Originally posted by Simon I am sure I remember when "bokeh" was simply called "out of focus highlights" and it was only really mentioned when a mirror lens caused a doughnut shape or a Cokin filter did something like this...
I remember it that way too. It was something that was considered pretty unimportant as long as the lens didn't render out of focus highlights in a completely horrible way. Perhaps occasionally you'd want to blur the background in a portrait if it was intrusive, but generally it was felt that the most important thing in a portrait was capturing the subject's character, rather than showing off your lens's awesome background blurriness potential.
But then came digital. APS-C digital to be specific. And people thought: "Well it can't be as good as 35mm film, because it's smaller. What we need is a digital sensor the same size as 35mm film."
To which the obvious reply was: "It's a completely different technology. It doesn't matter whether it's the same size or not."
But people wouldn't accept that. "No, no, no. We need digital sensors the same size as 35mm film."
"Why do you need that?"
"Because. . . um. . . because. . . Oh yeah, here's one: we need digital sensors the same size as 35mm film because you can get the background out of focus in portraits."
"When the heck has anyone ever thought that
that was a big deal? Wouldn't you rather have more front-to-back depth of field in landscapes?"
"Naah. That would be an advantage of that smaller APS-C sensor. We want bigger sensors. We NEED bigger sensors, or we won't feel like bigshot hairy chested lensmen! It's all about the bokeh, dude!"
And so the bokeh obsession began, and lens manufacturers have been laughing all the way to the bank ever since.