Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/05/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: An excellent article!
From: "Jeff Segawa" <segawa@netone.com>
Date: 3 May 97 23:12:42 -0700

I believe it's already been mentioned here, but I just got ahold of the
May/June '97 issue of Photo Techniques and found the set of articles
regarding "bokeh" to be fascinating: Much of it confirms what some have
been stating here, but the article goes further, by providing specific
examples to show the effects, as well as delving into the lens design
considerations that affect bokeh. Definitely a must-have for Leica fans
follwing the "Leica Glow" ("Minolta Glow"?) threads, as well as those
wondering what the heck is going on.

Probably the first mention I heard of such phenomena in the US were some
postings a few years back by Mike Johnson, who, at the time, was
characterizing lenses as "wire sharp" and "smooth sharp".  This vocabulary
partially helped me to explain why a '60s 80 f/2.8 Planar on my Rolleiflex
SL-66, while not striking me as having the vivid sense of contrast and
sharpness as some of my Nikkors, did strike me as having a smooth
consistency which I found pleasing in the many macro shots I did with the
outfit. But this beginning vocabulary didn't begin to figure in particular
qualities of the out-of-focus portions of an image, much less provide any
easy means of expressing what I saw (or thought I did) there. Me, I was
vexed by the question of how a lens could seem to deliver adequate
sharpness, yet, not quite deliver results as I had envisioned under certain
conditions, such as shooting a sunlight canopy of leaves from below, or a
forest floor, in which a few leaves might be brightly lit from breaks in
the canopy. Best I was able to put into words was an effect in which
highlights would appear as featureless blobs when using certain optics,
though the actual contrast range should've been well within the film's
capabilities--but this too, was obviously only describing one particular
anomaly. The $4.50 cost of the magazine is reasonable, as it's not everyday
that one gets a whole new vocabulary and means of understanding another
aspect of the craft for the price of a modest lunch! Hope all the issues
are as good-awfully thin, but much better-than average content, I thought.

Jeff