Pentax Guy wrote:
> keith whaley had written: > > > Look at this site: <http://www.clearsightusa.com/bokeh.html> > > > > There's another excellent explanation here: > > <http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm> > > > > Here's another: <http://johnlind.tripod.com/art/artdof.html> > These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect, I > wanted published works -- books, manuals, journals (that includes art > journals, which are generally not quantifiable) Number one, it's obvious you've not done sufficient reading about what bokeh is, so all your current 'arguments' are specious. It does exist, you're just not adequately educated in the subject to be able discern it by yourself. You need training. The rest of your argument is merely supported by your lack of knowledge about it, so will not considered in this discussion. To say "These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect..." is a head in the sand attitude and is doing nothing but hindering the possibility of your _ever_ understanding it. The online sources are not "original works," you know. They most frequently draw from other hard copy sources. They're online siimply because it's a far faster and far more convenient way to access the information! Don't you (or "they") understand that concept? If you had an online copy of some highly respected, scientifically accepted text, would you still come up with, "Well, it's from an online source, and as such is not considered valid information." How about a bible? Any information found in the bible by way of having found it online, automatically makes it suspect? Sadly, I suspect you would. Sighhhh. You have to start thinking for yourself, instead of parroting all the illogical, uninformed and stilted rules and regulations that come out of acadamia... Enough of my rambling... keith whaley
