[Leica] New 35/1.4 ASPH?

[philippe.amard at sfr.fr (philippe.amard)]

Le 8 mars 10 ? 18:50, Vince Passaro a ?crit :

> I wasn't rappping Leica at all, and I am probably less interested in  
> bokeh
> than anyone on the list; I think it's the microbrewery-zone of  
> photography,
> totally overrated, inclined toward the sweet and pretty. Its qualities
> certainly do not determine a good photograph. In short, I don't give  
> a crap
> about bokeh.
>
> My point was meant to be a larger aesthetic one, to the effect that  
> we might
> have crossed some line technologically where the physical technical
> capacities of the art form (photography in this case, but it has  
> happened in
> many ways in other forms as well) now exceed the intention of the  
> artist and
> the generally accepted intentions of artists traditionally. Which is  
> why I
> suggested that for intimate scenes and street scenes I suspect I  
> would like
> these lenses better in black and white: this is an argument in favor  
> of the
> gesture that evokes the whole; in favor of a little bit of  
> abstraction over
> the hyper-perfect rendition.  You are practical: you want the best  
> tool
> available, and these certainly are the best and I wouldn't argue  
> that for a
> second. I love sharpness in a photograph; but I'm accustomed to b&w  
> film
> mainly... And as I noted, when taking a wider view these lenses to  
> me eye
> are at their very best. But to see a street scene in color produced  
> by an M9
> (or any other really top rate digital camera)  in combination with  
> an ASPH
> lens is to see a photograph that is now working outside its seemingly
> intended genre. Part of photography's magic for me has always  
> resided in
> its seeing as we see, only a little better, or I should say,  
> smarter, which
> is to say, with a frame; and permanently instead of passingly.  But  
> the way
> these lenses see the world is no longer evocative of how we see it  
> and so
> the technology borders on the sentimental, if misapplied (broadly  
> put, not
> how things are but how we wish them to be, in this case, perfectly  
> outlined
> and detailed); which is why I said 'pornographic', for pornography is
> usually a vulgar sentimentalizing of the purely visual in the erotic.
>
> I'm sorry to anser at such length but answering is my way of thinking.
>
> V
>

Makes sense Vince, it does to me at least.

Best
Philippe


NO ARCHIVE