Bokeh vs shallow Depth of Field

[JM Tran]

ok the lenses used were

1# old Vivitar 70-210 f4.5-5.6 (not sure which series but its MF)

2# Pentax DA40 Limited f2.8

3# Sigma 17-70

all shot on an old Pentax DL.

so yes, in regards to Arthur, the pancake prime provides superior bokeh out of those 3 lenses, as its much superior optically

[Dylan & Marianne]

I'm personally not sure what I would call this image I took a while back.
probably just shallow DOF I think.



This one my wife took of me I think is a demonstration of DOF . Usually I associated bokeh with blurred subject matter with some form in the background - how about when it's in the foreground?

[atky]

Us motorsport photogs may not be thought of as using the artistic elements of photography and on occasions can be heard saying its not the back ground that is important but the subject. I can assure you though we take a lot of time and care with backgrounds and the way we use them ether to include them as an integral part of the image or to blur them out to isolate the subject. We actually use more than DOF to achieve this, SS and panning is another weapon we use. So dose a bokeh have to be smooth and creamy I think not it can add other things by being just the opposite. The first image the background blur is achieved with DOF the second by SS. Would you call them both bokeh?

[Kym]

Steve, given Bokeh is a subjective term at best (but a very important one) I think both images have valid elements.
That is the blur adds to the image is a pleasing manner.

[Slide]

Isn't bokeh the rendering of the OOF area of the image be it creamy, streaked, detailed or doughnut like depending on how and with what lens was used. So DOF has a roll to play in the detail in the OOF areas, limiting or enhancing the bokeh of the back ground. With the shot bellow if I had have used a smaller aperture the bokeh wouldn't have been rendered so nice and smooth, It would have had more shape and detail to it (like Kym's 1st photo)
80-200 f/2.8

[arthurking83]

..... With the shot bellow if I had have used a smaller aperture the bokeh wouldn't have been rendered so nice and smooth, It would have had more shape and detail to it (like Kym's 1st photo)
80-200 f/2.8

That to me is where bokeh(as an aesthetic element) is a non event.
It's too blurred to be able to distinguish if the bokeh is smooth or not, so maybe you could categorise it as too much bokeh.
It's unobtrusive, and doesn't add anything to the image, as if to say that this lizard is in a rainforest, or washing machine or whatever!

if we go by the meaning of bokeh as : derived from Japanese, a noun boke 暈け, meaning "blur" or "haze".... where the main operative word there is derived!!, so that bokeh(as distinct from boke) is a derivative of the word blur or haze, and we then apply it as a photographic term, then in your lizard shot I think you have too much bokeh(but only because it doesn't tell us anything about the animals background(if that makes sense??)

The 80-200/2.8 has beautiful bokeh, and was one of my faves for a long time, so even down to f/8 it will still produce great(quality, not quantity) bokeh.

All you've done there is to totally isolate the subject, and not give us an insight as to it's surroundings.

Think of bokeh as the bouquet(smell) of a flower/plant/wine/fruit... it can be to much, and it can be too strong or horrid, or pleasing, but it's always subjective, and I think the term was coined to differentiate between total blur(as you've showed in that sample), and the subtle hazing of a background with meaning. ie. How does it enhance the image.

both dtoh and JMTran both posted images of flowers where there is some structure to the background, and it's probably the (blurred ) border of when to start assessing the quality of the bokeh in an image.

[TOM]

Arthur, just because a person added a 'h' to the end of the boke for his own benefit, it doesn't change the meaning of the word. i guess we can all have our own interpretation of what boke is, and we can even spell it incorrectly if we must, but it doesn't change the fact that if we like it (whatever it is we define as boke), we will try to reproduce it whenever the need or want arises. Some won't pay any attention to it and others will spend thousands of dollars to get it just as they want it.

[Allann]

Sorry Arthur, I'm with Slide on this one, i too think the difference between a shallow DOF and bokeh is that bokeh is the "next step" beyond a shallow DOF. In bird photography it is used to great effect to isolate the subject but still providing an environment where the subject is. To make my point I have included a shot I took recently. The front to me is a shallow DOF, allowing the subject a location, e.g. lying in the grass, however, to prevent the bird from disappearing into a busy background I made sure the background was a blurred (hazy) as possible giving it a creamy bokeh. But like you say, it's subjective, and I don't think we will ever get everyone agreeing to a specific definition that we can definitively say that is bokeh and that is just shallow DOF.



