Defining Boke - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/10/2005 02:20:42 AM · #1

There appears to be massive confusion about the meaning of this term.

One of the major qualities of bokeh is a shallow dof. It does not follow that every shallow dof is boke, it is the way it is applied. Remove the shallow dof and there is no boke. It can be applied to foreground or background.

The second quality is the favorable use of the shallow dof.

The one easiest to understand is the non-descript background. You shoot a flower and the backgrounf just melts. There is nothinbg definable, but blurred transitions or even blobs of lights, etc. This non descript background serves as a neutral canvass for the image and yes, it enhances it because this type of background does not compete.

Then there is the related background. "Fatther and children": Example, say a father has 12 children. The father is in the foreground and the kids are frolicking behind him. The father is sharp and the kids are past the focus point.

Now, place the same man sharp standing on the street with a blurred background. This is just a shallow dof because there is nothing that is inherently related. For this image to be bokeh then the background has to get almost obliterated ( totally blurred-non-descript)

Elsewhere I said. A title, "Choosing a tie" The man is shown selecting a tie while 15 or 20 others are in the background. This is also a shallow dof but the relationship makes it bokeh. In this case the blur does not have to be as severe.

Bokeh has many flavors but the important aspect is that the background or foreground must add to the image even if the addition is only to make the subject standout. If the background supports the premise of the subject, or the reverse, then it is also boke.

It is confusing because a shallow dof is required and so the consideration becomes to what degree do want the blurring. The easy way to go is simply to obliterate the background if the subject is singular and no relationship is needed with the background. Then, if you chose a related subject, you need the relation to discernable, that is where the former can done say with a wide open aperture of 1.4 or 1.8 the latter means you may gave to go to 3.5.

Some related subjects are say a subject and his record collection as the background or foreground. There as as many as you can imagine, but there must be a relation that is direct.

Then enters the problem of finding just how much is needed to make the boke pleasant. The important thing is that bokeh is not just a non-descript background. These non-descripts are the easiest to make.

A P.S. My image is this challenge is not bokeh at all. I had meant the replacement but an unexpected social obligation prevented me not only from re-shooting but arriving home with too many people and I missed the deadline to pull the placeholder. So good luck to all of you and I think the simplest bokeh will win.

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 03:08:44.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

01/10/2005 02:22:18 AM · #2

The major confusion is that boke means to poke or thrust. Perhaps you mean bokeh?

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/10/2005 02:23:12 AM · #3

Here was me thinking Boke, with or without the h, was how out of focus highlights were rendered, in particular the distortion introduced by the lens characteristics. Mirror lenses with the characteristic donuts is the most visible form of bokeh. Infact, good bokeh isn't noticeable at all...

brianlh

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/10/2005 02:25:50 AM · #4

thanks for the write-up GF, i think that is a good working definition.

for what it's worth, some people do spell bokeh as boke - it's a japanese word, so i'm not exactly sure it's a definitive spelling (although with the h seems to be more common).. maybe someone should write Merriam-Webster and propose a new addition, as I see it's not in their online dictionary (not even in the unabridged) =-o

Gordon: I had that interpretation for awhile as well.. I'm so confused lately, that I've more adopted GF's write-up (in subjective concept, never really thought about it too much) somewhat.. either way, it's too late to change my challenge's "recognizable, but very blurred/blended" background.. so I'll just have to see what happens and live with the consequences ;p

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 02:27:34.

01/10/2005 02:27:06 AM · #5

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

that is where the former can done say with a wide open aperture of 1.4 or 1.8

I can get extremely good bokeh at f/8 with the right lens and conditions.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/10/2005 02:27:21 AM · #6

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

The major confusion is that boke means to poke or thrust. Perhaps you mean bokeh?

Yes, I stand corrected. I am adopted boke since the h is silent and english is not my native language I always think of it as boke. Thank you.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

01/10/2005 02:32:14 AM · #7

Originally posted by brianlh:

for what it's worth, some people do spell bokeh as boke - it's a japanese word, so i'm not exactly sure it's a definitive spelling (although with the h seems to be more common).. maybe someone should write Merriam-Webster and propose a new addition, as I see it's not in their online dictionary (not even in the unabridged) =-o

It's strange that the webster site doesn't have it listed but if you go to dictionary.com they site a webster publication as the source.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

01/10/2005 02:32:53 AM · #8

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
that is where the former can done say with a wide open aperture of 1.4 or 1.8

I can get extremely good bokeh at f/8 with the right lens and conditions.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Of course you can. When we speak of examples we used a 50mm as reference. It all depends on the lens.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

01/10/2005 02:41:51 AM · #9

Under your description, my bokeh shot *IS* bokeh, and should definitely not be hovering around the 4.5 that it currently is.

Of course.. my shot also has other elements that DPC voters generally hate.. so..
lol.

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/10/2005 02:42:23 AM · #10

Originally posted by Gordon:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here you are correct. That is one of the most attractive flavors. Much more popular than the extreme gb backgrounds. Some of the very old lenses produce great effects.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

01/10/2005 02:57:54 AM · #11

Originally posted by Artyste:

i must have missed yours...i was looking for telephone poles... ;-)

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

01/10/2005 03:03:09 AM · #12

Originally posted by skiprow:

Originally posted by Artyste:
Under your description, my bokeh shot *IS* bokeh, and should definitely not be hovering around the 4.5 that it currently is.

