I have been around photography since about 1959. But not until about 2005 did I run across "bokeh", which is a single word for "the look of the out of focus stuff in a photograph". It seems a handy word. I just need another few years to get used to it before I can say it without feeling silly.
A quick search reveals a blog by Mike Johnston who talks about how he commissioned three articles about Bokeh in 1997, and added the "h" to "boke" so that people would pronounce it "boke - eh", not to rhyme with joke. He says the phrase comes from Japan and more less means fuzzy. Here is Mike's article.
Bottom Line: Bokeh refers to the look of the out of focus stuff in a photograph, and is a useful word. Bokeh is affected by subject matter, focal length, aperture, and point of focus.
Left
Right
At f 2.8 we get nice large, round out-of-focus yellow lights behind Nicole.
(Dude, nice bokeh!)
105mm macro lens, f 2.8, 1/60, USO 800
At f 5.6 the out-of-focus lights are smaller, with some jaggedness in the roundness, due to the smaller aperture.
(Dude, not bad bokeh!)
105mm macro lens, f 2.8, 1/15, USO 800
At f11 the lights are pretty small.
(Dude, your bokeh is kind of weak...)
105mm macro lens, f 11, 1/4, USO 800
At f22 pretty much all of the mystery is gone from the lights, other than a bit of starburst (due to the small aperture producing some diffraction?)
(Dude, your bokeh is pathetic.)
105mm macro lens, f 22, 1 sec, USO 800
Here we are at f2.8, but very close to Nicole. The lights behind here are necessarily out of focus, and produced big pretty globes.
(Dude, cool bokeh!)
105mm macro lens, f 2.8 1/125, USO 800
Now we pull the focus closer — to the tip of Nicole's nose. The out-of-focus lights get larger, but interesting stuff happens with her hair getting into the act in strange optical ways.
(Dude, getting pretty radical with the bokeh!)
105mm macro lens, f 2.8 1/125, USO 800
Pulling the focus even closer than Nicole the out-of-focus lights are going bonkers, overlapping each other and playing more with her hair.
(Dude, like, dig that bokeh!)
105mm macro lens, f 2.8 1/60, USO 800
Pulling focus WAY close, nothing is in focus, but the out-of-focus lights and Nicole's face have become a mass of bokeh.
(Dude, nothing BUT bokeh.)
105mm macro lens, f 2.8 1/60, USO 800
At f 2.8 we get nice large, round out-of-focus yellow lights behind Nicole.
(Dude, nice bokeh!)
105mm macro lens, f 2.8, 1/60, USO 800
At f 5.6 the out-of-focus lights are smaller, with some jaggedness in the roundness, due to the smaller aperture.
(Dude, not bad bokeh!)
105mm macro lens, f 2.8, 1/15, USO 800
At f11 the lights are pretty small.
(Dude, your bokeh is kind of weak...)
105mm macro lens, f 11, 1/4, USO 800
At f22 pretty much all of the mystery is gone from the lights, other than a bit of starburst (due to the small aperture producing some diffraction?)
(Dude, your bokeh is pathetic.)
105mm macro lens, f 22, 1 sec, USO 800
Here we are at f2.8, but very close to Nicole. The lights behind here are necessarily out of focus, and produced big pretty globes.
(Dude, cool bokeh!)
105mm macro lens, f 2.8 1/125, USO 800
Now we pull the focus closer — to the tip of Nicole's nose. The out-of-focus lights get larger, but interesting stuff happens with her hair getting into the act in strange optical ways.
(Dude, getting pretty radical with the bokeh!)
105mm macro lens, f 2.8 1/125, USO 800
Pulling the focus even closer than Nicole the out-of-focus lights are going bonkers, overlapping each other and playing more with her hair.
(Dude, like, dig that bokeh!)
105mm macro lens, f 2.8 1/60, USO 800
Pulling focus WAY close, nothing is in focus, but the out-of-focus lights and Nicole's face have become a mass of bokeh.
