Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Bad Bokeh!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 15, 2005 1:09:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;
That's bad bokeh (tsk tsk tsk). Yeuck!


Nikon 28-200 3.5-5.6
Pretty cool lens considering it's about $350 though quite soft at 200
but hey it's all I got now. I guess this example easily justifies a 50
f/1.8 prime. Does it justify a 70-200 f/2.8? Sigh.


I was so ignorant, my little 3MP oly C3030 had an f/2.8 lens & I didn't
even know. It was much better in low light than my D70 with this lens.
It cost $800 in 2000, it's probably worth $50 now but it had better blur
damnit.

More about : bad bokeh

Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:46:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> That's bad bokeh

Made a lot worse by *way* too much sharpening, and lots of jpg
artefacts thrown in. A nice photo ruined..
March 15, 2005 2:34:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
>...
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;
>
> That's bad bokeh (tsk tsk tsk). Yeuck!
> ...
>
> I was so ignorant, my little 3MP oly C3030 had an f/2.8 lens & I didn't
> even know. It was much better in low light than my D70 with this lens.
> It cost $800 in 2000, it's probably worth $50 now but it had better blur
> damnit.

Here's an oly C3030 f/2.8 bokeh for comparison:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;
I just pointed & shot. I had no clue.

I used it today for some technical needs for wifey in a crawlspace & it
didn't complain about autofocus or anything. I got 1 second exposures
braced against the wall under the building with a flashlight! The D70
with a 3.5 would have simply refused.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 7:24:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <j82dnTzfVqiK4avfRVn-hw@speakeasy.net>, paul <paul@not.net>
wrote:

> Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
> bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.

Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:18:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul <paul@not.net> wrote in news:j82dnTzfVqiK4avfRVn-hw@speakeasy.net:

> Nikon 28-200 3.5-5.6
> Pretty cool lens considering it's about $350 though quite soft at 200
> but hey it's all I got now. I guess this example easily justifies a 50
> f/1.8 prime. Does it justify a 70-200 f/2.8? Sigh.

70-200 f/2.8 seems to be a sweet spot for optics. Canon, Sigma and Nikon
all make killer glass on that range.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

Performance seems to be about equal, optics-wise: the real choice is
stabilization or not - i.e., is it worth twice as much.

There is no question whether to buy the basic lens or not: sooner or later,
you will.
March 15, 2005 10:28:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <150320050424302410%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
rag@nospam.techline.com says...
> In article <j82dnTzfVqiK4avfRVn-hw@speakeasy.net>, paul <paul@not.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
> > bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.
>
> Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
> Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".
>

We dont exactly have the word NOW.

We've had it since long before digital photography, and if I remember
correctly (I might not) since before the popularity of 35mm.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:01:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Start here... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml


"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:150320050424302410%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <j82dnTzfVqiK4avfRVn-hw@speakeasy.net>, paul <paul@not.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
> > bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.
>
> Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
> Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 6:15:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1ca09eedbd475b98976a@news.individual.NET>, Larry
<larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:

> > Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
> > Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".
> >
>
> We dont exactly have the word NOW.
>
> We've had it since long before digital photography, and if I remember
> correctly (I might not) since before the popularity of 35mm.

I've never heard the word until about a year ago.
March 15, 2005 7:23:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> In article <MPG.1ca09eedbd475b98976a@news.individual.NET>, Larry
> <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>We dont exactly have the word NOW.
>>
>>We've had it since long before digital photography, and if I remember
>>correctly (I might not) since before the popularity of 35mm.
>
>
> I've never heard the word until about a year ago.


Me either.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 7:54:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <j82dnTzfVqiK4avfRVn-hw@speakeasy.net>, paul <paul@not.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
>>bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.
>
>
> Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
> Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".

Ooh! I got it. How about "graceful degradation of sharpness." Just kinda
rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it? I hereby patent "GDOS."(TM) Fear me.

Okay, actual questions:

1) Examples of what's considered good and bad bokeh have been published
in books, on the net, and elsewhere. Does good bokeh mean that a lens
images out-of-focus areas the *same* way the eye does, or in some way
that specifically looks better in a photograph?

