Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/01/20

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Eye vs. Camera Lens
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Tue Jan 20 23:16:14 2009

I thought it was because with such soft effects it imitated "art".
As in painting.
And or watercolor.

A mere photograph with no pretensions got no respect those days.


Mark William Rabiner



> From: Bob W <leica@web-options.com>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:52:07 -0000
> To: 'Leica Users Group' <lug@leica-users.org>
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Eye vs Camera Lens
> 
>> 
>> LUG:
>> 
>> B&H has an interesting article:
>> 
>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/The-Photographic-Eye.jsp
>> 
>> Includes bokeh information!
>> 
>> Tina
>> 
>> Tina Manley
>> www.tinamanley.com
>> 
> 
> This observation about blurriness, from Herman von Helmholtz's ideas about
> human vision, is one of the ideas that P H Emerson brought to photography
> when he formalised Pictorialism. While we often think of pictorialism as
> unrealistic it is in some ways more realistic than its f/64 secessionist
> successors. Emerson's aim was to produce photographs that mimicked our
> vision, and that is why he promoted the use of soft focus and shallow depth
> of field. 
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



Replies: Reply from leica at web-options.com (Bob W) ([Leica] Eye vs. Camera Lens)
In reply to: Message from leica at web-options.com (Bob W) ([Leica] Eye vs Camera Lens)