Talk:Bokeh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

On the subject of European lenses[edit]

On the subject of European lenses, I found the Bokeh on a standard 50mm f1.8 Praktica particularly pleasing, the old M42 ones
80.7.74.46 (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit broke the page, so I reverted it + pasted it back ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed original research - "Sometimes bokeh is misleadingly defined..."[edit]

Hi guys,

I changed this:

'Sometimes bokeh is misleadingly defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light",[8] since it is the characteristic of the image, not the lens itself.'

To this:

'Bokeh has been defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light".[8]'

Unless I'm missing something, source no. 8 simply gives the quoted definition. The stuff about it being misleading appears to be the editor's own opinion. Feel free to restore it, but make sure you cite it please.Señor Service (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"characteristic of the image, not the lens itself" was useful info that you have deleted - OK, not sourced - that would be good to find citation for and re-introduce the distinction.
To give an extreme example: if the aperture were square, then its edges could be aligned with horizontal and vertical objects which would have sharp edges even when out-of-focus. Turning the aperture so the edges were at 45 degrees would give a smoother effect. So the way you use the lens affects the bokeh, as well as the design of the lens. Quite a subtle distinction.
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit like arguing whether the Nile is the water, or the channel in the earth that it runs in. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
... and the 'square aperture' isn't just an abstract hypothetical thought-experiment. Some Canon consumer camcorders have rhombus shaped apertures !--195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

bad bokeh[edit]

The article mentions good and bad bokeh, could someone add more about what constitutes bad bokeh, and maybe an example or two? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to research it and add it yourself, 99.38.208.30. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
It's rather subjective - 'bad' bokeh is bokeh that you don't like. Someone else might like it, or you might like it yourself, given a different photograph. A bit like the gardeners' definition of a 'weed' - a plant in the wrong place.
Generally, soft, smooth bokeh is preferred, so that out-of-focus things are visible, but not distracting.
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Meyer-Goerlitz Trioplan - Good or bad ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
A single frame from a Nikon Video from a tutorial Creating D-movies with your Nikon D-SLR Lesson 1 from Nikon - I wonder which lens that is - looks like the 18-105mm kit lens ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
And the ultimate bokeh-painter, Magda Wasiczek
I challenge anyone to say any of those are bad bokeh ! 195.137.93.171 (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This is ultimately a POV issue, and therefore I don't think the article should be making value judgements about good or bad bokeh. Good or bad is just about what works in the individual image, and that cannot be generalised. It is a matter of taste, and mostly these examples are not to my taste. My personal preference is bokeh should enhance or complement the subject. In that work it has become the subject, and the flowers are merely incidental to the bokeh. But if that's what you like, it's fine. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Aberration at close-focus distances - spherical or astigmatism ?[edit]

I recently added this with a link to someone using a macro feature for bokeh control.

The Sigma YS System Focusing 135mm f/2.8 also has an extra manually-moved component, intended to compensate for spherical aberration at close-focus distances. It can be re-purposed for defocus control. [1]

I've just found Nikon's description of their CRC close-range correction system.

It says it's tweaking astigmatism not spherical aberration. Sigma might be different ? I'll delete 'spherical'.

I'm not sure how astigmatism (or coma) affects bokeh ...

Although the results are convincing, it is maybe too close to OR for Wikipedia - feel free to delete it, but please leave this section here for interest, and to help bokeh-hunters. Thanks. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

external link to howmuchblur.com[edit]

I think this link is very useful to the article, as it gives the user a visual representation of the amount of background blur wich can be achieved by a certain lens. Since I developed the tool myself I cannot add the link myself, but I hope you guys will consider it.

http://howmuchblur.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johann3s (talkcontribs) 09:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

External link to dofsimulator.net[edit]

I do not understand why the link was removed this time. Smial wrote: "Bokeh cannot be simulated in this manner, because it depends strongly on lens construction. Nice game." The bokeh of course depends on specific lens construction, but the difference is not so big to discard bokeh simulation completly. There is even a whole paragraph in the article about bokeh emulation. I beleive the linked page is a great example of simulating different types of bokeh. What are you trying to say by "Nice game."? 89.72.112.215 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't answer for Smial, but I think it would be a lot more useful if it had a way to simulate specular highlights. At the moment, it only implements blur with moderate dynamic range. Btw, "brunette" refers to hair colour, not skin. Samsara (FA  FP) 00:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bokeh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Image of Katherine Maher[edit]

The Katherine Maher image is an excellent example of 'swirly' bokeh. However there is an awkward appearance of a Wikipedia conflict of interest by using an image of the WMF Executive Director in random articles. I suggest it be replaced, if someone can find an equally excellent replacement. Do not replace it with an inferior image though. The image value itself takes precedence over a slim chance that someone will notice the connection, and think it was used because of that connection. And to be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of impropriety. It really is an excellent example image. Alsee (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation again[edit]

Maybe this could be useful as a source or as an example? BOKEH? NOT BOKEH - How do you say 'bokeh'? – Photogearnews on Youtube Interesting part starts at 1:11. --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Really? A set of *street* interviews where people *GUESS* how to say it is now cited [1] as *support* for the pronunciation that wiki now recommends??? What is wiki coming to? Ludicrous. Do you pronounce "kettle" as "kaytle" (as eɪ) or say "Kenneth" as "Kayneth" (as eɪ) or "Kay-vin" (see below)?? The representation given is /ˈboʊkeɪ/ BOH-kay. The body of the article has it (almost) right (and even a citation) "it is properly pronounced with bo as in bone and ke as in Kenneth, with equal stress on either syllable".[8]. Here's another "citation" https://petapixel.com/2018/09/13/psa-its-bokeh-not-bokuh/ that contains the following lines Bokeh. ボケ. “Bo” as in “both.” “Keh” as in “Kevin.” However, it seems like a lost cause to expect the right length of vowels these days. But Hooray! - the boke-uh is mentioned as a "sometimes" version - this will help people realize what the word is when they hear some say it. If we can't get it right, give me BOH-kay over boke-uh any day ! Can you imagine someone saying karaoke as "carry - okuh"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Jones (talkcontribs) 23:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bokeh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)