I'm new to this site, and one of the things that I've noticed is the misuse of the word "Bokeh"
Bokeh is not "out of focus background". Seeing this mislabeled so often is starting to bug me. For now, lets forget the word bokeh.
What most of you are looking to achieve is called "Shallow Depth of Field". Basically, your depth of field (DOF) is what, in your photograph, is in clear focus. Depth of field is determined by three things.
1. f/stop.- How wide your lens can open. Also referred to as the "speed" of a lens.
2. Focal length.- A wide angle lens (28mm) will have significantly more DOF than a telephoto lens (200mm) at the same distance from subject.
3. Distance from subject- The closer the subject is to the camera, the more shallow the DOF. (Even a wide angle lens will have a shallow DOF when the subject is only a few inches away.)
Here is an example of a photo with a shallow DOF
Bokeh can only be achieved through shallow depth of field, but not every photograph which utilizes shallow DOF contains bokeh. Bokeh is how a small point of light is rendered in the out of focus section of the photograph. In this case, the light coming through the tree branches.
Here is an example of a photo with wide DOF
So that's Depth of Field in a nutshell. Shallow Depth of Field is very desirable in many situations, and most often in portraiture. Up to this point, people have been replacing the phrase Depth of Field with Bokeh.
Bokeh refers to the quality of the out of focus sources of light in a photograph. The shape of said bokeh is determined by the aperture blades in your lens. If you're lens is wide open, say 1.8, the bokeh will appear smooth and circular. If you're closed down maybe a half stop (on a f/1.8 lens you're at f/2) the bokeh will be polygonal in shape because the aperture blades are slightly closed.
Here is an example of polygonal bokeh
Here is an example of smooth, circular bokeh
Its important that, in order to achieve bokeh in your photographs, you have to understand depth of field. Remember, bokeh is how a camera outfit renders a point of light in an out of focus section of a photograph.
I hope this has shed some light on the term Bokeh, its proper use, and about the ever elusive Shallow Depth of Field. Thanks for reading, and happy shooting!
EDIT: I used the word "issue" in the title, because that's what I believe it is. So many people on 365 are trying to learn how to take better photographs, right? Well part of that is learning correct terminology and how to intelligently discuss topics.
If someone asked a real professional how they get their "bokeh" in their photographs, they will most likely look at you funny and proceed to speak to you in the "oh, you're new here, aren't you?" voice/mentality.
I'm not trying to attack anyone, so there's no need to get defensive. I'm merely trying to educate and clear up confusion.
I'm sorry if any of you misinterpreted my post as putting down those who don't know correct terminology. That was and is not my intent. Many of you are here to learn, and so I thought I would aide in that respect.
I realize many of you do not claim to be professionals. I don't either for that matter. But there's nothing wrong with calling shallow depth of field shallow depth of field and bokeh bokeh. There is a difference.
Zac according to Wikipedia definition "In photography, bokeh (Originally /ˈboʊkɛ/,[1] /ˈboʊkeɪ/ boh-kay, and also sometimes heard as /ˈboʊkə/ boh-kə,[2] Japanese: [boke]) is the blur,[3][4] or the aesthetic quality of the blur,[5][6][7] in out-of-focus areas of an image, or "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light."[8] Differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting—"good" and "bad" bokeh, respectively.[3] Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.
Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it is often associated with such areas.[3] However, bokeh is not limited to highlights; blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image."
I agree with @hjbenson. Bokeh can refer to either the softening of a background or to the play of light sources most associated with bokeh. Here is an excerpt taken from Adobe Photoshop Elements Techniques Magazine regarding the definition of bokeh: "Bokeh is the quality of that out-of-focus area that we achieve through the use of a combination of lens selection and aperture. it is that wonderful, soft, unfocused quality of shapes and colors that tells us when an image has good bokeh. That soft quality is partly controlled by the aperture we select. a wider aperture (f/1.4, f/2.8) will give the background a very soft, diffused look, throwing colors and shapes out of focus. a smaller aperture (f/11, f/22, etc) brings more of our image into sharp focus, changing our background from soft and diffused to one with more detail."
Each week on the site there is a weekly theme that people do. Last week the theme was bokeh so many people participated and were having fun taking the lights and background out of focus and doing creative things. Remember, many people on here are here as a hobby or try something new and not for professional reasons. So not everyone may have been technically correct, it was all part of how to use a theme and put your own stamp onto it.
