Bokeh vs Background Blur: Is there a difference?

Bill Stickers · 02-13-2009, 06:03 AM

As always a quick check of wikipedia would have saved you a lot of time, trouble and misinformation Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

basicaly, yes, there is a difference.
bokeh is this stuff

which is used to effect in the background of images

It can often be subtle and mistakable for background blur

Contrary to what gooshin says, there is no bokeh in this image, it's just [nice]background blur. Unfortunately this error is rife among the community that it is often called bokeh even by professional photographers.[the guys on twip do it all the time].

Actually if you look closely there are a few of them. around the door frame top right and on the hair on the right side of her neck. but you didn't notice that.[performs jedi mind trick]

It's up to you what you call it as most people think of the OFF area nowadays. In fact I'd forgotten until this thread.

Last edited by Bill Stickers; 02-13-2009 at 06:10 AM. Reason: font too small-slight factual error

MrApollinax · 02-13-2009, 06:31 AM

wha? What you posted about Gooshin's photo does not jive with the way I read the wikipedia article you cited (which in itself is not the best thing to cite but that is a whole 'nother argument).

Originally posted by wikipedia's bokeh:

Bokeh (derived from Japanese, a noun boke 暈け, meaning "blurred or fuzzy") is a photographic term referring to the appearance of out-of-focus areas in an image produced by a camera lens using a shallow depth of field.[1] Different lens bokeh produces different aesthetic qualities in out-of-focus backgrounds, which are often used to reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject.

I've bolded what I thought was important. To me Gooshin's example rings true to the wikipedia definition.

Bill Stickers · 02-13-2009, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by MrApollinax

wha? What you posted about Gooshin's photo does not jive with the way I read the wikipedia article you cited (which in itself is not the best thing to cite but that is a whole 'nother argument).

I've bolded what I thought was important. To me Gooshin's example rings true to the wikipedia definition.

All right, you caught me, I didn't actually read the article, I just looked at the pictures. though it does illustrate my point that nobody noes what they're on about any more. Now days it is synonomous with background blur, but it wasn't always

if you search flickr for bokeh 95% of the stuff that comes up is the light source types.

MrApollinax · 02-13-2009, 07:02 AM

While I agree that most examples are light source types I disagree that they are the definition of bokeh. Being an engineer I like the luminous landscape article explanation the best:

bokeh

I think that when people are trying to evaluate the bokeh of a lens that using out-of-focus light sources is the quickest way to do so because you can see how the lens renders things. Is the edge of the highlight soft? is it harsh and bright? is the highlight uniform? what is the shape of the highlight etc etc etc. at least that is my $.02

Gooshin · 02-13-2009, 07:03 AM

to me, bokeh is out of focus backgrounds

period

specular highlights are just one aspect of it.

borno · 02-13-2009, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Gooshin

to me, bokeh is out of focus backgrounds

period

specular highlights are just one aspect of it.

I'm with Gooshin on that, and it seems to me some of the older simple lens designs are very nice in that respect. I think the highlight thing is way overdone by alot of people.

Jasvox · 02-13-2009, 09:04 AM

I am just laughing at how many people have a varying definition of "bokeh", yet it seems to be one of the most overused terms in photography.

Jason

**Ron Boggs** · 02-13-2009, 12:58 PM

Oh for a link to the old Camera Arts magazine article on Bokeh...I've seen it posted in the Pentax forum before. The article took days to read and months to understand...Wish I had kept it, but after reading and rereading several times, I figured I'd absorbed all I was ever going to...now 15 years later...

Bokeh includes out of focus highlights and is often interpreted by interpreting the highlights. But it also includes things like double-imaging in the out of focus area--the article had great photos of double images of hub caps that resulted from a particular lens formula rather than from the diaphram blades. In this forum we often look at background twigs (in nature shots) or background flagpoles or such in more urban areas. Keeping thin targets from doubling is a major factor in what we often describe as "good" bokeh. You'll see the term "busy" used frequently in this forum. If each twig in a background tree doubles, that could logically be described as "busy" though I think the term is overused.

To make it more confusing, there is front bokeh in the out of focus foreground and back bokeh from the out of focus background.

Those of you who discussed the highlights as part of bokeh--yes, you are right--analyzing those highlights is part of a bokeh analysis. But Gooshin's photos is also a great bokeh example of an out of focus background that hasn't degenerated into double images--no highlights necessary.

Blur can come from many sources and may mislead some folks. Out of focus zone is perhaps more descriptive in that it includes both front and back out of focus areas and includes highlights in that zone. Plus, use of the word "focus" means we are analyzing a lens-created effect rather than any other type of blur.

Someone help out and repost or link us to that long Camera Arts article. The only versions I've ever seen posted on this forum were missing many pages--it's a mini-book to be honest...

MrApollinax · 02-13-2009, 01:08 PM

Here is a link to the article I think you are talking about Ron:

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf

It is exactly the same as the lumious landscape article I posted above. Here is link to a couple articles on boke:

The Online Photographer: Bokeh?What It Is
Bokeh

**Ron Boggs** · 02-13-2009, 01:34 PM

Yes, that's the article, but in drastically reduced size. The original is about 3 or 4 times longer and includes analysis of different lens formulas and their resulting effect on bokeh. It wasn't Camera Arts, it was Photo Techniques!

Note that both foreground and background out of focus zones are analyzed and much of the missing portion of the article dealt with the double imaging and such and went into even more detail on the oof highlights too.

Blue · 02-19-2009, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

. . . This is one of the things about mirror lenses that drives me to the point of not using them - those doughnut highlights in the background blur.

You mean like this photo taken with a 500mm Tamron by Jon Schick:

There are several more shots with the mirror as well as the DA 55-300mm, DA 70mm, FA 35mm, and Nokton http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=31000332

02-13-2009, 12:58 PM	#23
Ron Boggs Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: MT Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,350	Oh for a link to the old Camera Arts magazine article on Bokeh...I've seen it posted in the Pentax forum before. The article took days to read and months to understand...Wish I had kept it, but after reading and rereading several times, I figured I'd absorbed all I was ever going to...now 15 years later... Bokeh includes out of focus highlights and is often interpreted by interpreting the highlights. But it also includes things like double-imaging in the out of focus area--the article had great photos of double images of hub caps that resulted from a particular lens formula rather than from the diaphram blades. In this forum we often look at background twigs (in nature shots) or background flagpoles or such in more urban areas. Keeping thin targets from doubling is a major factor in what we often describe as "good" bokeh. You'll see the term "busy" used frequently in this forum. If each twig in a background tree doubles, that could logically be described as "busy" though I think the term is overused. To make it more confusing, there is front bokeh in the out of focus foreground and back bokeh from the out of focus background. Those of you who discussed the highlights as part of bokeh--yes, you are right--analyzing those highlights is part of a bokeh analysis. But Gooshin's photos is also a great bokeh example of an out of focus background that hasn't degenerated into double images--no highlights necessary. Blur can come from many sources and may mislead some folks. Out of focus zone is perhaps more descriptive in that it includes both front and back out of focus areas and includes highlights in that zone. Plus, use of the word "focus" means we are analyzing a lens-created effect rather than any other type of blur. Someone help out and repost or link us to that long Camera Arts article. The only versions I've ever seen posted on this forum were missing many pages--it's a mini-book to be honest... Last edited by Ron Boggs; 02-13-2009 at 01:18 PM. Reason: whoosh

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Difference in bokeh 50mm SMC-A	pyra_ohms	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	07-27-2010 01:39 PM
Bokina versus Bokeh Monster, which bokeh you prefer?	Pentaxor	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	04-21-2010 01:50 AM
Bokeh Blur Measurement	smcook99	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	04-08-2010 02:50 PM
Lightroom 2 tool to blur the background?	rustynail925	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	13	09-23-2009 11:18 PM
Need some PP Background help	paden501	Post Your Photos!	11	12-07-2008 10:33 AM

