The word "boke", pronounced "bok-ay", and usually written ぼけ or ボケ, has a number of different meanings. It can mean stupid, unaware, or clueless. (See 8.5. What are some Japanese insults and swear-words? for more.)
This word is also used in photography for "out of focus", and has come into English as "bokeh", with an additional "h" to show the pronunciation. (See 5.5. What English words come from Japanese? for more words which have come from Japanese to English.)
In double-act comedy, the "straight man" is called tsukkomi (ツッコミ) and the "funny man" is called boke.
The Japanese also use boke to mean "senility", and in such compound words as jisaboke (時差ぼけ), "time-lag boke", meaning "jet lag", heiwa-boke (平和ボケ), "peace boke", meaning a state of complacency induced by an excess of peace, and tennen-boke (天然ぼけ), "natural boke", meaning "airhead".
Boke is also the name of a plant known in English as the Japanese quince or flowering quince.
http://www.rslittle.com
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Don Roberts <droberts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hmm, I lived in Japan for two years and am hardly an expert on the language but the word "baka" was used for crazy or foolish. "Bokeh" wasn't in common use as a photo term then but it is defined as "blur" or "haze" now. That could be "soft" I guess. I would imagine your wife as a native speaker understands it better. Would that be a slang term?
Don
Sorry for the short digression.
On 9/13/12 12:51 PM, Randy Little wrote:
I believe the term capture the moment predates Digital by a pretty long time. Its a bit OCD to be concerned about terms. How many of you use the term BOKEH. Which in japanese literally means Soft Mentally AS IN CRAZY. The term used incorrectly in a pop photo article in 1998 but some dude who wanted to coin a term. Every time my japanese wife sees this she giggles. When you read a Camera doc that uses the work Bokeh in English thats not the word used in the Japanese text. CAUSE ITS MEANS CRAZY.
Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Trevor Cunningham <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Capture a...
* moment
* lighting bug
* flag
* fugitive
* the neighbor's dog and remember your dreams.
I'm with Jan, I take/make pictures...although now, I do prefer to say I engage in a post-production workflow.
On 9/13/12 5:01 PM, Christopher Strevens wrote:
I think I called it image capture first. Sorry! Fine art is image capture really with a person as the capture device. The main difference is the fidelity of the image.
Sent from my Windows Phone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jan Faul
Sent: 13/09/2012 14:14
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: Re: Analog shmanalog
I don’t believe that we 'analog people’ capture anything. I was raised as a maker and taker, and ‘capruing’ an image didn’t come along until political correctness came along.
Jan
On Sep 12, 2012, at 11:35 PM, YGelmanPhoto wrote:
All this says is that digital capture and analog capture may have different results, but I've never seen a comparison of the same scene between the two methods created by the same (expert) person. I'll bet such a comparison even then will not settle the question.
Most of the arguments are made by devout believers of one system or the other. . . after all, why should they change their opinion?
-yoram
On Sep 12, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Randy Little wrote:
while great images can be made on both there are very distinguishable visual difference between film and digital. Digital will always capture in a linear fashion and thus high lights and shadows will always have a different feel then a photo chemical process. While shadow quality might improve over the next decade. Hight lights in Digital will be an issue for a while. HDRI capture can get them but they for sure don't feel like film.
Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com <http://reel.rslittle.com/>
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/
[some deleted text]
On Sep 12, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Herschel Mair wrote:
analog shmanalog... a great image is a great image.
Jan you have some great images and the process you chose to
make them is interesting but secondary.
Great pics are made by photographers not cameras. Nobody
asks the restaurant manager what kind of stove the chef
uses...
If I find digital more inspiring than film, then who's to
argue with that? And Vice versa. The process that the
artist used is as interesting as it contributed to the art.
Herschel Mair Photographer and Retoucher Santa Fe NM 505
695 8450 <tel:505%20695%208450>
Art Faul
The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com
Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com
Camera Works - The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm
ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/
http://www.artiqueunderground.com/artist/69.