I remember my first shot of a fountain where the light reflecting off the pool turned into beautiful hexigons of light. While it may not have been perfect it was a complete rush really nail down a technique. Also the support from this community I recieved for going and trying something new was really great.
So the term may have been misused, but to many they were probably just really proud of their photos and trying something different. @hjbenson
The term 'bokeh' won't be going away anytime soon. So, although you are technically correct people are learning a new term for 'shallow depth of field'.
I appreciate learning the real definition even though I don't know how to make my camera do it. But that is part of the learning process. I also appreciate all the beautiful photos that have been presented using less defined techniques that great similar or new effects. It's all helpful.
Whatever you want to call it, I love it when I make my camera go out of focus and I get those awesome shapes and colors. I think it's beautiful and fun to do! I just call it bokeh because I don't have another word for it! I know I'm far from professional, but darn it, don't ruin my fun!! lol
Guys, I'm not trying to attack anyone, so there's no need to get defensive. I'm merely trying to educate and clear up confusion.
I'm sorry if any of you misinterpreted my post as putting down those who don't know correct terminology. That was and is not my intent. Many of you are here to learn, and so I thought I would aide in that respect.
I realize many of you do not claim to be professionals. I don't either for that matter. But there's nothing wrong with calling shallow depth of field shallow depth of field and bokeh bokeh. There is a difference.
Yes, there are entries in the theme that are just out of focus photos and NOT bokeh...but this is a learning environment more than anything for some folks. I have always explained it as the quality of the blur with a shallow DOF...your explanation is a good one.
About time someone spoke out. "Booyah!" for Zac. I actually left this project a number of months back, one reason being the the overuse and obsession of this recently invented word.
I pray this post will keep people from asking "How do I Bokeh?" when they have a cell phone camera.
Wanna Bokeh? Get an old Mamiya RB67 with a leaf shutter that weighs more than Paris Hilton's toy dog.
Otherwise, have fun, do what you love, and make it your work of art. Forget all the trendy words.
Thank you!!! I was getting sick of all the "how do I do bokeh?!" posts... I replied in one saying it was just the quality of the out of focus stuff, and was 100% ignored... it's not a technique, and finally someone made a nice post about it!
@cluvlj What do you mean my cell phone can't do bokeh?!?! The gear never matters! :P :P
The word is misused a lot, but the question "How do I get a picture with bokeh?" does make sense if the person is in fact asking how to get a picture with bokeh and not just a shallow DOF.
@hjbenson@plainsmun - Wikipedia can be written and altered by anyone. 2 years ago, this very Wiki article told the true story of bokeh in much the same way that Zac has explained so very well here. It also stated that due to the prevalence of digital photography and the confusion regarding shallow depth of field and gaussian blur, that this very Wiki article was in fear of being altered to reflect popular belief as opposed to accurate belief.
This has happened. I have watched this Wiki article in the past 12 months get changed to now promote "bokeh" as simply being a blurred background.
Zac, thank you for a well composed article.
Harry, don't believe everything you read on the internet... like they say "If it's in Wiki, it MUST be true...." Big pinch of salt required on that bokeh article.
At the time, Bokeh was a derogatory term. It wasn't fashionable for photographers to get those crazy circles of light... especially if they were sunbursts. Photographers were chastised for poor form. The advent of the digital camera meant people could start to mess around with shooting into the sun or shooting into a light refracted source, and bokeh started to get popular. The original Wiki article claimed it would be this that would blur the definition of the original term of bokeh. Pun intended.
@bobfoto Can this just not be case of language evolving? If enough people use the term for for what ever it is and people understand what they are referring to, then bokeh it is? I've just hoovered my flat, yet I own a Dyson and not a Hoover etc.
But, I don't anyone should project the feeling people don't mean what they say even if you don't feel the same way. Bokeh has the embedded meaning of beautiful.
Thank you for the time and effort you put toward writing this post :) I am very new at this... in fact, you are more than welcome to view my personal 'bokeh' challenge HERE and read my description (in which I'm sure I misuse the term). I did not at all take offense to your post. Nor did I take offense to the 'spoof' post. I found yours enlightening and the other humorous. Nothing wrong with that ;) I did, however, find a portion of your post a bit misleading. You described the difference between DOF and bokeh but then you instruct newbies to ONLY ask how to achieve a photo with a shallow DOF. If I was indeed trying to achieve bokeh the appropriate question would be 'How do I achieve bokeh in the background of a photo?' not 'How do I achieve a shallow depth of field?' Simply because, as you explained, the two terms are different. If I am misunderstanding your explanation and the two terms are, in actuality, the same then I don't see the problem with using one over the other. I say 'pot(ay)to' you say 'pot(ah)to'... right?
