[Leica] Yet another fuzzy-headed bokeh post

[Peter Klein <pklein@2alpha.net>]

>Ted Grant wrote:
>
>So before any of you who've just learned this bohek word and effect for 
>the first time don't sweat it, forget it, go take your pictures with the 
>innocents of yesterday, have fun without the bokeh dilemma! :-) :-)
>
>It don't mean nuthin' anyway! ;-)

Far be it from me to contest the learned opinions of our beloved Sage of 
Victoria (or is it the Curmedgeon of Canada?).  But in this case I'm going 
to...  :-)

These bokeh discussions can seem like medieval debates about the number of 
angels that can dance on the head of a pin.  Sometimes it seems 
ridiculous.  In fast-breaking journalistic situations, where the challenge 
is to get a meaningful shot with only one chance, Ted is quite 
right--what's important is that the subject's in focus, properly exposed, 
and hopefully composed decently and caught at a moment that represents the 
truth of the situation.  All the rest is gravy.

However, we *do* see the out-of-focus background, and it does have an 
effect on us.  A few months back, I remember seeing a photo somebody posted 
that was taken with the Voigtlander/Cosina 50/1.5 Nokton.  The OOF stuff 
was so harsh that it made me dizzy.  It was hard to look at the photo.  I 
had considered getting a Nokton, but after seeing those photos, I decided 
to pass.  What good is a slightly-sharper-than-Summilux subject, if you 
can't stand to look at it?

OTOH, I have an early-50s LTM 50/1.4 Nikkor.  Supposedly this lens has 
lousy bokeh.  So one day I went to a nearby park with my wife and took a 
few Kodachromes of her with OOF sun highlights streaming through leaves in 
the background.  I shot with both the Nikkor and my (optically) current 
50mm Summicron.  Both lenses wide open at f/2 and the Nikkor also at 
1.4.  With an 8x magnifier, I could see a difference in the bokeh, but it 
wasn't terribly much.  So for now, I will continue to use the Nikkor when I 
need 1.4, no apologies.  The Summicron is a better lens overall, so I use 
it when I have the choice.

While in Italy this spring, I saw two paintings by Titian at the Galleria 
Borghesi in Rome.  One was done early in his career, and the other when he 
was in his eighties.  The later one had a distant, blurry background that 
you had to look at from several feet away before it "gelled."  It was done 
with blends of colors that morphed one into the next.  Apart from giving me 
the "rush" of recognizing the beginnings of French Impressionism, done 
several centuries early by an Italian, this painting made me think of all 
our bokeh discussions.  This background had a profound effect on the 
feeling the painting evoked.  And it was very much like lens bokeh.

When you choose a lens, f-stop, and focusing distance, you are in effect 
choosing your bokeh.  It will have an effect on the "feel" of your 
picture.  Now, if you are taking a journalistic approach, it may not matter 
much of the time.  But if you're taking a painterly or fine-arts approach, 
it can be one more tool.

When in a cynical mood, I fantasize that bokeh is a Japanese word meaning 
"Marketing concept to sell more lenses to fuzzy-headed camera 
buffs."  Sometimes I use it to justify my pre-Asph Leica lenses.  And once 
in a while, when I see a shot where everything OOF is creamy smooth, and my 
eyes don't do a jitterbug between the subject and the background.  And I 
think, "Mmm, beautiful."

All that said, if you see a great shot, just take the *#$%ing picture.  Zen 
and the Art of Optical Rendition.

- --Peter Klein
Seattle, WA