Jump to content

Talk:Bokeh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the subject of European lenses

[edit]
On the subject of European lenses, I found the Bokeh on a standard 50mm f1.8 Praktica particularly pleasing, the old M42 ones
80.7.74.46 (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit broke the page, so I reverted it + pasted it back ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed original research - "Sometimes bokeh is misleadingly defined..."

[edit]

Hi guys,

I changed this:

'Sometimes bokeh is misleadingly defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light",[8] since it is the characteristic of the image, not the lens itself.'

To this:

'Bokeh has been defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light".[8]'

Unless I'm missing something, source no. 8 simply gives the quoted definition. The stuff about it being misleading appears to be the editor's own opinion. Feel free to restore it, but make sure you cite it please.Señor Service (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"characteristic of the image, not the lens itself" was useful info that you have deleted - OK, not sourced - that would be good to find citation for and re-introduce the distinction.
To give an extreme example: if the aperture were square, then its edges could be aligned with horizontal and vertical objects which would have sharp edges even when out-of-focus. Turning the aperture so the edges were at 45 degrees would give a smoother effect. So the way you use the lens affects the bokeh, as well as the design of the lens. Quite a subtle distinction.
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit like arguing whether the Nile is the water, or the channel in the earth that it runs in. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... and the 'square aperture' isn't just an abstract hypothetical thought-experiment. Some Canon consumer camcorders have rhombus shaped apertures !--195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bad bokeh

[edit]

The article mentions good and bad bokeh, could someone add more about what constitutes bad bokeh, and maybe an example or two? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to research it and add it yourself, 99.38.208.30. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather subjective - 'bad' bokeh is bokeh that you don't like. Someone else might like it, or you might like it yourself, given a different photograph. A bit like the gardeners' definition of a 'weed' - a plant in the wrong place.
Generally, soft, smooth bokeh is preferred, so that out-of-focus things are visible, but not distracting.
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meyer-Goerlitz Trioplan - Good or bad ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A single frame from a Nikon Video from a tutorial Creating D-movies with your Nikon D-SLR Lesson 1 from Nikon - I wonder which lens that is - looks like the 18-105mm kit lens ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the ultimate bokeh-painter, Magda Wasiczek
I challenge anyone to say any of those are bad bokeh ! 195.137.93.171 (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is ultimately a POV issue, and therefore I don't think the article should be making value judgements about good or bad bokeh. Good or bad is just about what works in the individual image, and that cannot be generalised. It is a matter of taste, and mostly these examples are not to my taste. My personal preference is bokeh should enhance or complement the subject. In that work it has become the subject, and the flowers are merely incidental to the bokeh. But if that's what you like, it's fine. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aberration at close-focus distances - spherical or astigmatism ?

[edit]

I recently added this with a link to someone using a macro feature for bokeh control.

The Sigma YS System Focusing 135mm f/2.8 also has an extra manually-moved component, intended to compensate for spherical aberration at close-focus distances. It can be re-purposed for defocus control. [1]

I've just found Nikon's description of their CRC close-range correction system.

It says it's tweaking astigmatism not spherical aberration. Sigma might be different ? I'll delete 'spherical'.

I'm not sure how astigmatism (or coma) affects bokeh ...

Although the results are convincing, it is maybe too close to OR for Wikipedia - feel free to delete it, but please leave this section here for interest, and to help bokeh-hunters. Thanks. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I think this link is very useful to the article, as it gives the user a visual representation of the amount of background blur wich can be achieved by a certain lens. Since I developed the tool myself I cannot add the link myself, but I hope you guys will consider it.

http://howmuchblur.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johann3s (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I do not understand why the link was removed this time. Smial wrote: "Bokeh cannot be simulated in this manner, because it depends strongly on lens construction. Nice game." The bokeh of course depends on specific lens construction, but the difference is not so big to discard bokeh simulation completly. There is even a whole paragraph in the article about bokeh emulation. I beleive the linked page is a great example of simulating different types of bokeh. What are you trying to say by "Nice game."? 89.72.112.215 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer for Smial, but I think it would be a lot more useful if it had a way to simulate specular highlights. At the moment, it only implements blur with moderate dynamic range. Btw, "brunette" refers to hair colour, not skin. Samsara (FA • FP) 00:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bokeh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Katherine Maher

[edit]

The Katherine Maher image is an excellent example of 'swirly' bokeh. However there is an awkward appearance of a Wikipedia conflict of interest by using an image of the WMF Executive Director in random articles. I suggest it be replaced, if someone can find an equally excellent replacement. Do not replace it with an inferior image though. The image value itself takes precedence over a slim chance that someone will notice the connection, and think it was used because of that connection. And to be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of impropriety. It really is an excellent example image. Alsee (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation again

[edit]