2) Is there ever a time for goofy bokeh? I dislike the doughnut hole
look a lot, even when done on purpose. Perhaps if I had folded optics in
my eyes, it might look appealing.

Corry
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"Max Imo" <not@this.com> wrote in alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf: "I suggest
Corry keep his uninformed opinions to a subject he knows something about
(porno, hacking, terrorism)."
March 15, 2005 7:54:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Unclaimed Mysteries
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote:

>2) Is there ever a time for goofy bokeh? I dislike the doughnut hole
>look a lot, even when done on purpose. Perhaps if I had folded optics in
>my eyes, it might look appealing.


I learned a new term two days ago, "ring blur". I was seriously
thinking of buying a 600mm mirror for my film camera but when I
checked out the sigma website and saw what 'ring blur' looked like, I
passed. I'll keep checking ebay for a non-folded optics deal.

Goofy looking is a kind phrase.

Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
March 15, 2005 9:26:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <150320051515196072%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
rag@nospam.techline.com says...
> In article <MPG.1ca09eedbd475b98976a@news.individual.NET>, Larry
> <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
> > > Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".
> > >
> >
> > We dont exactly have the word NOW.
> >
> > We've had it since long before digital photography, and if I remember
> > correctly (I might not) since before the popularity of 35mm.
>
> I've never heard the word until about a year ago.
>


I hear it more now than I have in the last 30 or 40 years, but it was around
when I was a kid in the school photography club (a long time ago).

I remember reading about the initial use of the word but I dont remember any
of the details. Surely someone here knows the details.



--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 10:23:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>> In article <j82dnTzfVqiK4avfRVn-hw@speakeasy.net>, paul
>> <paul@not.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs
>>> indicate bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good
>>> bokeh.
>>
>>
>> Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a
>> lens. Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".
>
> Ooh! I got it. How about "graceful degradation of sharpness." Just
> kinda rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it? I hereby patent
> "GDOS."(TM) Fear me.
> Okay, actual questions:
>
> 1) Examples of what's considered good and bad bokeh have been
> published in books, on the net, and elsewhere. Does good bokeh mean
> that a lens
> images out-of-focus areas the *same* way the eye does, or in some way
> that specifically looks better in a photograph?
>
> 2) Is there ever a time for goofy bokeh? I dislike the doughnut hole
> look a lot, even when done on purpose. Perhaps if I had folded optics
> in my eyes, it might look appealing.
>
> Corry


From: "Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net>
Subject: Re: Bad Bokeh!
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:54 AM

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <j82dnTzfVqiK4avfRVn-hw@speakeasy.net>, paul <paul@not.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs
>>indicate bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good
>>bokeh.
>
>
> Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
> Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".

Ooh! I got it. How about "graceful degradation of sharpness." Just kinda
rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it? I hereby patent "GDOS."(TM) Fear
me.

Okay, actual questions:

1) Examples of what's considered good and bad bokeh have been published
in books, on the net, and elsewhere. Does good bokeh mean that a lens
images out-of-focus areas the *same* way the eye does, or in some way
that specifically looks better in a photograph?

2) Is there ever a time for goofy bokeh? I dislike the doughnut hole
look a lot, even when done on purpose. Perhaps if I had folded optics in
my eyes, it might look appealing.

Corry
--

I'm pleased to see Mr. Mysteries back on scene.

1) It all has to do with the way the eye does it, and the brain does
it, and all those little guys in your head who whisper to one another,
passing along the "good" "bad" messages like "telephone". It resonates
or it doesn't, depending on electro-chemical events as yet undetermined.
"Looks better". Heh.

2) Indubitably there is a time for "goofy". Ask Minnie.


My contribution:

Favorite Bokeh of the week:
http://www.fototime.com/ACC5161E3797975/orig.jpg
Canon 20D, Canon 24-70 2,8L. I'll look up the (Shutter priority)
exposure data if it's important.