I mean, when it comes down to it, bokeh can't exist without a shallow DOF (in my opinion) so maybe as you say, it comes down to the viewer (or the guy smelling the wine) as to their taste and definition. Interesting thread Kym.

[atky]

I mean, when it comes down to it, bokeh can't exist without a shallow DOF (in my opinion) so maybe as you say, it comes down to the viewer (or the guy smelling the wine) as to their taste and definition. Interesting thread Kym.

I disagree.

[Miaow]

Ive always considered Bokeh as just a shallow DOF that has some kind of pleasing effect to the eye pattern wise in the background ...

Will have to look out some of my shots for examples that suit what I think it is

[Tannin]

Crikey! How far off the planet can a discussion go?

Bokeh is an English word, with a perfectly simple English meaning. It is the quality of the out of focus part of an image. It is not the amount of blur, it is the quality of the blur.

Like most other English words, it is derived from a foreign-language word. English is made up out of a huge assortment of similarly borrowed foreign words, especial from French, Latin, and German, but also from dozens, probably hundreds, of other languages.

It is commonplace for adopted English words to drift away from their original foreign-language meaning, and equally common for the opposite to occur - the foreign-language meaning changes, leaving the borrowed English meaning the same as the meaning the foreign-language word had hundreds of years ago in France or Germany or wherever it came from. The meaning of a word in English is the meaning the word has in English. The meaning the word once had, or now has in a foreign language is irellevant.

In English, the meaning of Bokeh is perfectly clear: it is the quality of the out of focus part of the image. Nothing more, nothing less.

Read more here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...04-04-04.shtml or here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

[milspec]

While I appreciate the lesson in linguistics I would like to mention that I found this topic quite interesting. Thanks

[Kym]

Crikey! How far off the planet can a discussion go?

Huh? This is AP - //lel universes are the norm

<snip>In English, the meaning of Bokeh is perfectly clear: it is the quality of the out of focus part of the image. Nothing more, nothing less.

Absolutely Bokeh is a term that is subjective.

But also there seems to be a common understanding of what Bokeh is and is not (its not just shallow DoF OOF bits).

Maybe we should be concentrating of what makes good Bokeh (aesthetically pleasing Bokeh if you will).

[Tannin]

Milspec, it's a bit like that scene from the Discworld. Igor and friends are in a seedy bar. Apropos of nothing in particular, Igor says:

"This beer tastes of horse piss."

The big, ugly barman gets nasty, Igor's friends rally around and a big blue ensues: Igor just sits there while the fight goes on. After the dust settles and the bar quietens down again, Igor says, plaintively:

"I didn't say I didn't like it."

[I @ M]

Most interesting thread indeed.
Some beaut examples of pleasing and not so pleasing backgrounds and it seems to be very much a subjective matter according to the viewers tastes.
The one question that hangs in my mind is how many photographs are actually taken with the background rendition in mind?
Or are 90% of the pleasing "bokeh" laden photos we see just a coincidence of the subject matter at the time, lens quality, aperture, focal length and lens to subject distance?
Would the photo that someone regards as having a great "bokeh" be considered as ruined if it were taken 1, 1/2 or 1/3 stop faster / slower?

It really is a bit like visiting the Australian National Gallery, I looked at a collection of works by one very prominent artist and there wasn't a single one that didn't make me shudder but obviously I just don't get it because our taxes had paid millions to acquire those works.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[DanNG]

In English, the meaning of Bokeh is perfectly clear: it is the quality of the out of focus part of the image. Nothing more, nothing less.

that's my understanding of the word

[arthurking83]

Personally I use the term Bokeh(as Tannin says it's not Japanese we are referring too, it's purely photographic terminology, and derived from a Japanese term) but we are free to interpret it in our own manner or as we see fit.
(I think it's usually best to keep it's meaning and spelling as constant as possible so we can each relate to it in the same way, but there is no expectation to do so.)

but for Alan's purposes, as well as Slide(and again the manner in which I use the term)
Each referenced definition has one common recurring theme(regardless of whether it's the quality of the blur or the blur itself we are trying to refer too) but they all use the meaning that it's the point light source, or quality of the point light sources we are trying to examine.. not just blur

eg.