Maybe this could be useful as a source or as an example? BOKEH? NOT BOKEH - How do you say 'bokeh'? – Photogearnews on Youtube Interesting part starts at 1:11. --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A set of *street* interviews where people *GUESS* how to say it is now cited [1] as *support* for the pronunciation that wiki now recommends??? What is wiki coming to? Ludicrous. Do you pronounce "kettle" as "kaytle" (as eɪ) or say "Kenneth" as "Kayneth" (as eɪ) or "Kay-vin" (see below)?? The representation given is /ˈboʊkeɪ/ BOH-kay. The body of the article has it (almost) right (and even a citation) "it is properly pronounced with bo as in bone and ke as in Kenneth, with equal stress on either syllable".[8]. Here's another "citation" https://petapixel.com/2018/09/13/psa-its-bokeh-not-bokuh/ that contains the following lines Bokeh. ボケ. “Bo” as in “both.” “Keh” as in “Kevin.” However, it seems like a lost cause to expect the right length of vowels these days. But Hooray! - the boke-uh is mentioned as a "sometimes" version - this will help people realize what the word is when they hear some say it. If we can't get it right, give me BOH-kay over boke-uh any day ! Can you imagine someone saying karaoke as "carry - okuh"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Jones (talk • contribs) 23:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bokeh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Portrait mode" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Portrait mode. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#Portrait mode until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Captain Galaxy (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology's great and all...

[edit]

And I wish to keep it, but please put it below the fold. There's no way the intro section can house all that fluff; Five entire paragraphs' worth of Japanese language lessons with no explanation of what bokeh actually is, until the sixth.

Also, please employ transliteration or latinize or how do you say... Spell out each word with letters from the latin alphabet, not just with Japanese kanji/symbols. We can't all read those (yet!?) Thanks, •ː• 3ICE •ː• 04:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my previous statement. (I don't want to outright delete it though, so an explanation is in order.) Well, here's what I saw at first, when visiting the article on my phone: Bokeh and lens design en.m.wikipedia.org 4 mins read The term comes from the Japanese word boke (暈け/ボケ), which means "blur" or "haze", resulting in boke-aji (ボケ味), the "blur quality". This is derived as a noun form of the verb bokeru, which is written in several ways,[7] with additional meanings and nuances: 暈ける refers to being blurry, hazy or out-of-focus, whereas the 惚ける and 呆ける spellings refer to being mentally hazy, befuddled, childish, senile, or playing stupid. Jisaboke (時差ボケ)[8] (literally, "time difference fog") is the term for jet lag. Nebokeru (寝ぼける)[9] is a verb denoting the actions or condition of someone who is half-asleep, or nodding off. Tobokeru[10] means playing dumb, and toboketa kao refers to a poker face. The related term bokashi (暈かし) means intentional blurring or gradation; that is a noun form of the transitive verb bokasu (暈す), which means to make something blurry, rather than to be blurry. The English spelling bokeh was popularized in 1997 in Photo Techniques magazine, when Mike Johnston, the editor at the time, commissioned three papers on the topic for the May/June 1997 issue; he altered the spelling to suggest the correct pronunciation to English speakers, saying "it is properly pronounced with bo as in bone and ke as in Kenneth, with equal stress on either syllable".[11] The spellings bokeh and boke have both been in use since at least 1996, when Merklinger had suggested "or Bokeh if you prefer."[12] The term bokeh has appeared in photography books as early as 1998.[2] It is sometimes pronounced /ˈboʊkə/ BOH-kə.[13]  

The depth of field is the region where the size of the circle of confusion is less than the resolution of the human eye.

The real page is correctly structured. My phone simply reordered the lines for some reason. Apologies, •ː• 3ICE •ː• 04:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

時差ボケ looks wrong

[edit]

Forgive me, I am not a photographer, but I know some Japanese. The "boke" in "jisaboke" (roughly "jet lag") is usually written in kana (i.e. not in Chinese characters) thus: 時差ボケ, but in kanji I have only ever seen 時差惚け or some other form using 惚 which means "fool" or "out of it" etc, hence jet lag. I haven't seen it written using 暈け - i.e. not with the kanji for "boke" meaning "blurred". So I am not convinced by the etymology given in the article.

The reference in the article doesn't give the proposed form either. I would suggest deleting that statement unless someone can find support for it.

Ambiguous definition

[edit]

This article conflates bokeh (blur quality) with depth of field (blur quantity). It opens by defining bokeh as "the aesthetic quality of the blur" and then follows with statements that (implicitly) redefine it as the blur quantity/visibility:

Some examples:

  • "It is created by using a wide aperture lens" (the aesthetic quality of the blur is determined by lens design, not aperture size)
  • "Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights" (out of focus specular highlights (not necessarily in the background) don't influence the visibility of bokeh, but rather show some of its characteristics (shape, onion rings, etc))
  • "The opposite of bokeh ... is deep focus." (deep focus is the opposite of shallow focus (quantity), not of bokeh (quality))
  • "Though difficult to quantify" (bokeh itself can only be qualified, not quantified)
  • "Bokeh can be simulated" (that's like saying that taste or beauty can be simulated — while it is possible to simulate certain aspects by which bokeh/taste/beauty is judged, the qualitative appreciation itself cannot be simulated)

C0ldc0ne (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bokeh&oldid=1244680705"