Remainder from the same 5-minute session:
http://www.fototime.com/FBB5953EC551002/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/97CD0AECB76F12E/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/79EF0F5984E89FC/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/ACC8AA778737652/orig.jpg (Canon S500/flash)
http://www.fototime.com/E3C82809C4A6030/orig.jpg


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 10:29:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:j82dnTzfVqiK4avfRVn-hw@speakeasy.net...
> Bokeh is the quality of the blur. Harsh rings around blur blobs indicate
> bad bokeh. It should be soft. I welcome examples of good bokeh.
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;
> That's bad bokeh (tsk tsk tsk). Yeuck!
>
>
> Nikon 28-200 3.5-5.6
> Pretty cool lens considering it's about $350 though quite soft at 200 but
> hey it's all I got now. I guess this example easily justifies a 50 f/1.8
> prime. Does it justify a 70-200 f/2.8? Sigh.
>
>
> I was so ignorant, my little 3MP oly C3030 had an f/2.8 lens & I didn't
> even know. It was much better in low light than my D70 with this lens. It
> cost $800 in 2000, it's probably worth $50 now but it had better blur
> damnit.

Hehehe. I hear ya. The little Fuji S602Z has a constant f/2.8 as well, with
pretty good bokeh. When my 1D is overkill, and my 300D is still too much, I
bring this little Fuji out and I'm still blown away. I think a lot of people
figured out this was a winner because now they are hard to find on eBay: I
see only one right now for GBP 66.00. I've been wanting to get one for a
friend for a while. I think I paid $650 and last I saw one I think it was
under US $200.

I also have an Olympus D-40, which is another classic, top performer that
fits in a pocket. No real bokeh on this little guy. Paid $650 for that, too,
and it's now selling used for under $150.

The best of the oldies still hold their own.
March 15, 2005 10:29:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave R knows who wrote:

> "paul" wrote
>>
>>I was so ignorant, my little 3MP oly C3030 had an f/2.8 lens & I didn't
>>even know. It was much better in low light than my D70 with this lens. It
>>cost $800 in 2000, it's probably worth $50 now but it had better blur
>>damnit.
>
>
> I also have an Olympus D-40, which is another classic, top performer that
> fits in a pocket. No real bokeh on this little guy. Paid $650 for that, too,
> and it's now selling used for under $150.
>
> The best of the oldies still hold their own.


Well at least I don't feel so bad about paying what I did. It was pretty
fancy at the time & I took thousands of great pics with it & never even
thought about the settings.
March 15, 2005 10:40:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <CLOdnV04Wv7r4arfRVn-pw@speakeasy.net>, paul@not.net says...
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>
> > In article <MPG.1ca09eedbd475b98976a@news.individual.NET>, Larry
> > <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>We dont exactly have the word NOW.
> >>
> >>We've had it since long before digital photography, and if I remember
> >>correctly (I might not) since before the popularity of 35mm.
> >
> >
> > I've never heard the word until about a year ago.
>
>
> Me either.
>

My first thought is, are you new to READING about photography??

I have seen it in print, but the only time I ever heard the word spoken was
in that photography club almost 50 years ago.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
March 15, 2005 10:40:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:

> In article <CLOdnV04Wv7r4arfRVn-pw@speakeasy.net>, paul@not.net says...
>
>>Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <MPG.1ca09eedbd475b98976a@news.individual.NET>, Larry
>>><larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>We dont exactly have the word NOW.
>>>>
>>>>We've had it since long before digital photography, and if I remember
>>>>correctly (I might not) since before the popularity of 35mm.
>>>
>>>
>>>I've never heard the word until about a year ago.
>>
>>
>>Me either.
>>
>
>
> My first thought is, are you new to READING about photography??