If you wouldn't mind I would love for you to compare my two photos please and tell me which provides the viewer an example of bokeh and which provides the viewer with an example of a shallow DOF (if either).
Thanks for your patience with me!! I am definitely learning :) I've only shared 9 photos with my new camera to date... (I've only had it for 2 weeks) I write a short journal post about my experience with each shot in the photo's description. If you're feeling froggy please read them and provide any tips and tricks you feel inclined to :)
P.S. I want to piggyback my response by saying 'ditto' to @moonpig (sorry didn't see your response until I had written mine... obviously we're on the same page though) ;) And also 'ditto' to @bobfoto - Wiki can be a dangerous tool, my friend :) I guarantee you won't find it as a source in any noteworthy books or articles >.< Eh, with that said I guess it's just as good as googling a topic. Either way your getting the opinions of a slew of people... some providing legit info, others not. Ah the joys of the Internet :)
(again maybe an urban myth that has become an internet myth) but Duane Eddy searched for a Guitar sound unlike any other. Simply distortion. He discovered by overdriving his amp, he could achieve close to what he wanted, but it was when he jabbed a pencil through the cone of his speaker, well the rest is history.
Bokeh was similar. At first photographers would accuse dust or damage to their lenses when it would occur and some glass makers (perhaps Nikon and Tamron) started making glass that had this bokeh anomaly. It became popular culture like I say with the advent of digital technology.
@jasehoad@plainsmun - You do have a point Jase, but Zac comes back well with the fact that the word itself was defined at a point in time. And Dyson eh? Nice vacuum cleaner! Australia is fast becoming a country where I would guess in 5 years time we would no longer "Hoover" the carper but we would "Dyson" the carpet. I can see that evolving!
@justpeachykeene - Peachy, what a cute name! You have achieved digital bokeh in that first shot, the lights behind are refracting on your glass in a way that they have distorted. The second shot is closer to what once was gaussian blur but see how on the childs hand, there is a bright reflection, that is almost digital bokeh there. There is a circle of light distorted right at the point where the hand meets the playing field.
@bobfoto Thank you, Peachy is not my real name, of course, but it does pair nicely with my last name so I use it online for kicks ;)
Eh, there appears to be a fine line between a shallow DOF and bokeh. So, am I correct to assume that the shape of the blur is also what distinguishes the two? Circular in the case of my photo. Ah, but if this is true then what do you make of @plainsmun's (Zac's) first photo? He describes it as a photo with a shallow DOF but I see the bokeh characteristics (smooth and circular in shape).
My two photos were shot with the same manual settings on my camera; however, I used the flash with the second shot (which obviously overrides some of the manual settings) - The main difference: I had lights to help create the 'bokeh' effect in the first photo... the second photo did not have background light (I guess the small section that 'hints' bokeh was due to the brightness of the puzzle/hand and the flash?)
@justpeachykeene - unfortunately, Zac's first photo does not download on my PC, I just have a big grey square, even after refreshing, so I cannot comment. :(
Both of your photos use shallow depth of field. In the top photo, however, the point of light which is enlarged through it being out of focus can be referred to as "bokeh" or has a circular, smooth bokeh.
Bokeh can only be achieved through shallow depth of field, but not every photograph which utilizes shallow DOF contains bokeh. Bokeh is how a small point of light is rendered in the out of focus section of the photograph.
My first photograph I used as an example of Shallow DOF, but you can also notice the bokeh in the tree.
@plainsmun Well, heck, why didn't you just say so?! ;P - Now, it's time to create a post on how to correctly SAY 'bokeh'... apparently, from what I've read, the proper pronunciation of bokeh is also an 'issue' :)
@plainsmun Zac - I avoided commenting until now, mostly because I now try to avoid participating in threads about bokeh...
But, this part confuses me:
"So the question, "How do I get a picture with bokeh?" does not make sense. People on this board may know what your asking, but that doesn't mean you're using the word correctly. Instead, ask "How do I get a picture with a shallow depth of field?""
While I'm certain that the discussion has helped a number of people, I can't help but wonder why you stated the above. The question seems perfectly legitimate to me, since many (if not most) people here know how to get shallow DOF, but may not have a clue as to how one achieves bokeh in their OOF areas. I just think the water has been muddied...
I suppose the question, "how do I get a picture with bokeh" is a legitimate one, yet I feel many (of course not all) of the people asking the question don't understand the concept of shallow DOF in the first place. As I've said before, you need to understand one to achieve the other.
I probably should have worded that differently. Thanks for calling it to my attention.
@plainsmun ....I am so glad someone has had the courage to open a discussion on the misuse of words that have specific meanings. This fashionable jargon word is closely associated with the study and understanding of lens characteristics and "shallow depth of field", although I have seen even that described as "great depth of field", which means exactly the opposite .... but what does it matter among friends who are enjoying a fascinating hobby and do not have the time to study such fine details? I remember my first steps in photography in pre-digital days, when every term, every step of the way, had to be learnt and understood, but now in retirement I tend to ignore the latest fashionable words and just keep calm and carry on!
Yeah that's a characteristic of mirror lenses. I've never used one, so I haven't seen the results first hand. I have to agree, though. Not very attractive.
Thank you thank you thank you. I for one, have only been doing more than the point & shoot since Oct., after only a two hour class, where I found out about 365 from another participant. I soak up all that I can here, and appreciate your "issue"!!!
So, is bokeh still bokeh and DOF is still DOF?? Is it ok to post a photo and call it bokeh? Can I still comment on others that I really like their bokeh? I'm more confuse then ever now. And all I wanted to do in the first place was to take pretty pictures with beautiful colors and shapes in them. Then people started asking me how to do bokeh and I told them to point out of focus at some lights and see what they get. It sure is fun no mater what it is called.
@plainsmun Hello from a fellow inhabitant of south Georgia. I thought this was a very clear and much-needed explanation. Folks, if you're still confused, I just don't know what to tell you except that you probably need to learn more about DOF.
And, @mwarren365 ... citing Wikipedia as a source for research just isn't very convincing. Sorry - it's the high school English teacher in me. :o)
I prefer to avoid both because they are so misunderstood and are usually said only to impress others who don't understand what they really mean..
Bokeh is just a way of referring to the little blobs of light (circles, hexagons, etc) caused inside the lens depending on its internal construction and the shape of the iris diapragm. It is not a technique - it just happens - and DOF is short for depth of field, meaning the amount of foreground and/or background sharpness, which can be either "shallow" (very blurred at all but the exact point of focus) or "deep" (everything is 'pin-sharp from foreground to background).
The point-and-shoot digital revolution has brought the possibility of good image-making within the reach of everybody without the need to study the subject and it is unfortunate that so many "new" words or acronyms are misused time and again, passed on and copied without ubderstanfing or explanation. I might also mention HDR and SOOC, often used by beginners, even though the results sometimes suggest that it might have been better to say nothing.
This is a great project. and discussions like this should go a long way towards helping people to think about what these words really mean before repeating them.
@mwarren365 The problem with ignoring improper word usage is this can lead to miscommunication. If someone asks for advice on how to achieve a result, but is using the wrong word, the advice given may not be appropriate.
@plainsmun I didn't know that about the bokeh shapes, thanks for informing.
"If you're lens is wide open, say 1.8, the bokeh will appear smooth and circular. If you're closed down maybe a half stop (on a f/1.8 lens you're at f/2) the bokeh will be polygonal in shape because the aperture blades are slightly closed. "
@plainsmun Hi Zac - I am a little confused about this. I understand that some people here say that bokeh is specifically how points of light are rendered, but I can't find any dictionary definition that says this.
Dictionary.com defines bokeh as 'a Japanese term for the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of a photographic image'. The dictionary on idigitalphoto.com, says bokeh is 'Subjective quality of the out-of-focus image projected by an optical system, usually a photographic lens.'
Surely the word 'subjective' (which seems to be part of the meaning of the Japanese word) means that this effect will vary according to what different people find an aesthetically pleasing way of showing something to be out of focus. So a person can (subjectively) achieve good bokeh or bad bokeh, whenever they create an out-of-focus area on their photo (depending on the taste of the person observing). Your definition, on the other hand, seems to be coming from a more objective standpoint, saying that it's only bokeh if it contains points of light divided up into shapes? Or am I misunderstanding? Can you tell me which dictionary you got your definition from?
