Hi, you seem to be mixing up several separate issues.
First of all, the word clearly exists, since we're all using it. The different spellings are not important since they all clearly refer to the same thing and can't be confused with something else (except perhaps a bunch of flowers, but context should make the meaning obvious). You couldn't use the word in the way you suggest (clouds, sky) because the word refers very specifically to photographic out-of-focus highlights. Other people have admonished you gently for distrusting web-based information solely on the grounds of the medium, and I agree with them. This web-page http://www.web-options.com/paradox.html lends support to their claim. People do refer to the way painters handle out-of-focus highlights, although they don't use the word bokeh because it is of very recent origin (in English at least). One painter whose work is frequently discussed in this way is Johannes Vermeer. I refer you to almost any book which discusses his technique, but in particular to "Vermeer's Camera" by Philip Steadman. I would post a link to Amazon, but as an online reference it must be unreliable <g>. So clearly 'bokeh' the word exists, however it's spelt. The referent - i.e. out of focus highlights - exists, not just in photography but also in painting, and are discussed academically in at least one hard-copy book written by an academic (Steadman is Professor of Urban and Built Form Studies at University College, London, and an authority on various art-related subjects). Differences in the quality of out-of-focus highlights are visible even to the untrained eye, and other people have provided some references which describe how to quantify the differences. All that remains, as far as I can see, is how much importance any person gives to it, and that is a matter of taste. --- Bob > 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) > '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?!
