One conceivably could argue all sorts of things. I've seen a great deal of very worthwhile information posted on the web, and I've seen all sorts of moronic drivel masquerading as real information, simply because someone published it in a 'legitimate publication' -- some of it written by my own colleagues. To argue that all information posted on the web is suspect, simply because it's posted on the web, and that information in books and periodicals has more legitimacy because you can pick it up and hold it in your hand (especially considering some of the books for sale in book stores) is a rather ridiculous notion, to say the least.
Just because bokeh doesn't exist to you by your definition doesn't mean it isn't real and doesn't exist. Obviously, 'good' and 'bad' is in the eye of the beholder, but considering some lens makers have gone out of their way to try to make lenses which render the out-of-focus areas in more pleasing ways means bokeh must matter to somebody. When I use a lens considered to have better bokeh, people who don't know or care to know anything about photography will consistently select photos taken with those lenses over others, usually citing something about it they "just like better." You're free to believe whatever you like, but if you completely discount all information you read on this list and on the web as 'unreliable,' you'll be missing out on a lot of worthwhile stuff. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pentax Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 2:53 PM Subject: Re:OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . > 'Bokeh' is still not a term, or a word, at least one could argue. When > looking at out of focus areas we know (at least for now) that there is no > quantifiable way of proving it or saying it is good or bad, etc. We know > out of focus areas look nice, or not so. Is colourful is not, is this, is > that. We can do that with just about anything you can think of, 'Wow, that > sky and cloud has some nice bokeh', and no one talks about or refers to > 'bokeh' when looking at a painting where areas are painted in ways similar > to out of focus areas on film. That I know of. That's why I'm looking for > something real on 'bokeh'. Also, there is considerable debate on the > spelling of the word in question. That muddies the water further. > > So, basically, as I see it, 'bokeh' does not exist. Therefore the speaking > of it or writing of it is nonsense. But I still say, someone prove me > wrong. Give me hard proof (again, no math required), and I will start > analysing the 'bokeh' of photographic prints. > > I do think it's nonsense. But I'm also playing a Devil's Advocate role > here. Next time I'm up at the library, I'm going to give it a go, I hope > some others do as well. The results may be interesting, who knows?! > > Regards, > > Brad > >
