[Leica] Big Bad Bokeh! ;-)

[Ted <tedgrant@home.com>]

Frank Dernie wrote:

> Ted,
> >>>>I didn't realise why I preferred Leica pics for most of the time I have
> used
> Leicas. I have been on this list 3 or 4 years now and many posts have got me
> thinking about this sort of thing rather than just taking pics. It was not
> something I thought about before. Boke is a word I saw first on the LUG.<<<<<<<

G'day Frank,
You're like me in that I never read nor saw the word until it surfaced on the LUG
a couple years ago. However, it isn't that I wasn't aware of the background focus
aspect in photographs,  I only thought about it in passing if it caught my eye in
relation to the infocus subject and no more than, "Gee nice looking background!"
That was it.

And because I use the widest possible aperture and highest possible shutter speed
as much as possible in my picture taking, there is a considerable amount of  in
your face "bokeh" in most photographs.  But I still don't put the significance to
it that some do as it's just part of the image, as I see it.

What I find really interesting now, is not the "bokeh topic in itself," but how
quickly the subject raises the hairs on the back of neck's on so many LUGNUTS as
soon as the word and topic is broached once again. When the word comes on the
topic head it appears as though there is an immediate "hostility factor"
emanating from the screen along with sight of the word.:-)

It's deja vu,  you know exactly what all the scenarios are going to be and for a
few brief moments it'll become a wild and woolly topic for a few days, then once
again slink off to the photo undergrowth until it raises it's ugly head by an un

Frank Dernie wrote:

> Ted,
> I didn't realise why I preferred Leica pics for most of the time I have used
> Leicas. I have been on this list 3 or 4 years now and many posts have got me
> thinking about this sort of thing rather than just taking pics. It was not
> something I thought about before. Boke is a word I saw first on the LUG. Now
> I know that the two things I like about my leica lenses are shrpness wide
> open with non distracting oof area. If you saw the two photographs which
> really showed it up for me when I used a Nokton 50 f1.5 you would see what I
> mean.
> One was an abstract picture of an old tree trunk in a wood - the oof light
> entering the wood between the trees was so prominent, blobby and magnified
> that one didn't notice immediately that any of the shot was in focus. I went
> back and shot with a 50 summilux - the shot is not a keeper anyway but now
> it looks quite different with smooth highlights which seem reduced in size.
> The sharp part leaps out of the picture in a 3D way and I wouldn't even
> notice the background if I hadn't been looking for it (I've never tried this
> sort of "test" before)
> The second was a wide open portait in a restaurant, subjects back to window.
> The apparent size of the bright window was enlarged. Very distracting. The
> subject was super sharp and the flare resistance impressive. I havn't used
> the lens since.
> cheers Frank
>
> > 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

suspecting newbie! :-)

Then "it's incoming" all over again. :-)

ted.