... In out-of-focus areas, each point of light becomes a disc.

and

... visually we prefer smooth gradations and spherical out-of-focus highlights: this is good quality bokeh.

and from the wiki:

is a photographic term referring to the appearance of point of light sources in an out-of-focus area of an image

these are all quoted texts from Kyms links!

In the images with smooth creamy blur.... it's just that, smooth creamy blur.
And smooth creamy blur is only smooth creamy blur, not bokeh, as the point light sources have been completely obliterated!
If there are no point light sources, how do we attempt to describe bokeh, if bokeh is trying to describe point light sources? As there are no point light sources to deal with, it becomes an example of shallow DOF/subject isolation.

Alans image has bokeh, but it's in the foreground, not the background, that produces the point light sources.
Whether that bokeh is good or bad is dependent on your POV.
Point light sources can also blend into continuous lines and sometimes they form nervous looking lines, and other times they produce smooth looking lines, see JMT's and CypherOz's images to see how nervous those point light sources are drawn. not alwasy a bad thing, as they can just create an unusual looking background.. but blur is blur, and bokeh has definition.

Luminous landscapes webpage shows very clearly how good bokeh is formed, and that's usually endemic to the lens all the way through the lenses variable settings(eg. the Nikon 105VR).

many times an image is commended on it's bokeh(good bokeh, creamy bokeh..), and you'll usually find the repeated pattern that the lens itself produces good bokeh, as opposed to the obliterating blur(in the background of Alans image) that any lens can produce(as long as it has the ability separate the subject from the background(eg. the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 which has bad bokeh!!).

Usually you'll find that if the lens renders (proper) point light sources as perfect circles but with the brighter outermost rings(as my Tammy 17-50 does) it can be prone to bad bokeh if the background is not watched carefully. Still does render nice bokeh, but it won't usually be regarded as creamy.

The main idea of bokeh is similar to things like MTF charts and stuff like that, they need to be understood in a certain manner to be useful. One of the things I love about good - excellent bokeh is that it gives me another element of consideration when I'm trying to decide on a new lens(certainly did that with the 105VR!.. over the 90Tammy).
I knwo of two lenses that try to deal with bokeh as a hardware solution(from Nikon and Sony) that change the way bokeh is rendered. I still have my eye on the Nikon 105 or 135 DC lenses, but it's a frivolous items and I can spend my money more effectively ATM. I'm not going to frivole yet(thanks Mrjorge for a new expression of insanity )

I just took a few samples with 4 of my 50mm lenses, and one reference image with the 105VR(as it's one of the legends of all time!).
(as LuminousLandscape examines on their bokeh webpage with a sense of scientificness I can't hope to reproduce), it shows how much nicer the 105VR can draw circles, in a uniformly lit manner, followed by the Sigma 50/1.4 then the Tammy 28-75, and finally the Nikon 50/1.2 and Tammy 17-50.
From that(knowledge) I have never thought about bokeh when I use the 105VR, as I know it will always render very nicely, and to a lesser degree with other lenses, but with trepidation with a few lenses too.

Problem is though, I'm currently stuck! My PC is cooking the CPU, crunching many billions of numbers trying to render a rather large GPS map. After nearly 24hours, non stop and overnight so far, it less than 1/7th of the way through the process! CPU has been at 100% all the while which means opening any Nikon NEF's atm is a futile effort in waiting.
And I really want this map!

I'll post the samples soon.

The main point to remember on the linguistics of the term is that it's not the Japanese term for haze or blur. For that you use the term boke. So to allay any confusion as to what we are trying to explain in photographic terms, I think bokeh, as coined by whoever did so, is more appropriate. Otherwise I'd be cringing at every bad attempt at derivative Greek words within the English vocabulary too!

