Re: Bokeh / Patrick / Marvin

["Patrick G. Sobalvarro" <pgs@sobalvarro.org>]

At 02:37 AM 11/20/97 -0500, Leikon35@aol.com wrote:
>  Patrick - The LUG has discussed their opinions of "bokeh" several 
>  months ago ---- almost to the point of absurdity.  Please refer back 
>  and not bring the subject up again or many of us will just wear our
>  delete keys.  If you so wish, I can capsulate all aspects in private
>  for you but puleeese don't bring it up again since when you talk of
>  "bokeh" ---no one is wrong and everyone is right, as it is subjective.

Marvin: I feel deeply for your delete key and the finger that manipulates it,
but:

a) I followed and contributed to the discussions of bokeh some months ago,
   and don't need to be reminded of them;
b) I don't feel they answered my question to Erwin and so your summary of
   them would not satisfy my curiosity; and
c) the issue of whether different lenses render out-of-focus areas
   differently is by no means subjective.  Unlike many things discussed on
   the list, this isn't something that can be decided according to what pose
   one would like to strike -- sensitive, artsy bokeh enthusiasts versus
   manly, practical bokeh naysayers.  Lenses perform a particular
   transformation on the signal that enters them.  Either the transformations
   performed by different lenses render out-of-focus areas identically as far
   as humans can tell, or they don't.  Erwin seems to be saying the former;
   I'm so surprised by this that I'm asking him for confirmation that he is
   saying what I think he is.

I'm sorry if you don't find this topic interesting, but I do.  For example,
I find it much more interesting than the recurring discussions of Rodinal
and Focomats, but I don't complain when these come up, because I understand
that different people on the list have differing interests, and I can live
with that.  I hope you can too.

- -Patrick