Bokeh! 35mm vs 6x7

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

"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".

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have used the Scheimpflug principle to correctly photograph relict periglacial features caused by pingos. But under such circumstances one does not apply bokeh. That is the kind of distinction one learns when they are trained as both a geomorphologist and a photographer. By contrast, a wedding
photographer might be concerned about bokeh, while it would be considered rude to toss the bride into
a supercooled permafrost meltwater pool at the center of a pingo. She might remain well preserved and
quiet for a long,long time, but as a photographer, you might not get much repeat business.

 

[redrockcoulee]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I think Bokeh is a useful term, and like many other things, now seems to be a standard part of photographic vocabulary. But it applies to something quite subjective and not a fixed rule. Background
blur can be either pleasant or distracting. For quite a few generations, both filmmakers and still photographer (esp back in Pictorialist days) would go to considerable expense or effort to acquire lenses with a particular out-of-focus quality. Some these might be classified as soft-focus, some variable, and some otherwise sharp. More aperture blades helps the roundness of out-of-focus highlights, but there are numerous other factors. And some people still will pay a premium for qualities
they consider tasteful in this respect. I'm not a movie addict by any means, but there are times when
I will watch one more for the quality of lighting, color, and character of the lenses than for the storyline.
So much of that expertise is being lost in all these digitized action flicks! But given the big budgets in
days of yore, some of these guys really knew their lenses and how to keep attention on the intended
subject without background distraction. But trying to actually quanitfy the term will just open a can
of worms.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's an awesome explanation of the inherent dilemma involved in the precise use of vague terminology! Fuzzy logic?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

That's an awesome explanation of the inherent dilemma involved in the precise use of vague terminology! Fuzzy logic?

By "awesome", do you mean that you were filled with a feeling of dread and wonder, inspired by my sublime thoughts?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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 hell 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.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah ... but the term is here to stay whether we like it or not, use it or not. But there are plenty of
terms abused in photographic idiology (misspelling deliberate).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

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?!

 

[Chris Lange]

If you care about OOF character there are certain lenses known for having "good" or "smooth" attributes. In my experience these are:

Nikon 85/1.4, 105/1.8, 105/2.5

Leica Summicron 50/2 Dual Range, Summilux 50/1.4 Asph

Any Sonnar copy, I -love- the way my Jupiter 8 50/2 renders out of focus, really soft.

Hasselblad Sonnar 150/4, Sonnar 250/5.6

Pentax 67 105/2.4, 165/2.8

Schneider Xenar 127/4.7 and Symmar 210/5.6

This is subjective, but these are the lenses that I have used that exhibit really smooth OOF areas. That said, I have -never- chosen a lens because of the out of focus rendering, preferring to make my selection based on size, and speed (I like fast lenses, and not running out of usable f/stops).

This is the Symmar, excuse the fact that I dropped the polaroid in the grass after I shot it.

Jupiter 8 50/2

Nikon 85/1.4

 

[redrockcoulee]

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.

I have read the thread several times. If he had asked if the rendition out of focus area 35mm vs MF would he have been anymore knowledgeable about the subject? It seems to me almost everyone who responded knows what bokeh means, perhaps not all of us understand what all affects it. Is learning not one of the reasons people post things on a forum? Or read them? And to correct misunderstandings is one of the reasons others respond.

I have read threads where the OP did not understand that exposures did not change when you went to a different format but I think we will not stop using the word exposure due to this either.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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?!

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.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

Oh and I'm no bokeh expert but Mamiya's reputation is not the best.

That is true for the 75 and 80 lenses for Mamiya 6 and 7. But the 150/4.5 lenses (for both models) give very nice OOF rendering.

One example with Mamiya 6 with 150/4.5 wide open at medium distance:

 

[StoneNYC]

Then why don't you enlighten me as to the correct word?

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

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

Yes, how many times do you hear or read the term in the same sentence as f/11?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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

To translate something. Yes, that's just about exactly what I meant.

You're very full of yourself, aren't you? Here, see if you can translate this: "Ma gavte la nata". And while you're at it, get a better dictionary. I recommend the Second Webster's Unabridged, The Oxford, or the Third Webster's Unabridged.

Have a lovely day.

Post Scriptum - You misspelled "Bokeh". Twice.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

Shooting wide open is just shooting wide open. It isn't being a bokeh fanatic by shooting wide open (see me earlier post). 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. You should care about the rendering of your OOFAs (how about that as a term to replace bokeh? POOFAS [Pleasing Out-Of-Focus Areas]? or more precisely, QoOOFA [Quality of Out Of Focus Areas]. Try to pronounce QoOOFA and suddenly Bokeh is a lot more appealing), regardless of the aperture selected.

 

[lxdude]

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.

Dang!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

They still make Colt Malt Liquor?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

They still make Colt Malt Liquor?

Billy Dee Williams is still alive...