Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,501   Posts: 1,543,371   Online: 811
      
Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 128
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,428
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    Why do so many people get their knickers in a knot over the term and what it represents? I get the annoyance at discussions that put way too much emphasis on it and/or get snobby about which lens has the "best" bokeh - but it's just a word that encapsulates the quality of out of focus areas. Some lenses have smooth and creamy bokeh - some have harsh and discordant. Most are somewhere in between. We know that the shape of the lens aperture has a major impact on the quality of out-of-focus areas - the more round the aperture, the smoother, to a point. I remember seeing some chromes a friend of mine shot using a 14" Commercial Ektar, a 14" Caltar, and a 355mm Kern Gold-Dot Dagor. The Ektar and Caltar were very close, as they should be - they both are in the same shutter (an Ilex #5), and the 14" Caltar is for all intents and purposes a 14" Commercial Ektar. The Gold-Dot Dagor was noticeably harsher, as it was mounted in a modern Copal 3 with either a 6 or 8 blade aperture. The surprising thing about the Ektar/Caltar was that there was in fact a difference. The Caltar was based on the 14" Commercial Ektar, and was very slightly tweaked. The difference proves that lens design in itself does have something to do with it, not just aperture.
    Lens design has virtually everything to do with it. The number of blades in the aperture will determine the shape of out of focus bright spots, nothing more.

    I personally get "my knickers in a twist" because most who fling this annoyingly pretentious term about know not of what they speak.

  2. #62
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,646
    I don't like the word "bokeh" because it is not clear how to pronounce it and its definition is so often misunderstood. Maybe there is some long and descriptive German word that would have been a better choice. That could have been fun.
    Last edited by lxdude; 04-23-2013 at 10:37 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo
    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.

  3. #63
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,352
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Lens design has virtually everything to do with it. The number of blades in the aperture will determine the shape of out of focus bright spots, nothing more.

    I personally get "my knickers in a twist" because most who fling this annoyingly pretentious term about know not of what they speak.
    Just because some fools misuse a term doesn't invalidate the term. Nuclear weapons are no less potent because George W. Bush calls them "Nookular".

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,428
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    I don't like the word "bokeh" because it is not clear how to pronounce it and its definition is so often misunderstood. Maybe there is some long and descriptive German word that would have been a better choice. That could have been fun.
    "Glaslieblichkeit", literally "glass loveliness".

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,601
    I've personally gotten decent results with my 165/2.8 P67 lens. It has eleven aperture blades and is
    a nice focal length with fast speed, allowing shallow depth of field. But that loud "ker-lunk" of the big
    mirror can be a bit distracting in portrait sessions. I wouldn't describe the out-of-focus effect as quite
    as smooth as with a Nikon or Zeiss 85/1.4 (comparable angle of view), but the big neg is often nicer to
    print from. It's a nice option to have on hand if the subject is too fidgety for the 8x10, or if I have to
    work more quickly.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,428
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    Just because some fools misuse a term doesn't invalidate the term. Nuclear weapons are no less potent because George W. Bush calls them "Nookular".
    Well, yes it does - if I'm trying to communicate with said fools, we'll be speaking different languages. If I use the term correctly, they won't know what I mean.

  7. #67
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,352
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Well, yes it does - if I'm trying to communicate with said fools, we'll be speaking different languages. If I use the term correctly, they won't know what I mean.
    Well, then medicine is a waste of time... compared to the average doctor, the average patient is a fool when it comes to medical terminology. But that shouldn't stop a doctor from distinguishing between a melanoma and a sarcoma (two kinds of cancers, for the non-initiated). Both terms have meaningful differences and should not be conflated. Maybe instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater you should either educate the fools, or stop talking to them.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,601
    The average doctor communicates in insurance codes and has to pick one out in minutes. If you walk
    into his office with antlers growing out of your head, he can only charge for something the insurance
    company will reimburse, so codes it as "wart removal". At least a term like "bokeh" still has some vowels to it. The cell-phone generation will probably contract this to "bkh" and it will become confused
    with some kind of chemical hamburger preservative that cause the antler growth in the first place!

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,428
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    Well, then medicine is a waste of time... compared to the average doctor, the average patient is a fool when it comes to medical terminology. But that shouldn't stop a doctor from distinguishing between a melanoma and a sarcoma (two kinds of cancers, for the non-initiated). Both terms have meaningful differences and should not be conflated. Maybe instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater you should either educate the fools, or stop talking to them.
    Well, it's been demonstrated that at least some medicine is a waste of time, if not actively harmful. I imagine that, confronted with a layman who flings misused medical terms about, the average doctor would think him/her a pretentious bore at best.

    I've found fools uneducable, and I don't use the term "bokeh". Instead, I use the words "rendition of out of focus areas" which are accurate, self explanatory, and at least somewhat understandable to the unitiated. The purpose of language is communication, jargon is understood only by the elect. I personally find jargon annoying.
    Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 04-23-2013 at 03:12 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    The average doctor communicates in insurance codes and has to pick one out in minutes. If you walk
    into his office with antlers growing out of your head, he can only charge for something the insurance
    company will reimburse, so codes it as "wart removal". At least a term like "bokeh" still has some vowels to it. The cell-phone generation will probably contract this to "bkh" and it will become confused
    with some kind of chemical hamburger preservative that cause the antler growth in the first place!
    I have just got to stop eating those dollar hamburgers from McDonalds. I was wondering what was causing those antlers.

    Thanks Drew!



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin