>>3860011>>3860012While I agree with you, and the photos are very good, this is not shallow DoF but motion blur or/and photomanipulation in the darkroom.
Take this (
>>3860011) for instance. Look at the ground right below his feet. It's blurry as hell, despite being at exactly the same distance from the camera as his feet. Even more characteristically, despite both the feet being in focus while at a distance from each other, no point on the ground is in focus at all.
So this blurriness just can't just be from shallow DoF.
Could be a ton of other things, obviously motion blur the most important one, but I discard darkroom manipulation.
Especially seeing the heavy artificial vignetting and heavy burning, the light looks quite unnatural in all 3 pictures and smells like darkroom work.
Same goes for the gritty, contrasty look - probably a product of pushing, but could also have been enhanced in the darkroom.
I don't know about how the Japanese used the term "bokeh" originally. Could be that they used it for any kind of blurriness that allows you to roughly see shapes but not the objects themselves clearly.
It would make perfect sense to use the term like that, why limit to DoF only, when the visual result, conceptually, is quite similar? In this case, and if they indeed used bokeh in this way, you could be right.