@wordpixman
I have been bothered by this since the DAY I first discovered 365. I asked several of my professional photographer friends, "What the heck is bokeh? I do NOT remember that from my photo class days long years ago....." And they said, "BOKEH? What's that?" so I would describe the circular balls at points of light in the background. Then they had that aha moment of realization and said, "Remember depth of field? Well, it's shallow, and you only get that when the light is just right." Nothing more.
BTW, is there a way to message people privately, or have I missed something.......curious if I can "edit" a name change of a photo or two and if I do, does it alter anything other than the title? Also wondering why tags are so important? It just seems as though it's a perfect way for some unethical person to find what they are looking for to use/steal for advertising or some other such purpose.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it is often associated with such areas.[3] However, bokeh is not limited to highlights; blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image."
Thank you for posting the Wikipedia article. I too saw this article, but instead chose to explain it in simpler terms.
Wikipedia, while good for general information in most areas, should not be used for argumentative definitions. That's what dictionaries are for.
I remember my first shot of a fountain where the light reflecting off the pool turned into beautiful hexigons of light. While it may not have been perfect it was a complete rush really nail down a technique. Also the support from this community I recieved for going and trying something new was really great.
So the term may have been misused, but to many they were probably just really proud of their photos and trying something different. @hjbenson
Guys, I'm not trying to attack anyone, so there's no need to get defensive. I'm merely trying to educate and clear up confusion.
I'm sorry if any of you misinterpreted my post as putting down those who don't know correct terminology. That was and is not my intent. Many of you are here to learn, and so I thought I would aide in that respect.
I realize many of you do not claim to be professionals. I don't either for that matter. But there's nothing wrong with calling shallow depth of field shallow depth of field and bokeh bokeh. There is a difference.
I pray this post will keep people from asking "How do I Bokeh?" when they have a cell phone camera.
Wanna Bokeh? Get an old Mamiya RB67 with a leaf shutter that weighs more than Paris Hilton's toy dog.
Otherwise, have fun, do what you love, and make it your work of art. Forget all the trendy words.
Amen, Zac.
@cluvlj What do you mean my cell phone can't do bokeh?!?! The gear never matters! :P :P
This has happened. I have watched this Wiki article in the past 12 months get changed to now promote "bokeh" as simply being a blurred background.
Zac, thank you for a well composed article.
Harry, don't believe everything you read on the internet... like they say "If it's in Wiki, it MUST be true...." Big pinch of salt required on that bokeh article.
But, I don't anyone should project the feeling people don't mean what they say even if you don't feel the same way. Bokeh has the embedded meaning of beautiful.
So, it is a bit of an abstact term anyway.
Sure, words have different meanings to different people, but this word has a definition, and it is often misused.
If you wouldn't mind I would love for you to compare my two photos please and tell me which provides the viewer an example of bokeh and which provides the viewer with an example of a shallow DOF (if either).
Thanks for your patience with me!! I am definitely learning :) I've only shared 9 photos with my new camera to date... (I've only had it for 2 weeks) I write a short journal post about my experience with each shot in the photo's description. If you're feeling froggy please read them and provide any tips and tricks you feel inclined to :)
Wow, how many spin off threads have you inspired?
Bokeh was similar. At first photographers would accuse dust or damage to their lenses when it would occur and some glass makers (perhaps Nikon and Tamron) started making glass that had this bokeh anomaly. It became popular culture like I say with the advent of digital technology.
@jasehoad @plainsmun - You do have a point Jase, but Zac comes back well with the fact that the word itself was defined at a point in time. And Dyson eh? Nice vacuum cleaner! Australia is fast becoming a country where I would guess in 5 years time we would no longer "Hoover" the carper but we would "Dyson" the carpet. I can see that evolving!
@justpeachykeene - Peachy, what a cute name! You have achieved digital bokeh in that first shot, the lights behind are refracting on your glass in a way that they have distorted. The second shot is closer to what once was gaussian blur but see how on the childs hand, there is a bright reflection, that is almost digital bokeh there. There is a circle of light distorted right at the point where the hand meets the playing field.
Eh, there appears to be a fine line between a shallow DOF and bokeh. So, am I correct to assume that the shape of the blur is also what distinguishes the two? Circular in the case of my photo. Ah, but if this is true then what do you make of @plainsmun's (Zac's) first photo? He describes it as a photo with a shallow DOF but I see the bokeh characteristics (smooth and circular in shape).
My two photos were shot with the same manual settings on my camera; however, I used the flash with the second shot (which obviously overrides some of the manual settings) - The main difference: I had lights to help create the 'bokeh' effect in the first photo... the second photo did not have background light (I guess the small section that 'hints' bokeh was due to the brightness of the puzzle/hand and the flash?)