Yep. I took 1 photography class in college 20 years ago, 4 years with a
P&S digital then less than a year with a DSLR learning basically from
scratch since I forgot everything & the P&S was so easy. I've got so
many pics now, it's probably in the plans to publish a guide book for CA
native plants. Here's the beginnings of organizing for that:
<http://localhost/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Species/Eukarya/Plantae/Anthophyta/Dicots>


>
> I have seen it in print, but the only time I ever heard the word spoken was
> in that photography club almost 50 years ago.
>
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 10:49:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> writes:

> In article <CLOdnV04Wv7r4arfRVn-pw@speakeasy.net>, paul@not.net says...
>> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>>
>> > In article <MPG.1ca09eedbd475b98976a@news.individual.NET>, Larry
>> > <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>We dont exactly have the word NOW.
>> >>
>> >>We've had it since long before digital photography, and if I remember
>> >>correctly (I might not) since before the popularity of 35mm.
>> >
>> >
>> > I've never heard the word until about a year ago.
>>
>>
>> Me either.
>>
>
> My first thought is, are you new to READING about photography??

Not that, either. I've been taking photographs and doing darkroom
work for almost 40 years now, and reading about photography going back
to then too; the Life Library of Photography and the Ansel Adams basic
photo series and _The Pentax Way_ (for my screw-mount Pentax) and lots
of other books.

And I don't remember ever seeing or hearing "bokeh" until sometime
this decade. It seems to have become a popular concept suddenly.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
March 15, 2005 11:15:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <B_idnVMwFZyfGqrfRVn-uQ@speakeasy.net>, paul@not.net says...
> Larry wrote:
>
> > In article <CLOdnV04Wv7r4arfRVn-pw@speakeasy.net>, paul@not.net says...
> >
> >>Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <MPG.1ca09eedbd475b98976a@news.individual.NET>, Larry
> >>><larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>We dont exactly have the word NOW.
> >>>>
> >>>>We've had it since long before digital photography, and if I remember
> >>>>correctly (I might not) since before the popularity of 35mm.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I've never heard the word until about a year ago.
> >>
> >>
> >>Me either.
> >>
> >
> >
> > My first thought is, are you new to READING about photography??
>
>
> Yep. I took 1 photography class in college 20 years ago, 4 years with a
> P&S digital then less than a year with a DSLR learning basically from
> scratch since I forgot everything & the P&S was so easy. I've got so
> many pics now, it's probably in the plans to publish a guide book for CA
> native plants. Here's the beginnings of organizing for that:
> <http://localhost/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Species/Eukarya/Plantae/Anthophyta/Dicots>
>
>
> >
> > I have seen it in print, but the only time I ever heard the word spoken was
> > in that photography club almost 50 years ago.
> >
> >
>

I hope you do it, and I'll buy it!

I have enough photos for several books, but not enough of any one type to
fill even a small one.. <G>. It seems my taste in photo subjects is as
esoteric as my taste in music. (which is esoteric in the extreme).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
March 15, 2005 11:15:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:

>>I've got so many pics now,
>>it's probably in the plans to publish a guide book for CA
>>native plants. Here's the beginnings of organizing for that:
>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Species/Eukary...;
>>
>>
>>>I have seen it in print, but the only time I ever heard the word spoken was
>>>in that photography club almost 50 years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> I hope you do it, and I'll buy it!


Cool, thanks. (I fixed the link above now).


>
> I have enough photos for several books, but not enough of any one type to
> fill even a small one.. <G>. It seems my taste in photo subjects is as
> esoteric as my taste in music. (which is esoteric in the extreme).


Yeah, I think that is an advantage to specialize. Otherwise there's so
many folks taking so many beautiful pictures, it's hard to know what to
do with them all. Anyways it's fun, whatever comes of it!
March 16, 2005 12:21:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <m2r7igwe9x.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>, dd-b@dd-b.net says...
> Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > In article <CLOdnV04Wv7r4arfRVn-pw@speakeasy.net>, paul@not.net says...
> >> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <MPG.1ca09eedbd475b98976a@news.individual.NET>, Larry
> >> > <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>We dont exactly have the word NOW.
> >> >>
> >> >>We've had it since long before digital photography, and if I remember
> >> >>correctly (I might not) since before the popularity of 35mm.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I've never heard the word until about a year ago.
> >>
> >>
> >> Me either.
> >>
> >
> > My first thought is, are you new to READING about photography??
>
> Not that, either. I've been taking photographs and doing darkroom
> work for almost 40 years now, and reading about photography going back
> to then too; the Life Library of Photography and the Ansel Adams basic
> photo series and _The Pentax Way_ (for my screw-mount Pentax) and lots
> of other books.
>
> And I don't remember ever seeing or hearing "bokeh" until sometime
> this decade. It seems to have become a popular concept suddenly.
>

You may well be closer to its time of origin than me...

