[Dartmoor Dave]

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.

[BigMackCam]

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.

I like being able to induce a certain amount of foreground and/or background blur in some situations. It's a nice-to-have creative option... but, whilst everyone is entitled to their own preferences, I personally find it somewhat over-used to the point of cliché. Often, it adds nothing to an image; worse, it can detract from an otherwise pleasing composition. Having said that, I too went through a (thankfully quite short) stage of shooting a lot of relatively shallow depth-of-field photos... but came out the other side unscathed These days, I'd give a kidney for large sensor (i.e. APS-C +) performance with the seemingly-endless depth-of-field I get from my small-sensor Q7 or compact cameras...

[vonBaloney]

And so the bokeh obsession began, and lens manufacturers have been laughing all the way to the bank ever since.

But all the best bokeh lenses are from the 35mm era...

[swanlefitte]

In the day there was a saying, "If you could bottle it, you would make a fortune." Little did we know this even applied to tap water. Call it healthy or boutique or artesian and suddenly everybody wants to buy their tap water at a mark up. The people who needed it before still had it. They used a canteen. The people who needed bokeh still had it. There are an awful lot of folks who don't need it but think they do.

As for water a friend did a double-blind taste test and correctly identified 5 brands all refrigerated over night. For most of us this Penn & Teller is about right for or taste in water as well as bokeh. Probably has some foul language.

You Tube

You Tube

[Wheatfield]

The accepted definition of "bokeh" is "the quality of the out of focus areas"

Yup, and it is almost purely subjective, though there are some bokehs that are generally accepted as ugly.

[GUB]

Yup, and it is almost purely subjective, though there are some bokehs that are generally accepted as ugly.

Not only is it purely subjective but it is also totally dependent on the subject matter whether a given bokeh effect is "good" or not.

[Kombivan]

In the day there was a saying, "If you could bottle it, you would make a fortune." Little did we know this even applied to tap water. Call it healthy or boutique or artesian and suddenly everybody wants to buy their tap water at a mark up. The people who needed it before still had it. They used a canteen. The people who needed bokeh still had it. There are an awful lot of folks who don't need it but think they do.

As for water a friend did a double-blind taste test and correctly identified 5 brands all refrigerated over night. For most of us this Penn & Teller is about right for or taste in water as well as bokeh. Probably has some foul language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2qydjVbLJk

You certainly captured the true essence of this thread love the comparison, well done.

[h.butz]

Since when did photography (or any other visual art form) have to reproduce real life? Photography's ability to show things differently from how we perceive them is one of the reasons it's so much fun.

“The object of art is not to reproduce reality, but to create a reality of the same intensity.” - Alberto Giacometti

The high quality images taken with cell phones serves to demonstrate how stagnant digital camera technology has become. Manufacturers keep improving auto-focus, burst rates, dynamic range, and video but what have they done, really, in the past twenty years to give us better images? i.e. where is my Foveon sensor?

I've taken photographs of lighthouses with my film camera and printed right from the negative. When I look at that photograph I am reminded that I am looking at a real place. It exists in time and space. I can return to that place to find it much like I left it sans some vegetation growth. The photograph connects me with that real place, knowing that such a magnificent view exists. I can take pride that I was able to compose reality and project it onto a piece of paper without altering it.

But, when the computer alters reality it's no longer "photography" to me.

[Sandy Hancock]

when the computer alters reality it's no longer "photography" to me.

I trust you are familiar with the full gamut of techniques used in the darkrooms of the film era.

It might be worth pointing out that photography, quite literally, means "light pictures". The term itself imposes no rules as to how those pictures might be produced.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I've taken photographs of lighthouses with my film camera and printed right from the negative. When I look at that photograph I am reminded that I am looking at a real place. It exists in time and space. I can return to that place to find it much like I left it sans some vegetation growth. The photograph connects me with that real place, knowing that such a magnificent view exists. I can take pride that I was able to compose reality and project it onto a piece of paper without altering it.

