pgk Posted January 5, 2016 Share #21 Posted January 5, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Did this notion of out-of-focus areas having a "quality" really come from Japan? ALL elements within an image can be important. Formalising their 'qualities' can be useful and has no doubt gone on to some extent from the point at which images began ("I prefer the way my bit of burnt wood produces a line on the cave wall to yours" perhaps), rather than simply having come from one country. 'Bokeh' is an inherent part of lens design according to a Zeiss paper, or at least the effect of specifics within the optical design can have predictable effects on the way out of focus areas are imaged. Perhaps it was the point at which this became understood that 'bokeh' really became a firm and quantifiable fact rather than a rather vague esoteric quality? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 Hi pgk, Take a look here boke and Japanese aesthetics. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
joeswe Posted January 5, 2016 Share #22 Posted January 5, 2016 As a native Japanese speaker... Boke (ぼけ、ボケ、暈け) simply means blurred, out of focus, hard to see. You use it mainly for images - for example, if it is foggy outside you don't say "my sight is boke due to the fog". (FYI, not to be confused with the same sound word boke (呆け、惚け) which roughly means stupid) Just for the protocol, etymologically both expressions stem from the same verb, "bokeru", "to be hazy, obscured, unclear, fuzzy, (also) senile", which itself is a variation of the older "hokeru/hoku". The fact that nowadays some people apply a different Chinese character when using the word in the context of photography shouldn't obscure (pun intended) that the underlying word is the same. Also, when reading Japanese photography websites, my impression is that hardly anyone uses the Chinese character 暈 anyway, as most people simply write the word in the Katakana syllable Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeswe Posted January 5, 2016 Share #23 Posted January 5, 2016 "Pinto", the japanese word for "in focus area" or "focus point" is said to have come from a Dutch word. It is derived from the Dutch word "brandpunt" (German "Brennpunkt"), or "point of focus". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
120 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share #24 Posted January 5, 2016 One would need a lensed Camera Obscura. Giambattista della Porta was the first to use a lens in the middle sixteenth century. The pinhole Camera Obscura, as you point out, is much older but exhibits an infinite DOF. There are even suggestions that the principle was used in Palaeolithic cave paintings. http://www.scientificjournals.org/Journals2011/articles/1515.pdf This is not a "real" journal...LOL fig. 1 of the caveman with a camera. The example of a pinhole camera is good, though. I would rather say everything is out of focus than say it has infinite depth of field; in a way, the pinhole camera photo is all boke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted January 5, 2016 Share #25 Posted January 5, 2016 Thank you jdlaing. Yes it's definitely a Japanese word and used for blur, e.g. motion blur in a photograph, but did the boke concept--what we mean by boke--come from Japan? Or is it a U.S. export? Its use is in the pop literature, not the scientific literature. I was expecting it to be some deep concept in Japanese art/aesthetics. I meant to say Bokeh. Hokey is a derivative of some stupid auto anticipate the word algorithm. I am not sure of the derivative but I suspect it is Japanese as that was the first word coined to describe the effect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 5, 2016 Share #26 Posted January 5, 2016 Well I think that is stupid to Japanize something that is not Japanese. Thanks all, I am gratified for the answers. Well, he added an 'h' merely to help folks here pronounce it. If you think it's 'stupid', or even unusual, for words to cross cultures and take on a new life of their own in some modified form, you would be well served to take a few courses in etymology and language.....or maybe just watch a few international spelling bees. It happens more often than not....which is why there are entire courses on it. In this case, Mike J. never hid its Japanese origins. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted January 5, 2016 Share #27 Posted January 5, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) For me the trouble with bokeh is not understanding what it means but when it is spoken in English it can sound awfully pretentious. Also the Romans or French probably had the word bouquet long before anyone else and if I start trying to explain about bokeh to people round here they think I am discussing a good wine vintage or want to order a bunch of flowers. "Quick ... pour me another glass before the barbarians start hurling bricks at the window." ... and heads for the cultural air raid shelter ... again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 5, 2016 Share #28 Posted January 5, 2016 For me the trouble with bokeh is not understanding what it means but when it is spoken in English it can sound awfully pretentious. Also the Romans or French probably had the word bouquet long before anyone else and if I start trying to explain about bokeh to people round here they think I am discussing a good wine vintage or want to order a bunch of flowers. "Quick ... pour me another glass before the barbarians start hurling bricks at the window." ... and heads for the cultural air raid shelter ... again. Johnston discusses this point in the earlier link. He disagrees with the sentiment, but now finds it easier in the blowback to just call it blur most often. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted January 5, 2016 Share #29 Posted January 5, 2016 Jeff, Ta. Blur is good. Short word. Fine. Bokeh is naff. Too long! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 6, 2016 Share #30 Posted January 6, 2016 This is not a "real" journal...LOL fig. 1 of the caveman with a camera. The example of a pinhole camera is good, though. I would rather say everything is out of focus than say it has infinite depth of field; in a way, the pinhole camera photo is all boke. Well, I am not saying I am fully convinced by the idea , but there is some serious writing on the subject. https://www.tib.eu/de/suchen/id/BLCP%3ACN076493843/The-Camera-Obscura-and-the-Origin-of-Art-The-Case/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted January 6, 2016 Share #31 Posted January 6, 2016 So as I understand this, the correct (in English) spelling is boke and the correct pronunciation is "bo-kay" - yes? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
