Quote - Obviously 'bokeh'or DOF or Depth of field has nothing to to with reality, as the human eye doesn't perceive objects in that way.

Apparently you did not see the thread title. The word is photorealism, not humaneyerealism.

Quote - It is an strained attempt to turn a photographic bug into an advantage, an artistic effect that is most overused and tiresome, as bagginsbill has demonstrated.

I didn't demonstrate that's it's overused and tiresome. For a portrait of a human, or a flower, or a bug, I think it's always better than leaving in a distracting and irrelevant background. I and millions of others purchase lenses specifically to achieve that effect. If you don't like it, it proves nothing as to whether millions of others like it or not. Sales of expensive lenses with great bokeh disprove your assertion.

I thought all the images I linked to were fantastic, and if they did not display nice bokeh, would have shown less artistic merit.

Quote -  Unfortunately for them (the photographers) most people don't like 'bokeh' or whatever you call it.

You've clearly ignored its meaning. Bokeh is not blur - the word for blur is blur. Bokeh is the word for the characteristics of that blur - how it is created - the distribution of samples and how they combine. Is it jarring, or gradual, creamy or splotchy? This is the question that is asked by "how is the bokeh"? And it is truly absurd to claim that people don't like good bokeh. If that were true, then film producers would not buy million dollar lenses - there are plenty of much cheaper lenses that produce the same focal range, sharpness, color fidelity, and lack of abberation, but unfortunately with bad bokeh.

People who look at a blurred region prefer good bokeh over bad bokeh, by definition. The meaning of good bokeh is "blur that people prefer". To say otherwise demonstrates what? Ignorance? Stupidity? Willful disregard for others?

Quote - Serves only to prove that taste and style is more important than any technical knowledge.

This is a very tiresome, and trollish statement. Nobody said anything about what is most important to the point that style or taste become non-issues. Claiming that any single factor is so dominant that all other factors have no place in our thought processes is just ... mmmmph. I'm not allowed to use the appropriate words here.

Nobody is demanding that all CG artists pursue realism. By the same token, anybody arguing that it is an artistic sin to pursue realism at all, in any way shape or form, and should not discuss it, and will not allow it to be discussed without objecting to it, is being an ass.

 

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)