[Leica] Re: Re: Bokeh vs. Nukeh, WYSIWYG, YA

[Jim Brick <jim_brick@agilent.com>]

I apologize for ruffling your feathers.

But I have been using a ground glass for focusing and assessing all aspects
of what the resultant photograph will look like, since 1959, in all
formats. 35mm being one of the main formats.

My newest Hasselblad (203FE) has an Acute Matte screen that is extremely
bright, brightest screen I've ever had, and all of the virtues of visually
accessing a scene while stopped down are still there.

Perhaps the fact that I've been doing this for forty years makes it second
nature to me. I hardly ever take a photograph with a ground glass equipped
camera (now Leica R, Hasselblad 203FE & FlexBody, Linhof Technikardan)
without using stopped down image evaluation and focus check.

I attended Brooks Institute of Photography in 1960/61 and learned all about
COC, DOF, Scheimpflug, and everything else related to DOF including how to
calculate the various parameters on our slide rule. And the importance of
stopped down DOF & sharpness evaluation became painfully evident in the
following years working as a commercial/illustrative photographer.

This, obviously, is not possible with a rangefinder camera sans reflex
attachment. Which is why I have Summilux lenses for my M6's and use them as
wide open as possible as much as possible.

Anyway, to me personally, looking at a ground glass image at working
aperture is WYSIWYG. My mind's eye does the interpolation automatically.

Jim




At 03:48 PM 8/29/00 -0400, Krechtz@aol.com wrote:
>
>First, any damn fool knows that the lens has to be stopped down.  Second, the 
>whole matter of depth of field is itself an approximation based upon an 
>arbitrary, mathematically derived standard - the so-called circle of 
>confusion, which relates only to relative "acceptable" sharpness, not a 
>precise determination of greatest possible definition or resolution or even 
>finest resolution within a given frame, let alone as compared to areas 
>considered out of focus.  Third, you don't even bother to address the issue 
>of how to determine the rendering of out of focus areas on the film by 
>looking at a groundglass, with the lens either stopped down to shooting 
>aperture or wide open.  Fourth, the newer the camera or focusing screen, as 
>the case may be, the brighter the screen is likely to be and less likely to 
>be capable of rendering clear distinctions between areas in focus and out of 
>focus, IME, let alone giving even an approximate idea of what out of focus 
>areas will look like on the frame.  Fifth, we were speaking of 35mm 
>photography, using lenses of focal lengths most commonly used with RF 
>cameras.  In that context, even a lens of a focal length of 80mm, like the 
>Hasselblad "standard" lens, will be more likely to show differences between 
>areas in and out of focus than the 35-50mm range under discussion.  Sixth, in 
>the context of the thread, I was responding to the contention that RF cameras 
>were not useful in situations where the rendering of out of focus ares was a 
>consideration.  I disagree with that assertion.
>
>Joe Sobel