Martin about the time, you can of just say what the time is, explain how to read a clock and explain how the clock works.
What I mean is tell how to read the time, for example.

Bokeh is:
- Tell the time
How pleasant the out of focus blur is.

- Explain how to read the time
How pleasant the out of focus blur is.
The way the light is distributed withing the highlights is a good indicator for this since the blur is build up with them.
Soft looking highlights is the bokeh we enjoy the most since it lead to a smooth blur.
Were as a highlights that looks like a circle leads to busy and mostly overall unpleasant blur.
The outer shape and size of the highlights doesn't fall under the word bokeh.

- Explain how a clock works
How pleasant the out of focus blur is.
The way the light is distributed withing the highlights is a good indicator for this since the blur is build up with them.
Soft looking highlights is the bokeh we enjoy the most since it lead to a smooth blur.
Were as a highlights that looks like a circle leads to busy and mostly unpleasant blur.
How these highlights appear has to do with how the lens is corrected for other distortion mostly spherical aberration.
To put it simpler it is how good the light is focused and comes together.
If all the light comes perfectly together on the focus point then you have often a pleasant bokeh if not that often leads to the unpleasant kind.
The outer shape and size of the highlights doesn't fall under the word bokeh.
The outer shape is defined by the blades (number and form) of the aperture and size is relative to the distance.

You see it isn't that hard and what I mean is just a little step further but more correct.


Pete, bokeh is bokeh but one is more a generalization but the other just go a bit deeper, I believe they are the same.
Just like George said.
I'm with Stefan on this, up to a point; Bokeh has always referred to the manner in which a lens treats out-of-focus highlights. However, I think this is only one aspect of the whole subject of how lenses render backgrounds, and, lacking a suitable word that covers the subject, people have been stretching the meaning of bokeh to embrace more than the O-O-F aspect.
This is I believe only a very small part but what he said before that.
which is that clever people subvert the meanings of words for their own ends, and ignorant people misuse words because they don't understand them, or more commonly, can't think of the right one.
Is the one that cause the expending of the meaning of the word.
Still the meaning are still very close together only that the outershape and size of the blur also falls sometimes under the meaning but since no one explain what they mean when using the word bokeh.

Smooth is mostly the word use for bokeh and that's a correct word to use for the intended meaning when talking about pleasant bokeh.
Size is almost never connected to bokeh by someone I believe.
Shape of the highlight often is and the number of blades because of that.
Think that the later is caused by the lens companies, it easy to tell that number of blades leads to a better bokeh (smooth background) but in truth that isn't the case and the word bokeh is used wrongly there.
When you use the lens wide open it hardly matters how many blades you have anyways but still we talk about bokeh then.

So my conclusion is that bokeh is bokeh and that it still means bokeh and that it only has one meaning.

The bokeh, or quality of the blurred image in the photograph
the quality so not the shape and size.
Your link

According to the intended view that is and still if you google "what is bokeh" the explanation is still the intended one.

So it's the case of the unknowing and quite hard to understand defination of the word.
Still bokeh and bokeh have almost the same meaning and effect 90% of the time.

This is by many called an unpleasant bokeh



While this one is already a lot better.



And is this what we want to see.



As you can see the distribution of the light (bokeh) plays a major part in how pleasant the blur is.
So overall the term "Bokeh" is used correctly without understanding the finer details of it.
Still on a photographic form when someone ask what bokeh is... should we explain the global meaning or the more detialed and intedted meaning?

Yes but he doesn't post photos here and do competitions.
Samsung cameras are allowed to do that, so I think it's more the question if Samsung owners are still allowed to post ans submit photos when the camera's aren't comparable anymore.

I'm with the K-mount part, lenses are more important then the camera after all.

You're quite right since bokeh is a clear part how smooth the background looks but it depends on what you all mean with that word "bokeh"
Colour isn't for example a part of bokeh.

It isn't scientific, the word bokeh was intented to be used for something else but has grown in the recent years just to mean the whole out of focus blur which is wrong in my eyes.

In a way we are talking about the focus blur everywhere but only an aspect of it.

It's a bit like when we talk about an object were for example bokeh only means colour but somehow it also means now the form and the size of the object and how heavy it is.

Bokeh still has the scientific meaning of just the light distribution, that the unknowing or the lack for a word for the matter has change the word doesn't change the scientific meaning I believe.
So who is wrong and who is right?

Now here comes the challenge for Pete, how do you let know if you mean the scientific/intented meaning or the new general meaning of the word bokeh since they both almost mean the same afterall.

- the bokeh is pleasant... hmm what meaning of bokeh do i mean?
- the highlight bokeh is pleasant... still not very clear, the highlights consist of a shape and that isn't meant by bokeh.
- the out of focus blur is pleasant... yeah that's clear but didn't use the word bokeh.

I don't see a way that the bokeh with the current two meanings can be used together, they are too much a like.
I rather use OOF blur since that's very clear and only two letters more.

No worries Mike and I get your point.
10% and neighbours wasn't correct of me to say, sorry for that.

It is not true that most child abuse involves strangers. The majority of abuse is by a family member or someone else known to the child.
This was all I wanted to say.
This is btw taken from the NSPCC site link

1% of children aged under 16 experienced sexual abuse by a parent or carer, and a further 3% by another relative during childhood.

11% of children aged under 16 experienced sexual abuse during childhood by people known but unrelated to them.

5% of children aged under 16 experienced sexual abuse during childhood by an adult stranger or someone they had just met.

Here are the numbers coming from link
These are UK numbers.

Don't talk about Bokeh to me at the moment okay

Sometimes close to the focus point the out of focus blur becomes quite unpleasant but with portrait that's not a problem so in that aspect it might be better.
The DA*60-250 surely isn't bad either with the OOF blur.

For outdoors the DA*60-250 is the better lens because of the range but indoors the DA*50-135 wins so it all comes down to usage which one is better for you.

Yes sorry for writing them down, just came to me I better shouldn't and was already on the way to delete but you were faster
Sorry once again and thank you John.

Boof isn't advisable George it has some vulgar urban meanings, google it and look for ubandictonary if you want to know them.
Like said vulgar so don't blame me

Sorry for writing them down here btw, you were luckily very quick to remove them.

There already is a word for the out of focus blur btw.
Defocus aberration

Woohoo thank you George, I almost don't dare to say it but I love you
This forum becomes scarier by the minute

To contribute to what George said, read this part from my toothwalker site.
Since any image is represented by a large number of images of points, we may attempt to understand the whole by considering the blurring of a single point. An unsharply imaged point is associated with a circle of confusion, or a blur disk. This blur disk is characterized by
1) A size.
2) A shape.
3) The light distribution across the disk.

The size of the disk determines the "amount of blur". The shape of the blur patch does not need to be circular, in which case the designations "circle of confusion" or "blur disk" are misnomers. Nonetheless, for convenience the word disk will be freely used to mean a patch of arbitrary shape. Although the size and the shape of the disk are unmistakable blur characteristics, they do not touch the essence of bokeh as the Japanese intended the word. The distribution of light across the disk does.

Please can we all agree on this and move on

And no new words, you see how confusing Bokeh is and that's already 17 years here.

Oggy I've found these, might be worth a read.
link
link

I still need to read them but will write down my findings.