The term photography itself is something I'd be cringing at, but as it's an Anglicised term derived from two Greek words, it's quite easy to accept (they being photos graphos ... light drawer/artist/painter.

[TOM]

how can the word boke or bokeh mean 'the quality of the oof area'? if i was to say that the canon 1.4/50mm lens produces boke, what does that tell me? it doesn't say if it is good, bad or otherwise. all it tells me is that it, like most any lens, can produce an out of focus area in a background or foreground. the fact that i need to accompany the word boke with a describing word/s tells me that the word boke is not in itself a term to describe quality...the word preceeding boke tells me that (distracting, pleasing, harsh et al). this means that boke can only be the oof area, nothing more. The chap that changed the spelling of boke did not intend to change the meaning of the word.

[Tannin]

Bahh.

How can the word "height" mean 'the tallness of something"? If I was to say that you have height, what does that tell us? It doesn't say if you are tall or short or medium. All it tells us is that you, like any human, have some vertical dimension. The fact that I need to accompany the word "height" with a describing word/s tells me that the word "height" is not in itself a term to describe vertical size.

In short, "bokeh" is exactly like "height" (or a zillion other English words) - it is only useful in combination with other words to qualify or quantify it. Perfectly normal part of the language. Nothing to see here, move along please.

[arthurking83]

how can the word boke or bokeh mean 'the quality of the oof area'? if i was to say that the canon 1.4/50mm lens produces boke, what does that tell me? it doesn't say if it is good, bad or otherwise. ...

Exactly as Tony says, it's used to describe the quality of the OOF areas, and I've never heard anyone use the term as you describe here.. where lens ABC/123 has boke or bokeh, only that it has good/bad/creamy bokeh. That in itself is the key to fully appreciate that bokeh is describing the quality of blur... not just quality, but quality of blur(more to the point, point light sources of OOF areas)


so as per definition:

if bokeh = (quality of OOF area)

then:

**** + (quality OOF area) =

xxxx + (quality OOF area) =

(it's your choice to add whatever extra dimension to **** or xxxx)
creamy, good, bad, nervous....

... the fact that i need to accompany the word boke with a describing word/s tells me that the word boke is not in itself a term to describe quality...

I think it's exactly that reason why it is! As you are quantifying the quality, you have to define the quantity in words not amounts (because the words quality of precede the the word blur).
The term quality tells me nothing about it's description, just the part of the essence or characteristics of the noun.

What that means is, if you were to quantify the term boke, then you may have to add creamy quality boke, where with bokeh, you would alternatively comment that it's creamy bokeh.

Hence the importance of the definition of bokeh as the quality of the OOF area.

By your previous definition that it's taken to mean only blur or haze or whatever, so when you see that smoothed out blur as in the background of Alann's image, well in your definition it has lots of blur(lots of boke) but it has nil Bokeh(in the same area) as you're trying to describe the quality of it.

ie. lots of, or 90% quality of blur doesn't make sense, whereas good quality blur does.(good being the descriptor(or adjective) of the characteristic)

.... The chap that changed the spelling of boke did not intend to change the meaning of the word....

maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but as it stands in photographic circles bokeh(not boke) is used to describe the quality of the OOF area, where the confusion in simply using boke is that you can also quantify the amount of blur.

hope that makes sense??

summary:

"lots of good boke"(makes sense), as does "good quality boke", or even "creamy boke".
The issue with using the term creamy with boke, is that you are literally describing the consistency or type of, rather than the parallel of smoothness of quality, because you haven't used the descriptors correctly to describe creamy quality boke. (bokeh has that inbuilt by default)

"creamy bokeh", or "nice bokeh", both make sense. But "lots of "good, creamy 90% bokeh" doesn't!

the term quality always needs an adjective to define what type of characteristic is being described.. it's either good or bad, or somewhere in between

I have both good knives and good quality knives.
The good knives are usually sharp when new, but may blunt easily when cutting fingers!
So they may really be bad quality knives, just that they feel good at the moment
(they are almost invariably bad quality knives, as I can only cut my fingers once and that's usually about it).
The good quality knives will always cut fingers, regardless of usage!