Here's a paragraph from the web source Robert Soames Wetmore posted, which is:
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v17/msg11841.html Mike Johnston is speaking here: "In 1997 I helped introduce a new term into the lexicon of North American photographers: "bokeh," which was my own rendering of a katakana term more properly romanized as _bo-ke_ or boke (a spelling which provoked a hail of puns and jokes on a pronunciation that was totally incorrect). It's the Japanese word meaning "blur," specifically the visual properties of the way a lens renders out-of-focus areas in pictures. _PHOTO Techniques_ presented three articles on the subject: "What is 'Bokeh'?" By John Kennerdell, an American-born photographer based in Bangkok; "Notes on the Terminology of Bokeh" by Oren Grad, an M.D. / Ph.D. researcher at Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA; and "A Technical View of Bokeh" by Harold Merklinger, who is Senior Scientist at the Canadian Defense Establishment Atlantic in Halifax, N.S." All these senior scientists' and researchers' emanations are probably suspect too, because they were found "online," not so? keith Keith Whaley wrote: > > Pentax Guy wrote: > > > keith whaley had written: > > > > > Look at this site: <http://www.clearsightusa.com/bokeh.html> > > > > > > There's another excellent explanation here: > > > <http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm> > > > > > > Here's another: <http://johnlind.tripod.com/art/artdof.html> > > > 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) > > 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
