I will argue that.
It's not the definition of bokeh that is in question. Honestly, I think I did a pretty good job of explaining it earlier. Just because something is out of focus doesn't mean it has bokeh...it just means that it's out of focus. Nothing more, nothing less.
I do agree that what is considered good/soft bokeh versus bad/harsh is subjective. I would say that in the examples you've posted, the first two are harsh and the third doesn't have any. But that's my opinion.
I would say your definition is pretty much spot on to the one I accept...that is to say OOF backgrounds are just that - OOF backgrounds...bokeh comes in with how points of light in the OOF background are rendered...but I may go as far to say as little OOF blobs of color in a background (such as in the last pic) dang sure mimic bokeh in a cool way if one can achieve such results plus after all the blobs that are flowers are just reflections of light right otherwise you wouldn't be able to see them? I definately agree with you on the harshness of the 135/2.8...it needs a few more blades...
Last edited: