The Conversation about Bokeh
March 09, 2010
I’m not sure how to write this article without sounding like a jerk, but I think it’s a conversation we ought to have. Let’s stop calling the trend in design and photography where things are out of focus (usually with colored orbs) “bokeh,” because bokeh is a measurement of quality and not a technique.
What is Bokeh?
Bokeh – “A Japanese term for the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of a photographic image” — Dictionary.com
Ken Rockwell covers the subject very well from a technical photography perspective. He explains that every lens has distortion, and that the better the lens, the more gradually a point of light should resolve.
Most of us know what a gaussian blur is from our time working with Photoshop, but that’s actually an example of “good bokeh”. It’s not about the fact that points of light are blurry, it’s how the shape of that light looks as a blurred object. In photography bokeh exists because of depth of field, light and lens distortion. Occasionally those orbs come out in the background of even the best photos, and it really distract from what’s going on. When that happens it can be classified as “bad bokeh”. In a great photo the out of focus areas should get out of the way, but it’s all about the lens you’re using.
Here are two examples of points of light being pushed out of focus, and both stand up pretty well to the test of “good bokeh.”
Photo by David Brooks, (Photo Link)
Photo by Adrian Rodriguez (Photo Link)
An Example in the Wild
There are a lot of people using this technique in design, and it can look great. But I thought in light of this conversation it would be a good idea to show an example of someone who is using an ideal bokeh in design. I’m not sure that he intended for it to be filed alongside this category, but Chris Davis’ site is a great example.
So what should we call it? My suggestion would be “using depth of field in design”. It’s not as catchy, but it’s an accurate description of what’s going on. It also would make it easier to classify other potential design techniques as well.
Share on Twitter | Share on Facebook | Bookmark on Delicious |
Comments
Chris J. Davis
Mar 9, 10:22 AM
Whoa, thanks for the linkup and the props David! This is as you intuited, a happy accident that my background treatment falls into this category.
Happy accidents++
Mar 9, 10:40 AM
Chris Barr: I’ve seen that definition before and it’s still correct in a sense, I just never felt like it fully explained what it meant. Something is probably lost in translation, though I don’t speak Japanese. =)
Chris Davis: You’re welcome. I know you well enough to know you’re not a trend-following kind of designer. Happy accidents are good things indeed.
Adrian Rodriguez
Mar 9, 10:49 AM
Great way to point it out David. Recently I started getting really involved in photography and I got able to see what a true “depth of field” looks like.
I never understood the concept, and I think most people still don’t. So when they use the term “bokeh” I guess they just think it’s somewhat of a style, rather than good or bad focus areas in your shots.
When I shot the “night lights” photo I actually stood there focusing in and out, finding the right “depth of field” to get it exactly where I wanted it to look without just slapping the term “bokeh” on the title of the photo.
Thanks for the linkage, photo, and information.
Mar 9, 10:58 AM
Adrian: You make a good point there, about the misunderstandings of depth of field. I think Bokeh was an easy term to latch onto, especially with its diversely translated definitions. It wasn’t bad that the attempt was made to classify, of course. I do, however feel that it does more justice to the style by explaining what it is.
Chris Barr
Mar 9, 10:19 AM
Very good points, and I never even realized that bokeh was more of a compliment or opinion rather than a Japanese translation for “out of focus light”