120 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share #32 Posted January 6, 2016 Well, he added an 'h' merely to help folks here pronounce it. If you think it's 'stupid', or even unusual, for words to cross cultures and take on a new life of their own in some modified form, you would be well served to take a few courses in etymology and language.....or maybe just watch a few international spelling bees. It happens more often than not....which is why there are entire courses on it. In this case, Mike J. never hid its Japanese origins. Jeff There may be more to the Japanese connection, I don't know; I would love to know. What I find objectionable is inventing some fake Asian heritage for a concept to give it more weight. In the article you posted he describes his research as talking to some guy named "Carl"; what should one think about that? Thank you again for the article. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
120 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share #33 Posted January 6, 2016 Thank you Jaap : ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 6, 2016 Share #34 Posted January 6, 2016 if I start trying to explain about bokeh to people round here they think I am discussing a good wine vintage or want to order a bunch of flowers. Those who cannot tell the difference have no ears. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 6, 2016 Share #35 Posted January 6, 2016 Blur, to me, is Robert Capa's D-Day landing photo. Boke(h) is a real and necessary consideration in fine art. My background is news photography and any damned lens that caught enough light was a good lens. I've had three (maybe four) Canon f/0.95 lenses and I love 'em because they do the job. Let the Noctilites have their conversations especially in regards to digital capture XOR fine arts. None of the images from those lenses strike me as needing the wide aperture for anything other than affectation, and none have been impressive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted January 6, 2016 Share #36 Posted January 6, 2016 Those who cannot tell the difference have no ears. Pardon, excuse me, what, eh? Tomato or tomato? Neither or neither? Boke, bokeh, or bouquet? "Let's call the whole thing off," as the old song lyrics go. If it is terribly confusing then forget it. Blur isn't perfect because one tiny part is in focus, however the rest is blur. The bloke in the street matters, or is that the bloquet in the street? Good enough for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 6, 2016 Share #37 Posted January 6, 2016 Pardon, excuse me, what, eh? Tomato or tomato? Neither or neither? Boke, bokeh, or bouquet? Perhaps you might appreciate an affordable, portable standard boke, bokeh, oof, blurr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 6, 2016 Share #38 Posted January 6, 2016 There may be more to the Japanese connection, I don't know; I would love to know. What I find objectionable is inventing some fake Asian heritage for a concept to give it more weight. In the article you posted he describes his research as talking to some guy named "Carl"; what should one think about that? Thank you again for the article. Well, maybe you might be well served to go to TOP (The Online Photographer) read from the archives, do some searches so that you know who Carl Weese is (a fine photographer, for one), and then read the articles by the other 3 gentlemen whom Mike references in the article I linked...folks he knows through his connections with the photo magazine he edited (including Oren Grad, who learned Japanese so he could read Japanese photo magazines). Mike knows a thing or two about photography, photo history, etc....and is the creator of one of the most successful and popular photography sites online (with an international following, including Japan).....and a good writer and smart guy, too. If you're that curious, email Mike and/or the the others. Anyway, that's what I think about it. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
120 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share #39 Posted January 6, 2016 Well, maybe you might be well served to go to TOP (The Online Photographer) read from the archives, do some searches so that you know who Carl Weese is (a fine photographer, for one), and then read the articles by the other 3 gentlemen whom Mike references in the article I linked...folks he knows through his connections with the photo magazine he edited (including Oren Grad, who learned Japanese so he could read Japanese photo magazines). Mike knows a thing or two about photography, photo history, etc....and is the creator of one of the most successful and popular photography sites online (with an international following, including Japan).....and a good writer and smart guy, too. If you're that curious, email Mike and/or the the others. Anyway, that's what I think about it. Jeff Mr. Johnston's article mentioned one (not three) Photo Techniques articles as available online. I did read Mr. Merklinger's article while it was (temporarily) available without subscription. It mentions Japan twice, i.e. "Boke ...is the Japanese-originated concept of the difference between out of focus areas of an image due to lens design"; and later he says boke "apparently" means blur in Japanese. No references are given. If I am missing something from the other two articles I would be happy to know about this; thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
120 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share #40 Posted January 6, 2016 I am sorry, my original post was not very courteous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.