Bokeh vs shallow Depth of Field

[cale]

I've always understoood the meaning of bokeh as the 'quality' of the oof areas of the photo, whether in the background or foreground. The quality of the bokeh in photos can be subjective but the meaning of the word 'bokeh' is not.

When reading discussions about this topic on different forums I've seen many people confuse bokeh with dof, and some think that the oof areas of the photo ARE bokeh but they're not, it's the how pleasing these oof areas are to look at. Hence the dof can be too shallow but you can't have too much bokeh.

Too me creamy backgrounds are nicer.

[Omytion]

I've always understoood the meaning of bokeh as the 'quality' of the oof areas of the photo, whether in the background or foreground. The quality of the bokeh in photos can be subjective but the meaning of the word 'bokeh' is not.

When reading discussions about this topic on different forums I've seen many people confuse bokeh with dof, and some think that the oof areas of the photo ARE bokeh but they're not, it's the how pleasing these oof areas are to look at. Hence the dof can be too shallow but you can't have too much bokeh.

Too me creamy backgrounds are nicer.

My understanding was that It's simply a noun, not an adjective. Areas that are oof in a photograph, whether by human error or intent, have a bokeh that is the result of the lenses and the aperture and can be described in terms of patterning and subjective quality.

Thus the word bokeh is used in a similar way to "shadow" or "highlight". You would describe the DoF as "shallow"/"deep"/etc and the bokeh as "nice"/"horrific"/"creamy"/whatever.

[ving]

haha!!! you guys are funny!

just go and take some friggin photos.

oh and my take... bokeh is just the oof bg (or fg) area of a photo which is affected by dof (and other things)
example: bokeh created by depth of field, subject isolation from bg materials and aperture shape.

[Erin]

To me, "bokeh" has always been those gorgeous orb patterns caused by light reflection/flare in the background of the image, not just necessary just the OOF part in general.

[LJG]

This is an interesting subject that comes up quite regularly and there are many different ideas on what is the "right" Bokeh.

OK, firstly, I'm not an expert by any means! But, here is what my take on it is.

In the first shot, while not technically a good shot by any means, it is what I reckon qualifies as reasonable, or good "bokeh" (I shot it for that reason).

Then in the second shot it is what I would term simply an out of focus background.







As I said, I'm by no means an expert (or a drip under pressure as some would say haha)
and those are just my thoughts on it.

[Omytion]

"Those gorgeous orb patterns" are how you're describing the bokeh. In another shot with a different lens you may describe the bokeh in terms of "nasty angular orbs" or "chopped up".

Good bokeh is generally taken to be a smooth, unchoppy blur. But whatever the effects manifested, be they choppy, creamy or full of nougat goodness, they are the result of the aperture blades, the lenses and the chosen DOF acting on the lighting and hue contrasts in the area out of focus.

Just because there aren't lovely sparkly magical effects visible doesn't mean there is no bokeh, it just means the bokeh has no interesting characteristics.

[LJG]

Here is a link to a very interesting read on the subject. It is very long and technical but interesting. It will clarify a lot and some of us are probably off the mark with what we thought haha

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6...5_Bokeh_en.pdf

[arthurking83]

They would both be classified as good bokeh, but I suspect that #2 would be very good bokeh.

The semi circular highlights in #1 let it down a little, as the highlights should always be rendered in a circular shape to be considered into the very good-excellent category.

An OOF background will be one where there is no detail in it to distinguish what it consists of, whereas in #2 you can clearly distinguish the rocks, even though they are blurred heavily.

[DonUnder]

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

I con't think there can really be any answer to that particular question as it's down to preference and the role the bokeh plays in any given photo.

[I @ M]

I con't think there can really be any answer to that particular question as it's down to preference and the role the bokeh plays in any given photo.

Any photo that you take is subject to the viewers 'preference', some may like a creamy blurred background, others may like more depth of field and sharper detail, but, as a photographer, your tastes often dictate the way you portray a person, scene or event.
Being as this is the new to photography forum, the original post is designed to create awareness in newcomers to the 'sport' as to how that elusive bokeh (spell it as you prefer) actually happens.

Many people take a photo and give little consideration as to how the final image will look with regard to the background and 'bokeh' especially when they are new to the 'sport'. Having once learned what depth of field is and having gained a knowledge of how and when to apply that depth (or lack of it) to a photo they then can set out to use that quality in their photos.

Many people have taken a photo that displays all the hallmarks of 'good bokeh' totally by accident and have wondered from that day on as to why they can't repeat the experience, presenting thoughts on it in a thread like this raises awareness of how the 'good bokeh' comes about and from that people look and think more about how they compose an image.

[colemansmithadam]

Wow, my head. Very interesting but got bored of the linguistics battle.
I agree with those who said it's all in the eye of the beholder, many things come into play, it all depends on how you, the person behind the lens decides to compose the shot, did you want to keep an element of where the subject is or do you want your subject to jump out like the seagul shot. It's all relative.