Of course.. my shot also has other elements that DPC voters generally hate.. so..
lol.

i must have missed yours...i was looking for telephone poles... ;-)

HAHAHAHAHAHA.. too funny.

01/10/2005 03:38:05 AM · #13

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

It's strange that the webster site doesn't have it listed but if you go to dictionary.com they site a webster publication as the source.

Webster make monster comprehesive dictionaries along with the standard 6" thick variety. These come in a number of volumes and can be found in large libraries(usually in a back room). I was a lit major.

Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical for Canon

01/10/2005 04:22:34 PM · #14

It is very hard to define anything completely. To narrow down let us explore it from the point of view of the lens. I will use the term G.B. but not how ps applies it, rather how the lens renders it. The end effect may be similar but GB is not taking 3 dimensional distance into the equation the same a lens does in the real world.

Okay when a lens begins to approach a degree of G.B. in foreground or background shapes or form begin to distort. A very bright tiny highlight will appear to float with its own distinct placement. It seems to subtly separate. In many cases these are related to spherical aberration which leads to the circle of confusion.

The problem is that the circle of confusion is dependent on the distance of the subject or how deep into the G.B. it takes place.

This is where the confusion begins because some consider the hazy circle as good bokeh if it begins without definition. No hard edges.
However, once you go into any degree of G.B. there is the right before point, the point and then oblivion. Bokeh then is not just these points of light rendered as circles. It is part of of the phenomena but not the entire study. To say this is to say that all bokeh are disc floating.

Bokeh exist before the circle of confusion comes into being and then extends right into oblivion. Of course, at this far point there is no trace of any shapes. That is the lens in the degree of G.B. will begin to distort shapes. It is the distortion that we are after. Its optimum is the circle of confusion but you do not have to go there because this begins to render the background non-definable. This will work with some images but not those that you want a rough idea of the background.

Think of it this way to define bokeh simply as the display of circles of confusion is to narrow your definition. These things are like eye floaters and while they serve the purpose for some simple subject images, it does not for others. In other words you do not have to see circles of light. Here is a boke study I did using a car. I would call it spicy bokeh.

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 16:37:50.

Rooster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/10/2005 04:36:53 PM · #15

Just for the record & without having done much research on the subject & especially to those that are dropping the actual definition in their comments, the challenge description is as follows;
"Technique Challenge: Loosely defined, bokeh is the quality and "feel" of the out-of-focus foreground or background elements of a photo. It isn't very interesting by itself, but take a photograph whose subject is enhanced by the bokeh of the background."

Given this explanation, why are there so many haters amongst us, getting all into the absolute hyper definition of bokeh when the challenge description just calls for an out of focus BG or FG that makes an otherwise uniteresting foto interesting?
Just a question.

Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical for Canon

01/10/2005 04:46:12 PM · #16

That is the problem with our self made experts. They go to the internet and instead of doing thorough research they latch on to the definition that is easiest for them to understand and then they vote accordingly.

This happens in challenge after challenge. There is a desire to narrow all definitions and to penalize any effort that they feel is out of the equation.

For this challenge, the first definition is very loose in the challenge instruction. Then someone becomes an overnight expert and comes back and say that bokeh has just to do with creating eye floaters and if there are no sperichal aberrations that are distinct, then it is only shallow dof.

It seems we create a nightmare because we all go our own way.

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 16:47:12.

Rooster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/10/2005 04:49:31 PM · #17

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

I couldn't have said this any better. Many thanks my open, free minded friend. Voters have an ill why of trying to judge & stifle our creativity. Quite frustrating!

01/10/2005 04:54:41 PM · #18

Originally posted by Rooster:

I couldn't have said this any better. Many thanks my open, free minded friend. Voters have an ill why of trying to judge & stifle our creativity. Quite frustrating!

Why do you take this so personal and why is the oppinion of all these haters so important to you?

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

01/10/2005 04:58:14 PM · #19

Fig. 1. Poor Bokeh. This is a greatly magnified blur circle showing very poor bokeh. Note how the edge is sharply defined and even emphasized for a point that is supposed to be out-of-focus, and that the center is dim.

Fig 2. Neutral Bokeh. This is a a technically perfect and evenly illuminated blur circle. This isn't good either for bokeh, because the edge is still well defined. Out-of-focus objects, either points of light or lines, can effectively create reasonably sharp lines in the image due to the edges of the sharp blur circle. This is the blur circle from with most modern lenses designed to be "perfect."

Fig. 3. Good Bokeh. Here is what we want. This is great for bokeh since the edge is completely undefined. This also is the result of the same spherical aberration, but in the opposite direction, of the poor example seen in Fig. 1. This is where art and engineering start to diverge, since the better looking image is the result of an imperfection. Perfect bokeh demands a Gaussian blur circle distribution, and lenses are designed for the neutral example shown in 2.) above.

01/10/2005 05:09:52 PM · #20

And here is another.

//www.photo.net/mjohnston/column49

Message edited by author 2005-01-10 17:10:31.