As someone who likes photography, I have to disagree about your reasoning. The clarity of your subject is as much about how much it is in focus as how much irrelevant things are out of focus. Portrait photos are often beautiful when the lens has good bokeh characteristics.
>> The clarity of your subject is as much about how much it is in focus as how much irrelevant things are out of focus.
If you actually look at the sample output of the library, there's nothing out of focus, at least from the perspective of depth of field. In my opinion (and it is just an opinion), calling all de-emphasized data bokeh is a stretch at best. Blurring and de-emphasis using color and size are two different things.
>> Portrait photos are often beautiful when the lens has good bokeh characteristics.
Let's be clear -- while bokeh can enhance the beauty of a portrait, it doesn't make a portrait beautiful. Most people don't know the difference between good bokeh and bad bokeh (pwang's definition of bokeh in his response to me is very good), but they can usually identify a blurred background vs. a sharp background.
Many people tend to prefer a sharp subject against a blurred background, and that's usually enough for most people to consider a portrait beautiful even if the bokeh is quite ugly. Without getting into a long drawn out discussion of bokeh, you have to remember that there's also more to a beautiful portrait than the novelty of a blurred background.
If you're thinking in terms of the _spirit_ of bokeh, and understand 'semantic downsampling', you've got my vote. As someone whose tried to use D3, I like this a lot. I'll be experimenting with Bokeh now soon.