I could well be miss-remembering, I do that a lot, but I was sure we used
that word back in the early 60's..

It could be one of those words that just "comes into fashion" after laying
around in the available vocabulary for a long time.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:33:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:150320050424302410%rag@nospam.techline.com...

> Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
> Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".

As other reponders have indicated, the term is not new. Also, the effect of
out-of-focus areas on the overall image quality can be decisive.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 2:01:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> writes:

> In article <m2r7igwe9x.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>, dd-b@dd-b.net says...
>> Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>> > In article <CLOdnV04Wv7r4arfRVn-pw@speakeasy.net>, paul@not.net says...
>> >> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <MPG.1ca09eedbd475b98976a@news.individual.NET>, Larry
>> >> > <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>We dont exactly have the word NOW.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>We've had it since long before digital photography, and if I remember
>> >> >>correctly (I might not) since before the popularity of 35mm.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I've never heard the word until about a year ago.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Me either.
>> >>
>> >
>> > My first thought is, are you new to READING about photography??
>>
>> Not that, either. I've been taking photographs and doing darkroom
>> work for almost 40 years now, and reading about photography going back
>> to then too; the Life Library of Photography and the Ansel Adams basic
>> photo series and _The Pentax Way_ (for my screw-mount Pentax) and lots
>> of other books.
>>
>> And I don't remember ever seeing or hearing "bokeh" until sometime
>> this decade. It seems to have become a popular concept suddenly.
>>
>
> You may well be closer to its time of origin than me...
>
> I could well be miss-remembering, I do that a lot, but I was sure we used
> that word back in the early 60's..
>
> It could be one of those words that just "comes into fashion" after laying
> around in the available vocabulary for a long time.

Quite likely, in fact, from what other people have said about how long
ago they remember it from. I can't really even swear I *didn't* hear
or read it; just, I don't *remember* it, it came as a new thing. And
it's *useful* to have a name for it, and to be able to discuss the
differences. Although I've never heard an optical explanation for why
there *are* differences, beyond the aperture shape....
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 8:09:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> In article <MPG.1ca09eedbd475b98976a@news.individual.NET>, Larry
><larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > Foolish me...I've always been concerned about the sharpness of a lens.
>> > Now we need a special word to describe "out-of-focusness".
>> >
>>
>> We dont exactly have the word NOW.
>>
>> We've had it since long before digital photography, and if I remember
>> correctly (I might not) since before the popularity of 35mm.
>
> I've never heard the word until about a year ago.
>

Then you weren't listening very hard.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 9:01:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> >
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...

> Yep that's pretty bad..
>
> This lens has a nice oof look to me..
>
> http://www.villagephotos.com/viewpubimage.asp?id_=11455...

The first image is through an over-corrected lens. The second lacks
any specular highlights to tell one way or another (the first lens
would likely have done as good a job given the background).

http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/bokeh.pdf

http://www.willbell.com/tm/tm5.htm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521642221/104-6...

Many of these "bokeh" effects can be simulated numerically; you can
even quantify to some extent the corrections in a particular lens. The
second reference is, in fact, basically an encyclopedia of out-of-focus
machine-generated imagery, though tailored specifically for telescope
construction and testing. The third reference is only for optics
geeks. (They probably have a copy already.)

At least read the first reference.
March 17, 2005 2:10:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <J0BZd.4914$wL6.3656@trnddc03>
"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:

> Start here... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

After reading the entire thread, I started there...

