heh... bokeh literally translates to "blur" and is used to describe the "quality" of the out-of-focus areas of an image.
you can look it up in any photography text book, you don't have to rely on wikipedia ;)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
i didnt know that.
exactly my opinion / understanding of this. if I had to describe / explain it, i'd say: its a special kind of blur... otherwise, we'd have no need in this word at all, we could simply use the word 'blur' every thime speaking of this matter.
well... the word bokeh is really just a synonym for blur isn't it?!
I guess there's some differentiation in photo-lingualism where the same "amount" of blur can still create a different "quality" of bokeh because of differing lens qualities such as diaphragm shape and aberration.
But technically any out-of-focus-blur is bokeh, whether it looks good or not, then it's just either ugly bokeh or nice looking bokeh... but that's really just a matter of taste anyway.
i never thought about it that way. fraenk, you are a native speaker, how can I argue with you... i d k, maybe I am wrong, and confused now... but I still probably be thinking on about it like this, in a wrong way :/
you nailed it. I didnt say, 'different amount', I'd say, a different quality of bokeh, but we are there.
returning back to the red leaves of your pic, imo one should better not say: look at this bokeh! - cause it was just a blur of non-specific and amazing shape, it naturally lead us to results like this: I came in... and didnt noticed one! and was claiming, give me bokeh as promised :P
maybe it was me, who mis-used the word 'technically', and you are correct: technically it is bokeh, but... often not the stuff like this, is awarded with this epithet. dixi !