Oi vey!
Both of your photos use shallow depth of field. In the top photo, however, the point of light which is enlarged through it being out of focus can be referred to as "bokeh" or has a circular, smooth bokeh.
Bokeh can only be achieved through shallow depth of field, but not every photograph which utilizes shallow DOF contains bokeh. Bokeh is how a small point of light is rendered in the out of focus section of the photograph.
My first photograph I used as an example of Shallow DOF, but you can also notice the bokeh in the tree.
From what I've noticed, some people use the term bokeh to refer to shallow dof. This is what I've been trying to alleviate.
Thanks Zac:)
Is that a mirror lens?
But, this part confuses me:
"So the question, "How do I get a picture with bokeh?" does not make sense. People on this board may know what your asking, but that doesn't mean you're using the word correctly. Instead, ask "How do I get a picture with a shallow depth of field?""
While I'm certain that the discussion has helped a number of people, I can't help but wonder why you stated the above. The question seems perfectly legitimate to me, since many (if not most) people here know how to get shallow DOF, but may not have a clue as to how one achieves bokeh in their OOF areas. I just think the water has been muddied...
I suppose the question, "how do I get a picture with bokeh" is a legitimate one, yet I feel many (of course not all) of the people asking the question don't understand the concept of shallow DOF in the first place. As I've said before, you need to understand one to achieve the other.
I probably should have worded that differently. Thanks for calling it to my attention.
Enjoy your hobby, folks ... I do!
Yeah that's a characteristic of mirror lenses. I've never used one, so I haven't seen the results first hand. I have to agree, though. Not very attractive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
I just refuse to reject some people's use because you can't see through their eyes.
And, @mwarren365 ... citing Wikipedia as a source for research just isn't very convincing. Sorry - it's the high school English teacher in me. :o)
Bokeh is just a way of referring to the little blobs of light (circles, hexagons, etc) caused inside the lens depending on its internal construction and the shape of the iris diapragm. It is not a technique - it just happens - and DOF is short for depth of field, meaning the amount of foreground and/or background sharpness, which can be either "shallow" (very blurred at all but the exact point of focus) or "deep" (everything is 'pin-sharp from foreground to background).
The point-and-shoot digital revolution has brought the possibility of good image-making within the reach of everybody without the need to study the subject and it is unfortunate that so many "new" words or acronyms are misused time and again, passed on and copied without ubderstanfing or explanation. I might also mention HDR and SOOC, often used by beginners, even though the results sometimes suggest that it might have been better to say nothing.
This is a great project. and discussions like this should go a long way towards helping people to think about what these words really mean before repeating them.
@dweezie Wikipedia can be frustrating, yes.
"If you're lens is wide open, say 1.8, the bokeh will appear smooth and circular. If you're closed down maybe a half stop (on a f/1.8 lens you're at f/2) the bokeh will be polygonal in shape because the aperture blades are slightly closed. "
Dictionary.com defines bokeh as 'a Japanese term for the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of a photographic image'. The dictionary on idigitalphoto.com, says bokeh is 'Subjective quality of the out-of-focus image projected by an optical system, usually a photographic lens.'
Surely the word 'subjective' (which seems to be part of the meaning of the Japanese word) means that this effect will vary according to what different people find an aesthetically pleasing way of showing something to be out of focus. So a person can (subjectively) achieve good bokeh or bad bokeh, whenever they create an out-of-focus area on their photo (depending on the taste of the person observing). Your definition, on the other hand, seems to be coming from a more objective standpoint, saying that it's only bokeh if it contains points of light divided up into shapes? Or am I misunderstanding? Can you tell me which dictionary you got your definition from?
I have been bothered by this since the DAY I first discovered 365. I asked several of my professional photographer friends, "What the heck is bokeh? I do NOT remember that from my photo class days long years ago....." And they said, "BOKEH? What's that?" so I would describe the circular balls at points of light in the background. Then they had that aha moment of realization and said, "Remember depth of field? Well, it's shallow, and you only get that when the light is just right." Nothing more.
BTW, is there a way to message people privately, or have I missed something.......curious if I can "edit" a name change of a photo or two and if I do, does it alter anything other than the title? Also wondering why tags are so important? It just seems as though it's a perfect way for some unethical person to find what they are looking for to use/steal for advertising or some other such purpose.