Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/08/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have that one so I'll try it, too. I much prefer the bokeh in that photo! Tina On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:37 PM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: > You take a different type of photograph to me Tina, two of the images I > showed the background disks are part of the shot. A straight shot would not > be worth showing and I like the fact I can create something which the eye > does not see ;-) > > If you want a neutral background then the 50mm APO Summicron is the best > I have seen..... > http://johnmcmaster.com/PAW/2014/31/content/L2005284_large.html > > john > > -----Original Message----- > > I think you are right, Ted! I'm not going to worry about bokeh any more! > From the examples posted here (and on Olympus and MUG) of "good" bokeh, > only a few look good to me and those are the ones where the bokeh is not > obvious. If the first thing you see in a photo is the bokeh, that is a bad > thing!! All of those hideous circles take your eye away from whatever it > is that you are trying to photograph in the first place. I just don't > understand how that could possibly be considered good. > > No more bokeh for me. Just photos. > > Thanks for the reminder, Ted! > > Tina > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Ted Grant <tedgrant at shaw.ca> wrote: > > > TINA MANELY OFFERED AFTER READING: Mike Johnson's BOKEH article: > > >> He also comments that bokeh gets more problematic: > > > > the larger the aperture > > the closer the focus > > the more distant the background > > the more contrasty the background > > No wonder I had problems. My 3 photos included all of the problematic > > possibilities!<<<<< > > > > ====================================================================== > > ====== > > ============== > > > > Hi CREW & TINA, > > So once again Mike and his bokeh assessments and spooky stories about > > this lens phenomena raises it's so called ugly head and nearly > > everyone acquires wet pants of panic over it! Get over it! Simply > > because if you know nothing about it > > > > "" It don't matter! "IT's THE CONTENT THAT COUNTS!!! HOWEVER IT > > MATTERS TO THE OVER TECHIE PEOPLE!"" Good buddy Mike being one of them! > :-) Hi Mike! > > ;-) > > > > OK here I go again.;-) > > So please let me explain before some of you get wet pants ? ;-) I had > > been a working well published and paid professional photographer for I > > suppose 30 years or more and never knew such a lens phenomena existed. > > Until one day shortly after joining the LUG and Mike Johnson came on > > with his spooky "bokeh -- BS!" Heck I had never read anything about > > this "HORRID LENS EFFECT" let alone it even existed. So OK I had > > nearly always used LEICA glass, whether it exists on LEICA lenses or > > not? "PLEASE DON'T TELL IF IT DOES, SIMPLY BECAUSE, "WHAT I DON'T > > KNOW ISN'T GOING TO HURT MY PICTURES!" > > :-) > > > > Besides it obviously wasn't a detrimental factor! As I was being > > hired to fly about the world on "paying published assignments!"NEVER A > > WORD FROM SOME OF THE TOUGHEST-ASSED PHOTO EDITORS YOU NEVER WANT TO > > HAVE! KILLERS OF ONES FEELINGS! > > So when it came up on the LUG screen and I read about it, my immediate > > re-action was "BUll-s-t!" STILL IS IN CAPITAL LETTERS!" > > > > Because if it were such a horrid picture spoiling effect? I'd > > certainly have been chastised to tears any number of times in the > > past published 60 years! > > But do you know what???? Not one peep about the "bokeh effect" in any > > of the over 300,000 images in the National Archives collection! > > > > OK folks, those who made it to the Leica Gallery New York? ........ "I > > didn't hear any comments about the horrid evil "BOKEH FACTOR" in any > > of the photos hanging on the walls? Therefore? Is "BOKEH" as usual, > > just another techie bit of jabber-whookie needlessly wasting our > > picture taking time babbling about it? INSTEAD OF TAKING PICTURES? > > > > OK folks, "have a go at the old LAD!" :-) Whatever you do say, truly > > isn't going to change my mind about "THE BIG BAD BOOGIE BOKEHMAN!" :-) > > cheers, Dr. ted :-)the "big bad bokeh boogeyman":-) > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: LUG [mailto:lug-bounces+tedgrant=shaw.ca at leica-users.org] On > > Behalf Of Tina Manley > > Sent: August-20-14 3:39 PM > > To: MUGers at yahoogroups.com; Leica Users Group; paw; seephoto; Olympus > > Camera Discussion > > Subject: [Leica] Bokeh and Lenses > > > > PESO: > > > > Mike Johnston (The Online Photographer) has written quite a bit about > > bokeh. He has a pdf in which he rates many lenses for their bokeh. > > > > http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/files/bokehrankings5.pdf > > > > He also comments that bokeh gets more problematic: > > > > the larger the aperture > > the closer the focus > > the more distant the background > > the more contrasty the background > > > > No wonder I had problems. My 3 photos included all of the problematic > > possibilities! > > > > Guess I'll try again. The Summicron does get a 10 in the lens ratings. > > > > Tina > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- Tina Manley www.tinamanley.com tina-manley.artistwebsites.com