Oh no, another one of these.....Instead of playing by the rules, and actually proving something, another member chooses to argue and more so, put down another member, a favourite pastime here. I stopped reading after the first paragraph as I knew the rest was......
'Bokeh' must be truly important to get such a long winded and opinionated response. For such a suble, minor, subjective thing, some of us are sure getting upset. I plan on visiting the art department at my local U, and specifically photography and see what who ever is around has to say on the subject. When I don't know, but I'll let everyone know what happened, anything from pulling out an article about it from saying 'Bokeh? What was that? I didn't understand.' From there perhaps I can look into the subject in more depth, or get a feeling from someone highly educated in the field thoughts on 'bokeh'. Amateur hobbyist photographers serious or not, cannot be of aid. Emails saying bokeh is real, I like it. Or it's meaningless lingo referring to a blotch of many colours that form no shape. Or, I found in so and so, this.... Are all perfectly fine. Then we all know where we stand on the issue. If someone points out something of value, not some hobbyist view or a online Shutterbug issue or a UK tabloid trash online mag. I can then verify and learn and say, ya, bokeh is something. I was wrong. All I said was I think it's nothing. No need for panty bunching...so, let's keep it civil eh? Bandwagon members are free to help defend the poor author of the email with insults and demeaning comments. We are unmoderated. And I'm a favourite target, but am hardened to such things by now. Of course, you could impress me by saying nothing...and others that don't want to see such muck slung all over and have to leave the list. Then the author and I can take this off-list for the benefit of all. > 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 >
