A bit hazy

I've seen the term bokeh bandied about for some time now, but only just recently came to understand what it's about. Whether that's a statement about me, or about the folk who wrote descriptions that I couldn't follow, I don't know. Whatever the case, it still has me a bit bemused - at least regarding the degree of fascination it holds in other photographers. Having spent many years away from serious photography, this term seems to be quite prevalent, even among relative 'happy-snappers'.

For those who aren't aware, it's a term descriptive of the appearance of out-of-focus detail in a photograph, and is derived from the Japanese for 'blur' or 'haze'. Is it smooth and 'creamy', or rough and unappealing... or something. When I went to look through my own image collection to see how my bokeh compared, it appeared that I had no images that showed bokeh - and then I remembered one that would:


I'm somewhat surprised that I don't have other examples to hand, as the ability to use wide apertures and selective focusing is one of those little tricks that I value (and which is sadly lacking in a wee digital point-and-shoot).

Judging by the comments I've seen elsewhere (such as in the Manual Focus Forum), my bokeh isn't especially good. However, I shan't be losing much sleep over it; nor shall I be going on a quest to find a set of lenses that does produce good bokeh - yet. Who knows what may happen in the future?