Thomas, "blown highlights" FYI, the term is valid and is meaningful (unless you can think of an alternative that describes what is happening with equal accuracy?). It has been in use along with "clipped highs" since the late 1980s to describe spectral areas of e.g. water which have exceeded the dynamic range of the medium; it applies equally to analogue and digital, with analogue (B&W and/or colour transparency, especially) occuring less abrubtly than digital where dynamic range is insufficient for the subject. A lot of digi cameras have extensible dynamic range. Film does not so we have to meter scenes where there is the possibility of spectrals getting out of order with care. Same thing with shadows. And no, this metering is not done by incident which is less implicit in very contrasty scenes.
Capture applies to digital. I have berated a number of photographers who ask me, knowing full well I've been out with analogue equipment, "did you capture anything nice?"
Bokeh, swirly or not, is just bullshit enough to make me spew in my latté. I cannot believe over on photo.net how "photographers" get their knickers knotted battling away with bokeh in their exclusive little club.
Blocked up highlights is a much better term, in my humble opinion. I just think 'blown' highlights is a stupid way of describing the event, since it is ambiguous. To me 'blown' means 'I screwed up' and there's more than one way to screw up highlights. Blocked up you cannot misinterpret unless you try really hard. That's what I think.
Agree about bokeh and capture.
"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