enough for our eyes to perceive it, or as it is in the article, "depth of field is the region where the size of the circle of confusion is less than the resolution of the human eye." On this basis any out of focus area would be bokeh, so there is no difference between out of focus and bokeh.
Presumably the amount of bokeh varies from picture to picture based on how much of the image is within the depth of field; an image being totally in focus front to back and side to side having no bokeh and something like my image above taken at f/1.4 through a 24mm lens with focus cranked all the way to minimum with the subject a block away having nothing but bokeh, are the extremes. The lens I used is quite capable of providing an image that is in focus throughout. If all lenses have a hyperfocal distance, then they are all capable of no bokeh, all bokeh, or something in between. Quality, defined by shape and evenness of illumination probably vary dramatically from lens to lens based on aperture design and perhaps design of, and coating on, the elements. Probably lenses with little chromatic aberration have the best looking bokeh because more care was taken in the design and construction of the optics.
I think it is fair to say that some images have out of focus areas that seem to enhance the picture, and others have out of focus areas that, frankly, just hurt my eyes. I imagine others could also identify pictures in both categories. Depending on the kind of photography, the photographer may be able to control subject placement relative to foreground and background which adds an extra element beyond aperture, focal length and sensor size to control depth of field. It also seems reasonable that different lenses would affect the perception of bokeh based on their quality and specific aperture characteristics. It is up to the photographer to choose the hardware and settings, as well as composition, thus controlling bokeh.
I have to say, using "bokeh" when writing is nicer than inserting "out of focus area" every time you want to mention it, but it does have a sound that is strange to the ear.
-
Permalink Reply by nathan mccreery on
-
My main disagreement with the term is that it is confusing. It sounds like some exotic quality that certain lenses possess and others don't, which as you know is nonsense. While saying an area is "an out of focus area" is admittedly more awkward it does bring it to its most basic level which is that an area is out of focus. The bottom line on the discussion, for my part, is that areas become more and more out of focus as they depart from the plane of critical focus and as the aperture size (not f-stop number) gets larger.
One of my main purposes of participating in this site is that I get to share knowledge with beginners, and hope through that to lay a good foundation for them. In that regard I try to be very precise in the use of terminology so that there is no doubt of what I mean. So much of what I learned, through discussions I had with what I thought were knowledgeable pros was just nonsense and, in a sense, had to be "unlearned" as I spoke with pros who really were masters of the medium. Good discussion though.
-
Permalink Reply by Papa Rotzzi on -
Yeah, "bokeh" is simply the by-product of a photo in which my goal was to achieve a shallow depth of field in my desire to isolate my subject from the background. I do not strive for nice "bokeh" because if my viewer is looking at the bokeh, they are not looking at my subject..
-
Permalink Reply by James Elliott on
-
I by no means consider myself professional but I do have advice to offer. My point on the topic is just that bokeh is beneficial to a photo and can be harnessed by a photographer to possibly better their work. I'm not trying to argue or address the scientific aspects of Bokeh but rather its use by an artist and how to best accomplish the effect. If you want science read this.
Opinions are opinions, and mine just happens to be that bokeh is different than simply out of focus. I see out of focus as bad thing and bokeh as beautiful.
-
Permalink Reply by nathan mccreery on
-
Depends on what it is that's out of focus.
Recommended:
Latest Activity
Free Photography Tips
© 2012 Created by PictureSocial.com.
