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

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>Sarah, can I assume that you are not a native speaker of German?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, that was intended more as a joke -- i.e. that I would have to use a more difficult to pronounce term to describe blur in a German lens, so fortunately my Japanese term is at least easy to pronounce. My apologies to speakers of German for conspiring with Google Translator to butcher their language! Anyway, I now know (and am absolutely horrified by) the German term for motion blur! When the German lens manufacturers jump on the image stabilization bandwagon, I'll then know what to say their technology prevents! ;-)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Of course it would be all too easy for someone to make the typo "boken," which would describe something very sharp (a knife). I have no idea what the more egregious typo Hoboken means, but it relates to baseball and is located in New Jersey.</p>

<p>I say we use the terms "fuzz" (= good bokeh) vs. "fizz" (= bad bokeh, or brokeh), both being likely typos of each other.</p>

<p>OTOH, seriously, I have no problems with the word bokeh. The simplest English translation, "quality of blur" has 250% as many sylables and exactly 300% as many characters, including the two spaces.</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>Tim. I guess one could say " a soft blurring of the background" would work also:</p>

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=628662">Tim Holte</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 18, 2012; 07:32 a.m.</p>

 

<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>

 

[William Kahn]

<p>I think I'll just keep trying to shoot it properly and try not to be "baka" about "bokeh"...</p>

[James G. Dainis]

This just isn't your day, Sarah. :-)

 

If something has 3 times as many characters it is a 200% increase

 

If something has 2 times as many characters it is a 100% increase

 

If something has 1 times as many characters it is a 0% increase.

 

 

Don't worry. 90% of the people make that mistake, even (gasp) politicians. "The budget deficit has increased ten fold over the last years. That is a 1000% increase." No, it is a 900% increase. How can these guys run the country when they don't even understand simple math?

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think we can say (subjectively) that there is good/pleasing bokeh or bad and then there is also bokeh that works for the photo or doesn't. So, generally, we might prefer or find aesthetically pleasing the type of bokeh that one lens produces over another. But even the nicest bokeh can be badly used in a photo. And even what we consider a lousy bokeh might work really well in some photos for a variety of reasons.</p>

<p>Kind of like being a handsome guy or a beautiful woman (which is also subjective). Yet, I can see a very bad picture of a very handsome man. Why, because the photographer has done a lousy job of photographing him. Doesn't necessarily make the man ugly (just like a poor photo doesn't necessarily make the bokeh look ugly), but just doesn't harmonize the photographic elements into an aesthetically workable image. </p>

<p>So, the case with Lauren's photo above is one where someone might say they love the bokeh but don't think the photo works well because the subject gets lost. Doesn't really have to do with the quality of the bokeh as much as the overall workings of the various elements of the photo.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>James, I didn't say 300% <strong>more</strong>, I said 300% <strong>as many</strong>. Different animal. It sounded more impactful than "200% more." I'm a 10 percenter. ;-)</p>

<p>This is to say...</p>

<p>as many = the same amount as</p>

<p>100% as many = the same amount as</p>

<p>200% as many = twice as many</p>

<p>etc.</p>

<p>Is that a mathematical Southernism?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Is that a mathematical Southernism?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure about the Southeast but in Texas "half in two" was one of my grandmother's Southmath expressions.</p>

[Kent Shafer]

Lex, your grandmother's

expression seems to

have been known in

Mississippi too since it's

used in Robert Johnson's

song, "32-20 Blues." ("If

she gets unruly and say

she don't want to do, take

my 32-20 and cut her half

in two.")

[jcuknz]

<p>If one uses the word bokeh one is using twice as many sylables as blurr... though unfortunately if one must say 'the quality of blurr' then bokeh is a shortcut. However there is more to it than that but the way people use it and rabbit on about it. </p>

<p>[ and there I used a three sylable word to avoid using a single sylable twice in a sentance, or perhaps it would be a double negative :-) ]</p>

[russ_butner___portland__or]

<p>Yes, there is pleasant, and not as pleasant Bokeh. It's derived from the actual design of the lens.For whatever reason, this topic is getting way too much attention in the last few years. Seriously, when was the last time you looked at a fantastic photo, and said to yourself, "Wow, what a great shot, but too bad the Bokeh sucks"?</p>

<p>">http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3059/2863353284_ffe07de861.jpg[/img]</a><br /> <a title="Search Google" href="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%20width%3D%22500%22%20height%3D%22384%22%20alt%3D%22Kool%20Kid%22%3E%3C%2Fa%3E" target="_blank"><img src="https://www.google.com/favicon.ico" alt="" /></a><a title="Search Wikipedia" href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=com&btnI=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky&q=%22%20width%3D%22500%22%20height%3D%22384%22%20alt%3D%22Kool%20Kid%22%3E%3C%2Fa%3E+wikipedia" target="_blank"><img src="" alt="" /></a></p>

[scott_ferris]

<blockquote>

<p>"Seriously, when was the last time you looked at a fantastic photo, and said to yourself, "Wow, what a great shot, but too bad the Bokeh sucks"?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00aK3G">The 3rd of this month</a>.</p>

[qalam]

Blur and bokeh are not the same thing. Blur is an objective characteristic related to the degree of unsharpness of an

image or portion of an image. It is an optical term. Bokeh is a subjective term referring to a perception resulting from the

quality, amount and shape of blur.