![]() ![]() Nope, I have clearly and logically shown you that either something is real or it isn't. I think a few have said they have enjoyed it. I have enjoyed the thread and had good laughs all the way through it. I'm not sure why you are so angry about it.Īngry? That's a false assumption on your part. The decision whether you like it's appearance or not is SUBJECTIVE. The appearance of the blur makes it a real thing. And, again, it is a word specifically referring to the appearance of the blur, not the existence. That's fine, although don't put too much emphasis on "shallow". That's why I define it as simply the blur due to shallow depth of field. If Bokeh "is" the quality, then is it a sliding scale, meaning one person can say there is bokeh in a photo while another says there is none at all? Saying bokeh is the quality is not a definition at all. Yep You appear to be substantiating my arguments. There's general agreement that certain rocks (rubies, say) are prettier than others, but even then not everyone agrees. Just like someone might think a certain rock is pretty and someone else might not. Yep, good or bad to someone exists only in their mind, that's subjective, that has nothing to do with whether the bokeh actually exists or not.Ĭorrect. "Good bokeh" or "bad bokeh" are subjective to a degree, although there are certain aspects which are generally agreed to be one or the other. The only real thing you can show is real IS THE BLUR, that's what bokeh is, the blur. There can be no disagreements, it's a REAL, actual thing, and because it is real it can be precisely defined. So far we are pretty spot on together.Ībout it's qualities, it's size is a quality, it's color, it's texture. Just like we can have definitions for different colors of rocks. I hope you are going to say oof areas, or blur, because that's what it is. Right, so, we can actually define the parameters that go into bokeh. A chair is a real thing, and we can all measure it, see it. If it is, meaning it has a REAL existence, then you have to be able to define the parameters. This is the definition of bokeh that is factually correct. That's correct, same word I use to define oof areas due to shallow dof. In actuality, it turns out that we have a term that applies to the appearance of out-of-focus blur. All of these things are "actually there", and only some of them are the aesthetic qualities.īut you are saying "YEP, and what is actually there that can be defined? IT IS A ROCK." It can have different mineral composition. Others are about other things: the rock can be brittle or not, it can be of different weights, it can be porous or solid. It can be shiny, it can be dull it can be gray, or it can be red. So the bokeh is there whether someone likes it or not? YEP, and what is actually there that can be defined? BLUR (BOKEH)Ī rock can have many qualities. Or it is the not-pleasing aesthetic quality. Simply put, bokeh is the pleasing or aesthetic quality of out-of-focus blur in a photograph. I use them to emphasize, and they do just that and that's my personal style of debating. I don't use the capital letters to be more accurate, that has nothing to do with size of letters. Said goodbye to the thread a while ago, but I might as well have a little more fun. Saying things in capital letters doesn't make them any more accurate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |