[pure-silver] Re: Bokeh - no longer relevant? (some fun stuff for Friday)
- From: "BOB KISS" <bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:40:28 -0400
I agree with you about this being taken much too seriously. Of course I was
aware, at 18 as a freshman at RIT, of the different patterns produced by out
of focus images depending on which lens was used. Some seemed more
pleasing, some harsher, and we all remember the donuts formed by the mirror
tele (catadioptric) lenses. But not once did I hear the term Bokeh until
about 2 years ago. None of the photographers I assisted, none of the art
directors with whom I worked, none of the clients in my first 20 years as an
advertising and fashion photographer ever used the term. And in my last 17
years as a fine art photographer, no one has used it.not gallery owners, not
photo historians or critics, not collectors. But about 18 months ago one of
my former students, trying to "make her bones" as a teacher, decided to make
it a big deal with her students. She managed to neglect basic technique and
aesthetics but, by golly, they understood bokeh! As with most things, it is
a matter of priorities. I agree it is nice to have one word which describes
the effect but I think we have covered it, yes?
_____
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of kironkid@xxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 2:17 PM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; speedgraphic@xxxxxxxxx;
walker.sue38@xxxxxxxxx; aberdeenbranch@xxxxxxxxx; NteBrd@xxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Bokeh - no longer relevant? (some fun stuff for
Friday)
I agree. However, I think that the "Bokeh" issue is discussed and taken much
too seriously as of late. Some lenses have more pleasing Bokeh than others.
But, when was the last time you saw a wonderful image, and thought to
yourself, "gee, this image would be much better if the Bokeh didn't suck"?
KK
What's the problem? Sounds like two reasonably presented points of view
on the same subject. Is there suppose to be a winner?
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Rosenberg <fdr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: pure-silver <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri, Jan 18, 2013 9:28 am
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Bokeh - no longer relevant? (some fun stuff for
Friday)
What's the problem? Sounds like two reasonably presented points of view
on the same subject. Is there suppose to be a winner?
Fred
On 18/01/2013 9:11 AM, Dana Myers wrote:
>
>
> Someone I know recently got a new camera. Her son is teaching her
> photography.
> She mentioned "shallow depth of field" and I suggested she should ask her
> son about "bokeh".
>
> Here's the conversation that followed - am I being too harsh? Who is
> teaching
> the kids these days?!?!
>
> Son: Bokeh is the fancy term for things that are out of focus. However I
> usually hear it used primarily to described out of focus highlights
> or lights that become more like orbs. For example the bumper/credit
> for Focus Features is a focus pull of several different color
> lights.
> However, Bokeh can be used to described all blur/haze in out of
> focus
> areas of an image.
>
> Me: bokeh is not a fancy term. it's something real and transcends
> "stuff out
> of focus". it's "how appealing stuff out of focus is". don't
> deprecate
> what 100 years of photography learned before we switched from
> film to
> digital sensors
>
> Son: I am not saying it isn't a valuable part of creative composition
> of an
> image. I just feel that the word is not commonly used to describe
> shallow depth of field in everyday discussion of imagery. Making
> it to me,
> a fancy word of academia that most only know as out of focus
> highlights and
> not a general description of lack of focus in photography. The
> word I feel
> no longer is used properly or often enough to make it as relevant
> anymore.
>
> Me: I hope bokeh isn't commonly used to describe "shallow depth of
> field",
> because that would be incorrect usage. It's used to describe how
> *pleasant*
> out-of-focus things look and is as relevant as ever as a key
> attribute of
> a "good" lens - it isn't a "fancy word of academia" and that it
> isn't
> "used properly or often enough to make it relevant" reflects more
> on who
> you're talking about it with: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
>
> Dana K6JQ
>
>
============================================================================
=================================
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to
> your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
============================================================================
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account
(the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and
unsubscribe from there.
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 7909 (20130118) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
Other related posts:
