Re: Bokeh:a mythical construct

[Thomas Kachadurian <kach@freeway.net>]

Erwin:

Perhaps you do not clearly understand bokeh. It it the way the out of focus
areas are rendered by various lenses. It is as obvious as the differences
in color balance, contrast or resolution. Which is to say you can see it if
you look for it. The Nikkor 105 DC is a lens based entirely on being able
to control the out of focus areas, the bokeh.  You won't get me into a this
bokeh is better than that conversation, but once you understand it, the
differences are clear. 

Tom

>'Bokeh' to state it quite clearly does not exist. The concept is supposed
>to elucidate the out-of-focus characteristics of certain lenses, some of
>them made by Leitz and Leica.
>In fact is a marvelous piece of self-suggestion, of the kind David
>Copperfield should be proud of. It is a well known fact that vision can be
>influenced by what you think or like to percieve. 'Bokeh' falls in this
>catagory: it has no sound scientific, not even factual basis. It is
>'believer-stuff'. Like Ronald Reagans SDI project: it is easy to talk
>about, we all seem to agree, no one has ever seen it and in never actually
>existed.
>Leica lore has always had its fair share of myths and mystique.
>We do the rational discussion about Leica lenses no favour by introducing
>constructs like 'bokeh'. It should be removed from the Leica users
>vocabulary.
>I am aware that I belong to the smallest possible group of anti-bokeh
>promoters (just me). Still the bokeh discussion clouds the appraisal of
>Leica lenses and that is tha last thing I would like to support.
>Erwin
>
>
>
>
>
>