Re: [Leica] Bokeh controversy

[Ted <tedgrant@home.com>]

Dan my man! :-)

I whole heartedly agree with everything you say! :-) I'm not putting the bokeh
down, it's just that it's something I've known as "neat out of focus background"
for many years picture taking with Leica's of all sorts and lens lengths.

But it has not been something I dwell on, nor really look for in the picture.
Possibly because I always try to shoot with the widest possible aperture and the
highest possible shutter speed, whatever they maybe in combination, therefore
the bokeh happens and I don't give it a second thought. I simply go back to the
"subject itself" has to be as smashing as possible.

I suppose the bokeh factor is the kind of subject we could discuss until the
cows come home and until we could all sit down,  prints in hand for comparison,
would we really learn the true value of it to our picture taking. I think what
happens in my case is that it's there, it happens and is just part of the over
all image without me even thinking about it and in effect its enhancing to my
pictures without me even considering it.

I hope this kind of allows a better understanding of why I don't think it's the
big deal some folks make of it, even though I know in some cases it's an
enhancing factor to the subject.

ted Grant



Dan Honemann wrote:

> Ted,
>
> I can listen to a piece of music and enjoy it immensely, and listen to
> another piece and find no pleasure in it.  I can't say what the difference
> is--I can only say I enjoy the one more than the other.  Now, a musician who
> has studied and analyzed music can very likely tell me this difference: just
> because I cannot identify it doesn't mean it isn't there.
>
> The same may be true of photographic images.  Why does this one stand apart
> from the others?  We don't know why--it just does.  But perhaps on closer
> investigation there are components that explain it.  And perhaps the
> treatment of the out of focus areas is one such component, no less important
> than the contrast and edge sharpness of the foreground subject.
>
> As I wrote in a previous post, I have come to discover--at least thus
> far--that one of the most significant components which distinguishes the
> image I might call art from the one that is merely another snapshot, or the
> image that stays with with me from the one I soon forget--is the quality of
> _light_: how it falls on the subject and the background, the shadows it
> creates, the direction its coming from, and so on.  A second important
> factor--again, for me--is composition.
>
> Film resolution, contrast, bokeh, tonality--all of these undoubtedly play a
> role as well.  And I have to agree with Doug that there are times when they
> can make the difference.  But that is only when the light and composition
> are right.
>
> When shooting, we can attend to light and to composition.  These are factors
> very much within our control.  But we can't do anything about bokeh, just as
> we can't exceed any of the limitations of the equipment we are using.  And
> so we hope to find optics that won't get in the way of these components that
> are largely outside the scope of our control.
>
> Did HCB worry over this?  Of course not--he didn't have to!  He shot with a
> Leica!  :)
>
> I would submit that if optical characteristics--the sorts of things that
> Erwin is so versed in analyzing and explaining to us--play no real role in
> image quality, then we have wasted a great deal of money buying Leica
> lenses.  Even if we argue the ergonomics of the tool, how quiet and
> unobtrusive it is, and how reliable, that still doesn't justify spending
> thousands more for Leica lenses over Konica or Cosina offerings.
>
> And maybe we'd be right to conclude that!  Personally, I wouldn't know--I
> haven't studied images made from a Leica 35 next to those made from the same
> focal length Konica--all other things being equal--to see if there is indeed
> a difference.  Instead, I trust Erwin, Johnny, Jim, Austin, Doug, you and
> all of the other very intelligent and experienced gentlemen who tell me
> there is a difference and who have discovered through trial and error that
> there is no better tools for capturing images than those made by Leica.
>
> Does that mean Leica lenses, with all their wonderful bokeh and the rest of
> it, are an absolute requirement for producing memorable images?  Of course
> not.  The one factor that can't easily be measured but outweighs all others,
> even light and composition, is _inspiration_, and Kyle proves to us again
> and again that inspiration overcomes any compromises imposed by less than
> perfect tools (and they are _all_ less than perfect).  Even toycamera.com
> proves that.
>
> So why do we buy Leica glass?  Some say bokeh, some say resolution, some say
> lack of distortion, but ultimately it is simply because we can afford it.
> And we choose to buy it because shooting with the very best equipment is
> enjoyable, a pleasure which inspires its use.
>
> Dan