From the essay:

The Japanese apparently refer to
the quality of the out-of-focus
image as "boke".

and

This article was originally published
in Photo Techniques magazine in 1997.
(c) Harold M. Merklinger, Halifax, Canada 1996.

Defining the term at first seems difficult
because it does not appear in an English
dictionary (that I could find).

Considerations:

(1) Technical [scientific] analysis does
not always equate to excellence in art.

(2) Two terms are needed to imply the
difference between "good" and "not so
good" (as opposed to good and bad,
because one person's bad boke could
very well be another's good boke).

(3) Adding an "h" to boke is a matter
of taste, much like color vs colour,
both of which refer to "color". ;^)

However, we are adopting a foreign
concept to the english language. In
the spirit of a popular game I propose
a the adaptation of three words derived
from the Japanese concept of 'the
quality of an out-of-focus image'.

Bokemon
a. good boke (good focus blur)
b. the discussion of good boke

Bokachu
a. bad boke (bad focus blur)
b. the discussion of bad boke

Since photography is an "art" and therefore
cannot always be discussed in objective
terms, both words can be used in a positive
or negative context.

We also need a third term to encompass the
concept of perfect focus which can be
anything from "tack sharp" to perfectly
out of focus for a desired effect.

Bokeless
a. the absence of boke (perfect focus)
b. the discussion of perfect focus

Following along these lines, we need a term
that encompasses the various image editing
mistakes that ruin many an on line (and in
print) photographs.

Bokensoft
a. an image destroyed by editing
b. the discussion of images destroyed by editing
c. broken or bug-ridden photographic related software programs

A short editorial of the photographic quality of images in the March
issue of Outdoor Photography:

The magazine reproduced many photographs. A few of the photos
may have been bokeless prior to digitizing and/or editing and a few of
them exhibited bokemon qualities. However, the majority of the
photographs were either grossly bokachu and/or bokensoft.

The general poor print quality of the magazine degrades from
the publication - bokenprint - and I for one would like to see this
publication printed properly with a non-discounted price of $10 to $15
an issue or a $100 per year subscription.

Jeff
March 20, 2005 7:08:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

But, how do I pronounce it?
March 21, 2005 10:28:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul asked:

> But, how do I pronounce it?

S P E L L I N G I T O U T S L O W E R : )

Like "Pokeman" the game...replace the P with a B. ~P

Boke
Bokeman
etc

Jeff
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 12:38:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:p 7udnUCdivYXjaPfRVn-oQ@speakeasy.net...
> But, how do I pronounce it?

As a rough approximations, "bou" as in bouquet, "quet" as in bouquet.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 12:38:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:p 7udnUCdivYXjaPfRVn-oQ@speakeasy.net...
> > But, how do I pronounce it?
>
> As a rough approximations, "bou" as in bouquet, "quet" as in bouquet.

....but much much shorter on the vowels....

________________________________________________________________________
Louise Bremner (log at gol dot com)
If you want a reply by e-mail, don't write to my Yahoo address!
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 8:09:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:
> paul asked:
>
> > But, how do I pronounce it?
>
> S P E L L I N G I T O U T S L O W E R : )
>
> Like "Pokeman" the game...replace the P with a B. ~P

Sheesh.

That's pokemOn: "poke" is "pocket" and "mon" is "monster" => "pocket
monsters" (Yes, the original Japanese is actually English.)

> Boke
> Bokeman

That's "boke" + "mOn" => senile monsters (bokeru means to become senile as
well as to be out of focus).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
March 21, 2005 8:09:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:
>
>>paul asked:
>>
>>
>>>But, how do I pronounce it?
>>
>>S P E L L I N G I T O U T S L O W E R : )
>>
>>Like "Pokeman" the game...replace the P with a B. ~P
>
>
> Sheesh.
>
> That's pokemOn: "poke" is "pocket"


Is boke pronounced similar to pocket?



