"Leaf shutter" and "aperture" are not jargon, but specific terms. Just like "pallet arbor" and "escape pinion" are to a watchmaker.
Jargon like leaf shutter or aperture? Every field uses jargon and in fields of science for example when much of the work is done by people in non English speaking countries, non English words become the accepted terms or labels rather than saying for example hills with ice cored created by hydrostatic pressure the word Pingo is used. You may not know what a Pingo is but almost all geomorphologists would. Many of the terms used by photographers are totally unnecessary to be know by the clients. But using a single or two word term to explain what otherwise takes 7 words is communications in my mind. I think if you dissected the terminology used in all aspects of photography you would find many words that we take for granted but non users would think of as jargon. What is a safe light may be a simple example. Perhaps due to the term being foreign, new and is pronouced as an existing word that means something totally different is one of the reasons bokeh is trashed. I do not see how renditioned our of focus area has any more meaning to a non photographer or is a better means of communicating with a photographer. I probably do not use the word myself but I think I know what everyone means when they say it and can visualize the effect on the image. To me that is communitcations.
"Leaf shutter" and "aperture" are not jargon, but specific terms. Just like "pallet arbor" and "escape pinion" are to a watchmaker.
Better example then- f-stop instead of lens aperture. Or Scheimpflug principle. Scheimpflug principle is something that once understood, two words is sufficient to encapsulate the concept, but when not understood, requires an entire Wikipedia entry to explain. And even if you dumb it down for a layperson to "the understanding of how to control vertical and horizontal planes of focus to correct for converging vertical lines", they will probably start tuning out at "vertical and horizontal planes".
F stop is another term specific to photography, and with a tiny bit of explanation is easily understood by anyone who cares to. Scheimpfulg principle, that's also explicable (but better demonstrated) to anyone who cares to know, but I'll point out that there are many who call themselves "photographer" who don't understand it - just like "bokeh.
So what is different between terms specific to a field and jargon?
The third definition of Jargon from the Free Online Dictionary
3. The specialized or technical language of a trade, profession, or similar group
Why is it that more difficult concepts can be explained but bokeh cannot be or is not real? Sorry but I do not understand.
That's an awesome explanation of the inherent dilemma involved in the precise use of vague terminology! Fuzzy logic?
Any words, or use thereof, that doesn't make what's being communicated easier to understand is a barrier.
To use terminology of any kind, it helps to know whether the audience understands what the @#!*% we're talking about. If they don't understand, then what use is a fancy word with a highly specialized meaning?
It is probably reasonable to expect that on a photography forum most people would be able to comprehend the word 'bokeh', whether it irritates some members of the forum or not. You can't please everybody. The important part is to make sure that the discussion itself is conducive to actually answering the freaking question.
That's pretty much my point. It isn't accurately understood - or accurately used - by too many. Otherwise, the use of it wouldn't annoy me.
Read this thread. The OP thinks "bokeh" differs according to format. Another contributor uses the term and defends it, but has demonstrated that he is badly misinformed regarding what influences it. I don't like the term and won't use it because it is so often misused that it means nothing - just like the word "awesome".
The first definition, from Webster's: Jargon (n) -confused unintelligible language.
Yeah, for my own purposes I don't use the term at all, just so I can avoid irritating those who have heard it so much that they just want to return their lunch from their stomachs back to the open air...That's not entirely true, but my personal opinion doesn't matter much.
However, I do opine that the term bokeh is unfortunate from a standpoint of enjoying photography, because I often think wide open shallow depth of field pictures to be extremely cliche and adds no value to the final print. But at the same time that is very lucky for me, because I can purchase some very good lenses for almost nothing because of it, so why complain?!
Then why don't you enlighten me as to the correct word?
The one thing that does bother me about the use of the term is the misapprehension on the part of some folks who seem to think that it is synonymous with shallow depth-of-field - in order to have pleasing bokeh an image must be shot at or near wide open. Which is patently not true. It's about the quality of out of focus areas, not the quantity.
Rendition means the interpretation or reenactment of a score of music
To translate something - as in from one language to another.
Or in ancient language, to surrender.
None of which describe what you're talking about.
If you're going to mock proper terminology and then make up your own to be more "clear" you should at least use words properly in your descriptions.
And yes it was a little snide, possibly uncalled for, still, I was more busting your balls. I don't have a better term than Bokah because that's the best term for what it is. You COULD say the out of focus area of an image, but that wouldn't fully encompass what Bokah is. It's like the Inuit telling us what kind of snow is falling, and us trying to say its "fluffy snow" which wouldn't properly describe the type of snow because their word for the type of snow is very specific.
~Stone
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
I love walking around on a rainy day with high-speed film and a Nikon with an 85/1.4 tucked under my
parka, often shot wide open. I briefly become a "bokeh" maniac on such days. But 95% of the time, I'm shooting sheet film as sharp as I can get it. I judge the results by the print itself, and couldn't care less how or when the term itself is used, or if it even existed in the first place.
If the lens you're shooting with exhibits "good" bokeh, then you have some very pleasing out-of-focus areas. If not, then they look like a six-bean-chili-and-Colt-Malt-Liquor fart.
They still make Colt Malt Liquor?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?