Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,895   Posts: 1,520,963   Online: 887
      
Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 128
  1. #81

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,482
    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.

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,319
    Quote Originally Posted by redrockcoulee View Post
    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.

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,482
    That's an awesome explanation of the inherent dilemma involved in the precise use of vague terminology! Fuzzy logic?

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,319
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    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?

  5. #85
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,171
    Images
    289
    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.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    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.

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,482
    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).

  8. #88
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,171
    Images
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    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?!
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #89
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Images
    32
    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
    Last edited by Chris Lange; 04-24-2013 at 02:00 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    See my work at my website CHRISTOPHER LANGE PHOTOGRAPHY

    or my snaps at my blog MINIMUM DENSITY
    --
    If you don't have it, then you don't have it.

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Medicine Hat
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    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.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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