> and "mon" is "monster" => "pocket
> monsters" (Yes, the original Japanese is actually English.)
>
>
>>Boke
>>Bokeman
>
>
> That's "boke" + "mOn" => senile monsters (bokeru means to become senile as
> well as to be out of focus).
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>
March 21, 2005 8:09:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <CdCdnUyrVNkCQKPfRVn-ug@speakeasy.net>, paul@not.net says...
> Is boke pronounced similar to pocket?
>


The word BOKEH is pronounced just like it is spelled.


As if it were BOE KEHHH! BO KEH the keh sylable is a breathy sound.

Close to Boquet, but no ay sound on the end.

This info supplied by my Japanese neighbor (and former teacher of that photo
class almost 50 years ago).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
March 21, 2005 8:09:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:

> In article <CdCdnUyrVNkCQKPfRVn-ug@speakeasy.net>, paul@not.net says...
>
>>Is boke pronounced similar to pocket?
>>
>
>
>
> The word BOKEH is pronounced just like it is spelled.
>
>
> As if it were BOE KEHHH! BO KEH the keh sylable is a breathy sound.
>
> Close to Boquet, but no ay sound on the end.


Thanks for the clarification. It kept coming out with an "ay" & that
just sounded wrong.


>
> This info supplied by my Japanese neighbor (and former teacher of that photo
> class almost 50 years ago).
>
>
March 22, 2005 2:17:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <MPG.1ca8ae266816be58989786@news.individual.NET>
Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:

> The word BOKEH is pronounced just like it is spelled.
>
> As if it were BOE KEHHH! BO KEH the keh sylable is a breathy sound.

Thanks... That's what I was forgetting.

> Close to Boquet, but no ay sound on the end.
>
> This info supplied by my Japanese neighbor (and former
> teacher of that photo class almost 50 years ago).

Years ago I had several Japanese speaking acquaintances and I had the
understanding that the "h" was often implied and not spelled out.

(Hence my association with "Pokemon" only because that's also how I've
heard the "poke" part of Pokemon pronounced.) Heh...

Jeff
March 22, 2005 2:40:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> "Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:
> > paul asked:
> >
> > > But, how do I pronounce it?
> >
> > S P E L L I N G I T O U T S L O W E R : )
> >
> > Like "Pokeman" the game...replace the P with a B. ~P
>
> Sheesh.

rut roh

> That's pokemOn:

I was focusing on the accented "e" as is commonly
used with a full ANSI character set (accenting the
"eh" in "pokeh / bokeh").

As far as the location of the accent of emphasis,
at least here in SoCal, I remember pOkemon...but
that was years ago. I stand corrected; it's a
simple multiple translation/interpretation glitch. ;^)

> "poke" is "pocket" and "mon" is "monster" => "pocket
> monsters" (Yes, the original Japanese is actually English.)

Fascinating... I always thought my grandson's fascination
with the game had that influence on his obsession when
he "had to have more". I used to look away, roll my
eyes, knowing what the teenage years would be like for
him. Yup...girls have his full attention now.

> > Boke
> > Bokeman
>
> That's "boke" + "mOn" => senile monsters (bokeru means
> to become senile as well as to be out of focus).

How perfect is THAT in this context, eh? The best
I can figure, most photographers seem to be a bit
senile and completely obsessed with their art/hobby/professions.

Now we can "Bokeru" to the list. "Humor the old man."

Heh...

Jeff
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 11:40:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:
> Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > The word BOKEH is pronounced just like it is spelled.
> >
> > As if it were BOE KEHHH! BO KEH the keh sylable is a breathy sound.
>
> Thanks... That's what I was forgetting.
>
> > Close to Boquet, but no ay sound on the end.
> >
> > This info supplied by my Japanese neighbor (and former
> > teacher of that photo class almost 50 years ago).
>
> Years ago I had several Japanese speaking acquaintances and I had the
> understanding that the "h" was often implied and not spelled out.

The "h" is inserted to prevent English speakers from leaving the 'e' silent.
The spelling "boke" would really mess us up. The h has no phonetic content
of its own.

The letter 'h' is also sometimes used to indicate extended vowels: Katoh (a
common family name) is three "syllables": ka, to, and u (which means extend
the previous sound one more syllable). in Japanese phonetics.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
!