02-13-2009, 06:03 AM	#16
Bill Stickers Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Brisbane, Queensland Posts: 32	As always a quick check of wikipedia would have saved you a lot of time, trouble and misinformation Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia basicaly, yes, there is a difference. bokeh is this stuff which is used to effect in the background of images It can often be subtle and mistakable for background blur Contrary to what gooshin says, there is no bokeh in this image, it's just [nice]background blur. Unfortunately this error is rife among the community that it is often called bokeh even by professional photographers.[the guys on twip do it all the time]. Actually if you look closely there are a few of them. around the door frame top right and on the hair on the right side of her neck. but you didn't notice that.[performs jedi mind trick] It's up to you what you call it as most people think of the OFF area nowadays. In fact I'd forgotten until this thread. Last edited by Bill Stickers; 02-13-2009 at 06:10 AM. Reason: font too small-slight factual error

02-13-2009, 06:31 AM	#17
MrApollinax Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,529	wha? What you posted about Gooshin's photo does not jive with the way I read the wikipedia article you cited (which in itself is not the best thing to cite but that is a whole 'nother argument). Originally posted by wikipedia's bokeh: Bokeh (derived from Japanese, a noun boke 暈け, meaning "blurred or fuzzy") is a photographic term referring to the appearance of out-of-focus areas in an image produced by a camera lens using a shallow depth of field.[1] Different lens bokeh produces different aesthetic qualities in out-of-focus backgrounds, which are often used to reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject. I've bolded what I thought was important. To me Gooshin's example rings true to the wikipedia definition.

02-13-2009, 06:53 AM	#18
Bill Stickers Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Brisbane, Queensland Posts: 32	Originally posted by MrApollinax wha? What you posted about Gooshin's photo does not jive with the way I read the wikipedia article you cited (which in itself is not the best thing to cite but that is a whole 'nother argument). I've bolded what I thought was important. To me Gooshin's example rings true to the wikipedia definition. All right, you caught me, I didn't actually read the article, I just looked at the pictures. though it does illustrate my point that nobody noes what they're on about any more. Now days it is synonomous with background blur, but it wasn't always if you search flickr for bokeh 95% of the stuff that comes up is the light source types.

02-13-2009, 07:02 AM	#19
MrApollinax Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,529	While I agree that most examples are light source types I disagree that they are the definition of bokeh. Being an engineer I like the luminous landscape article explanation the best: bokeh I think that when people are trying to evaluate the bokeh of a lens that using out-of-focus light sources is the quickest way to do so because you can see how the lens renders things. Is the edge of the highlight soft? is it harsh and bright? is the highlight uniform? what is the shape of the highlight etc etc etc. at least that is my $.02

02-13-2009, 07:03 AM	#20
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	to me, bokeh is out of focus backgrounds period specular highlights are just one aspect of it.

02-13-2009, 08:39 AM	#21
borno Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: md-usa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,580	Originally posted by Gooshin to me, bokeh is out of focus backgrounds period specular highlights are just one aspect of it. I'm with Gooshin on that, and it seems to me some of the older simple lens designs are very nice in that respect. I think the highlight thing is way overdone by alot of people.

02-13-2009, 09:04 AM	#22
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	I am just laughing at how many people have a varying definition of "bokeh", yet it seems to be one of the most overused terms in photography. Jason

02-13-2009, 01:08 PM	#24
MrApollinax Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,529	Here is a link to the article I think you are talking about Ron: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf It is exactly the same as the lumious landscape article I posted above. Here is link to a couple articles on boke: The Online Photographer: Bokeh?What It Is Bokeh

02-13-2009, 01:34 PM	#25
Ron Boggs Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: MT Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,350	Yes, that's the article, but in drastically reduced size. The original is about 3 or 4 times longer and includes analysis of different lens formulas and their resulting effect on bokeh. It wasn't Camera Arts, it was Photo Techniques! Note that both foreground and background out of focus zones are analyzed and much of the missing portion of the article dealt with the double imaging and such and went into even more detail on the oof highlights too.

02-19-2009, 11:04 PM	#26
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Canada_Rockies . . . This is one of the things about mirror lenses that drives me to the point of not using them - those doughnut highlights in the background blur. You mean like this photo taken with a 500mm Tamron by Jon Schick: There are several more shots with the mirror as well as the DA 55-300mm, DA 70mm, FA 35mm, and Nokton http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=31000332