Re: [Leica] Bokeh vs. Nokeh

[apbbeijing <apbbeijing@yahoo.com>]

on 25/8/00 12:41 PM, Austin Franklin at austin@darkroom.com wrote:

> 
> Seriously, I hope that statement was not serious...
> 
> I just thought I'd ask, before hissing and spitting....

Well Austin, half serious at least though I confess my remark was a bit
over-assertive. I for one think the whole bokeh thing is anorak-y in its
obsession: I understand that neither Leica nor Zeiss pay this aspect of lens
design the slightest bit of attention. I have no problem with people loving
to know all the details of every aspect of technical trivia of lenses,
locomotives or hub caps but the query came from a fellow wondering about the
importance of such terms to photography not simply for arcane fact gathering
(unless his third question was to mislead us all!).

OTOH I concede there are a number of Japanese manufacturers who have made
claims to have fancy diaphragm designs etc to optimise the out of focus
image but it was (and is still) the 'bokeh' of certain Zeiss lenses
(specifically the 85/1.4) and some Leica ones (especially the 35 Summicron
M) that got them all excited in the first place. It sounds like the
marketing folk picking up on the latest fad more than anything else IMHO.
Where are all the super bokeh photos from the super bokeh lenses?

This seems to me to be all just a bit silly, especially using rangefinders
when you cannot see or control this effect with any predictability. I would
much rather the lens designers concentrate on getting the best in focus
image so that the subject in my photos looks good rather than make strange
unquantifiable claims about the qualities of the out of focus areas. The
aperture ring seems to be an adequate tool for throwing the background out
of focus...

And as I said it seems to be the particular obsession of those who do not
get out and photograph enough that worry about 'bokeh': a quick look at the
types of photos used to illustrate good and bad bokeh should be enough to
prove this. Yes I can see a difference in the out of focus rendering of
different lenses but it seems to be entirely irrelevant to photography: much
like the endless experimenting with developers that many do at the expense
of taking better photographs (my apologies to the few who manage to do
both!). This is too often for love of tinkering rather than solving real
photographic problems IME (and I mean IME as well as IMHO!).

Please prove me wrong - I don't want to be harsh about it but that is my
take. Please show me a good photograph that is made by its lovely bokeh or a
bad one that would have been good were it not for the troubling bokeh. I
have yet to see this problem in any of the hundreds of thousands of
photographs I have taken nor in those I have seen taken by others. I have
also never heard of a great photographer who cares about it.

As for nokeh: I haven't a clue but suspect it is more of the same. Some
people are sure to find it pretty crucial when they get to hear what it is:
that much seems certain %^(

Or am I way out of focus?

Bests

Adrian



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com