Stargazer said:I think part of the problem of understanding/defining bokeh is a cultural one, and in our western way we want something definite and *right* or *wrong* when it's not as cut and dried as that, and the Japanese language is infinitely more subtle than ours. In the end, it doesn't matter, go with what pleases you. If you think of 'bokeh' as meaning 'blur' (which I think is how it translates) then you realise it isn't specific, and it isn't in itself value-laden, though we make judgements about particular renditions of it.
Right down the road. Cherry Hill.bob01721 said:Where in South Jersey? I'm in Haddon Township.
mono said:Sorry, my English is not good as yours, but I still do not understand what bokeh really is or means!
Can you help me, please?
mono said:Sorry, my English is not good as yours, but I still do not understand what bokeh really is or means!
Can you help me, please?
George Papantoniou said:How have you done so nice pictures without knowing what Bokeh is ?
(PS shoudn't you spell your name "Volker" ?)
George Papantoniou said:Mr Fernandez, this is really impressive !!!! I will look for the issue you mention in my Photo Techniques collection, but in case I don't find it, could you point out the link where the third article can be found (the one that is posted on the internet) ?
George, have you lost your tiny hellenic mind? Discussions of bokeh are a form of oneupmanship. The sad part of it is that people who carry on lenses' bokeh haven't got to first principles yet.George Papantoniou said:How have you done so nice pictures without knowing what Bokeh is ?
(snip)
O Fernandez said:I wish Oren Grad had decided to speak up more on the topic of bokeh, since his article is the most pertinent to this discussion.
O Fernandez said:You can purchase back issue of Photo Techniques on bokeh (May/June 1997/Vol. 18, No. 3: What is 'Bokeh') here: http://www.phototechmag.com/back_issues2.htm scroll down to the right issue. The cost for shipping outside of the USA at $10 (on top of the $5.00 cost of the back issue) is a bit much.
Harold Merklingers article, A Technical View of Bokeh, can be found for free here: http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/bokeh.pdf . I didnt find this article so useful as it tends to get too technical and hard to follow. The other two articles from the above issue of Photo Techniques are more interesting to me.
mono said:This name is correct with F! Most people ask this question ;-)
George Papantoniou said:OK Folker, I'll jump in my Folksvagen and come to visit you in Vrankvurt am Main one of these days...
Soeren said:Whatever you might think of Ken Rockwell his article on bokeh may be easier to read than others.
Sorry if the link has been posted before.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
I do understand why Folker take good pics without knowing about bokeh. There is a lot of debth of field in them. Great pics BTW (by the way)
Cheers, Søren
I thought it's herefirecracker said:I think I've posted a similar comment somewhere before.
kunihiko said:I thought it's here
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
I too got GW head:rolleyes:firecracker said:I'm repeating myself...I'm so bokeh!
kunihiko said:I too got GW head:rolleyes:
firecracker said:A quick Japanese lesson: Bokeh in Japanese also means being dumb and stupid.
Soeren said:Ahh
You guys got me bewildered for a moment there.
Cheers, Søren
firecracker said:You can curse someone with that word. Check out some Japanese gangster and/or Yakuza movies, you will know what I mean.
Soeren said::confused: What word ?
Cheers, Søren
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: ![]() |