I've never really had that feeling from prints, but I do feel it strongly from slides. When I look at one of my thirty year or forty old Kodachromes on the light box, the awareness that I'm looking at the piece of film that captured the light rays reflected off the actual scene, and the people in it, in the moment itself is almost eerily intense.

And now some wiseacre is going to point out that Kodachrome was a dye additive process, so actually what I'm looking at is colours that were added in the lab. But at least it's still the actual piece of film.

[h.butz]

I trust you are familiar with the full gamut of techniques used in the darkrooms of the film era.

It might be worth pointing out that photography, quite literally, means "light pictures". The term itself imposes no rules as to how those pictures might be produced.

I still am in the "film era." Most of what is done in a darkroom boils down to brightness/contrast or color adjustments.

Why do we seek out "a room with a view" when a computer can easily reproduce any tropical paradise for us and project it using a faux window? Why do we prefer sitting outside in real sunshine when sun lamps can easily reproduce the same heat and light spectrum at anytime anywhere?

It just seems like the more we use computers to generate and alter photographs the further we distance ourselves from the real world.

[jgnfld]

“The object of art is not to reproduce reality, but to create a reality of the same intensity.” - Alberto Giacometti

The high quality images taken with cell phones serves to demonstrate how stagnant digital camera technology has become. Manufacturers keep improving auto-focus, burst rates, dynamic range, and video but what have they done, really, in the past twenty years to give us better images? i.e. where is my Foveon sensor?

I've taken photographs of lighthouses with my film camera and printed right from the negative. When I look at that photograph I am reminded that I am looking at a real place. It exists in time and space. I can return to that place to find it much like I left it sans some vegetation growth. The photograph connects me with that real place, knowing that such a magnificent view exists. I can take pride that I was able to compose reality and project it onto a piece of paper without altering it.

But, when the computer alters reality it's no longer "photography" to me.

A camera "alters reality" simply by recording a scene using the tech of the camera system. A modern camera most basically IS a computer (which yes is altering reality according to its own physical and software rules) but a film camera "alters reality" just as much with film dye selection and many other factors. Different films just plain render differently. None are "real". But each kind does serve a purpose.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I still am in the "film era." Most of what is done in a darkroom boils down to brightness/contrast or color adjustments.

Why do we seek out "a room with a view" when a computer can easily reproduce any tropical paradise for us and project it using a faux window? Why do we prefer sitting outside in real sunshine when sun lamps can easily reproduce the same heat and light spectrum at anytime anywhere?

It just seems like the more we use computers to generate and alter photographs the further we distance ourselves from the real world.

How we see the world most of the time is not what is really there, it's an interpterion of what our eye's see and how our brain interrupts that perception.

We really don't know if we are all seeing with the same contrast or even seeing how color is being produced as there is really no color until we perceive it. Now prove to me that you see the same color as the next person.

How we to see the world is also dependent on how we learned to see it

One person might see this



while another will see this



and others will see that they are the same image

[h.butz]

Those are all good points.

Here's my argument. If I put on a pair of yellow tinted sunglasses, I am distorting reality - it's still "real" yet with higher contrast.

However, if I put on a pair of virtual reality glasses and remove all the ugly utility poles along the highway, take out a few clouds and replace them with blue skies, then add a rainbow as I walk around town with my VR headset on, a line has been crossed.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to turn cloudy days into sunny days with a pair of VR glasses. That would make life in Seattle so much more tolerable. It's just not the reason I shoot photography.

I also hate electronic viewfinders.

[swanlefitte]

“ The photograph connects me with that real place, knowing that such a magnificent view exists.

Purely philosophical. Yet I agree. I hate evf to for this reason. I want to see the reality I am trying to match. An evf sees the fiction I have already achieved. One strives and the other falls back. In literature, I love fiction. No need for reality. In a document, I hate fiction, I want reality. Photography is more like historical fiction. I want all the history as accurate as possible and let the fiction make it compelling. An evf by rendering without reality from the start is biased to fiction.

Wouldn't an animated version of David Attenborough be comical? I don't think any digital video camera has ovf though. Probably why I view them as more fiction than documentary.