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.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
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.
Originally Posted by msbarnes
One example with Mamiya 6 with 150/4.5 wide open at medium distance:
Rendition means the interpretation or reenactment of a score of music
Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh
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.
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
~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller
Yes, how many times do you hear or read the term in the same sentence as f/11?
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
"Make good art!"
- Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
They still make Colt Malt Liquor?
Billy Dee Williams is still alive...
Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh