Jump to content

Nikon's definition and use of the word, "Bokeh"


Recommended Posts

<p>I just received a <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/Photography-Techniques/h0ndz86v/1/Bokeh-for-Beginners.html?cid=eml-0512-lenewsletter-v1-article1lm">newsletter from Nikon</a> in which they use the word, <em>Bokeh</em>, in ways such as:</p>

<ul>

<li>"<em>To achieve bokeh in an image...</em>"</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>"<em>To increase the likelihood of visible bokeh...</em>"</li>

</ul>

<p>This is consistent with a definition they give early in that article:</p>

<ul>

<li>"<em>Bokeh is defined as “the effect of a soft out-of-focus background that you get when shooting a subject, using a fast lens, at the widest aperture, such as f/2.8 or wider.” Simply put, bokeh is the pleasing or aesthetic quality of out-of-focus blur in a photograph.</em>"</li>

</ul>

<p>Note that their definition is not the same as defining it as the out-of-focus background in an image, with no attention paid to the quality of the background rendering, ie, whether it is soft, harsh, jittery, etc. With the latter definition, statements such as the two I quoted would make no sense because all images would have some form of Bokeh.</p>

<p>For at least a decade, my impression was that the latter definition was correct, but lots of newcomers to photography have been using the term in the same way as in the Nikon article.</p>

<p>I don't know Japanese or the full history of the word, but I'm sure some of you do. Which definition / usage is correct? Has its meaning been changed by common usage? Inquiring minds want to know.</p>

<p>:-)</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It depends on who you ask. If the 'quality' of out of focus portion is relevant, the commentator often indicates that in some way, e.g. "good bokeh". I haven't found a technical definition to be important at least for my experience. Maybe others do. I don't know.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The latter, Tom. That's my take on it. Yes, the word essentially means "blur" in Japanese. But the context for its use is (in meaningful use of it!) the quality of the blur, aesthetically. Meaning, I've got three different 50mm lenses. They each produce the same DoF and more or less equally blur the background as a matter of <em>degree</em>. But the visual nature of the blur is wildly different between those lenses. When I use the word <em>bokeh</em>, I'm referring to the qualities of that blur, not the quantity. I think that's how most people, not counting un-nuanced newbies, use the word. As two-syllable shorthand for "quality of the out of focus blur."<br /><br />I don't think Nikon's helping matters with the first part of what you quoted! People who say, "I want a fast lens so I can have bokeh" are saying something along the lines of "I want new tires so I can have ride." What <em>kind </em>of ride? Smooth? Tight? Those new Goodyears have a solid, but smooth rideh.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wikipedia has a pretty good article describing the definitions, orgins and applications of bokeh:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh</a></p>

<p>I prefer the original Japanese definition of "blur". Evaluating the aesthetic quality can be done with additional descriptors, ranging, say, from "outstanding" to "crappy"...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As to if something has good blurr or bad blurr, I refuse to use the japanese word as pretentious nonsense, perhaps I am an un-nuanced newbie, is surely a matter of opinion. The example above I assume was posted as an example of good blurr by Lauren .. in my opinion it is bad as soft highlights distract and should be avoided at all costs .. so it cannot be good blurr. I saw the soft highlights before I searched and found the berries I assume was the point of the photo. I gather it can also be influenced by the number of blades of the diaphram .. though how this can be when shooting at f/1.4 puzzles me. But I'm just a newbie in all this. LOL</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I always thought of it as: Bokeh: The out of focus background in a photo.</p>

<p> Beyond that I would not define it from a certain f/stop such as Nikon as you can render the background out of focus with f5.6 if you have a little distance between the subject and background. As far as good bokeh or bad bokeh that is subjective. When I shot Minolta's I thought they produced excellent quality Bokeh using Minolta glass and Reala film. But then I switched to Nikon and I have always felt that the qualtiy of Bokeh took a hit on that move but the pictures seemed sharper and of course Reala is gone. (Bad move from fuji). Then I bought a DSLR and the bokeh from my D200 is yet another step downward however it has it's good points. <br>

Now the Leica glow I am not sure about. I think you actually have to own a Leica to experience that. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The term is derived from a Japanese word (or so they tell me), but the concept and the definition, as explained in the Wikipedia source above, is essentially Mike Johnston's idea.</p>

<p>Bokeh does not have to be smooth and creamy, it can be other:</p><div>00aOtu-467017584.jpg.3fe5c8951468e053a6ef8651ff9d9411.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>From Wikipedi</strong>a -<em> Bokeh has been defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light"</em><br /> <em> <br /></em><strong>From Ken Rockwel</strong>l - <em>Bokeh describes the appearance, or "feel," of out-of-focus areas. Bokeh is not how far something is out-of-focus, bokeh is the character of whatever blur is there. </em></p>

<p><strong>From Dictionary.com</strong> (or dictionary.reference.com if you prefer) - <em>a Japanese term for the <strong>subjective</strong> aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of a photographic image </em><br /> <br /> Take your choice, I use it as in the last reference. Since it is subjective there is no such thing as good or bad bokeh as it's in the eye of the viewer - what's good for me may be bad for you. 'Good' or 'bad' could even change depending on the specific image. In a typical portrait 'buttery smooth' bokeh may be preferred but if the background was an illuminated Christmas tree a something harsher may be more suitable depending on what the photographer was trying to accomplish. <br /> <br /> What Nikon, or any manufacturer, says is strictly marketing.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It seems to me that these discussions of bokeh generally treat it as a background vs subject distinction. I've always thought of it as the subjective quality of any out of focus area - starting with the transition from critically sharp.</p>

<p>Those wondefully rendered soft backgrounds make the bokeh characteristics easy to perceive / describe and serve as an indicator of how those same characteristics affect the <em>slightly </em>out of focus parts of the subject. To me, some lenses just seem to render three dimensionality better than others and it seems to be tied to how well the very out of focus areas are rendered.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Don't forget acutance and other edge quality metrics like lack of CA. If you can render a very sharp or "crisp" edge to the foreground object that sets up a contrast with the background, that's a big factor in that use of the "3d effect." Then you want the background to not have too much detail - the eye should slide across it and hit an edge. If your background has too much going on, it doesn't work. I can see where my flower shot could have been composed a bit differently in relation to the background and would have worked better.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish that the world could drop the word "bokeh" and just use the plain word "blur". Too many people don't understand when they see a strange word like "bokeh" and assume it is just pretentious with no validity. But blurred backgrounds are valid. There can be good blur and bad blur. You can have smoke ring blur, cat's eye blur and double stick blur to name a few. Here is an example of double stick blur (AKA nisen bokeh):

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh/mirror2.jpg

 

If a person comments that the background looks funny that is because of bad blur (or bad bokeh, if you will).

James G. Dainis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with Andy: bokeh is not as meaningful to me unless the main subject is sharp. That difference between a sharp subject against a beautiful blurred background, is what is most pleasing to me, and I think the best example of this is the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux lens.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Hey, "bokeh" is much easier than the german term, "verwacklungsunschärfe." It makes me glad I have mostly Japanese lenses. :-D</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sarah, can I assume that you are not a native speaker of German? 'Verwacklungsunschärfe' has nothing to do with 'Bokeh', but simply means that either you have moved the camera when taking a picture, alas it is blurred for some reason, or the object of desire you wanted to photograph has moved.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"I wish that the world could drop the word "bokeh" and just use the plain word "blur". Too many people don't understand when they see a strange word like "bokeh" and assume it is just pretentious with no validity." Half the fun of being an amateur photographer like myself is being pretentious. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...