Re: Erwin Puts on 'bokeh'

["Dan Post" <dwpost@email.msn.com>]

First, sorry to hear about Alfreds broken arm; I hope it didn't have a Leica
at the end of it when it happened! My wishes for a speedy recovery.
Now, more to the point; I have read with interest the discussion about the
use of English on this group, and here we have a discussion about 'bokeh',
apparently a Japanese concept and word, and Marc using the word 'yclept',
which if I remember from Chaucer and Sir John Maundeville, is a Middle
English word.  My fear is not that somebody will use bad English, but that
the discussion will rise to such a level that I won't be able to figure out
what any of it means!
I am just a simple Good Ole North Carolina Boy....
Cheers,
Dan   ;)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Alfred Breull <puma@hannover.sgh-net.de>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Sunday, 23 November, 1997 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Erwin Puts on 'bokeh'

>Erwin,
>
>can you, please, add some more details. Your statement is completely
>opposite to Marc's from some weeks ago. I have added Marc's statement
>below, just for information.
>
>Alf
>
>-----------------------------Statement 1/ Puts ---------------------------
>At 11:09 23.11.1997 +0100, Erwin Puts wrote:
>>Well that story is pure myth. I talked at length with Zeiss and Leica
>>optical designers and they all were quite definite. No such thing.
>
>-----------------------------Statement 2/ Small---------------------------
>Marc James Small wrote:
>
>Thema: Re: L versus M
>Datum: 02.09.1997  18:48:31
>From: msmall@roanoke.infi.net (Marc James Small)
>Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Reply-to: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>
><sigh>  Once again, the 'bokeh' debates.  Without getting that grand
>re-addition to our group, Mr Welch, fired up -- and, gads, sir, but it is
>GRAND to have you back where you belong! -- let me point out the following,
>with the understanding that it is not universally accepted.
>
>First, I DO have a scad of Canon gear -- and EOS 10s at the nonce with some
>great lenses and I've had a slew of FD stuff over the years.  So I know the
>breed.  Canon lenses are superb.  No question.  But the optical analysis
>ought to run a tad deeper.
>
>Leica didn't have the funds in the 1920's and 1930's to design lenses which
>would blow the doors off of Zeiss and Voigtlander products -- they were,
>after all, the 'new kids' on the block, a small microscope works which had
>moved only lately into photography.  Their lens designer, yclept Max Berek,
>used a trick to make Leica lenses 'seem' to perform better than they
>actually do, by emphasizing out-of-focus softness.  Thus, the in-focus
>portion of the image pops out at the viewer, producing the 'Leica glow', as
>Gianni Rogliatti calls it.
>
>This was seen as a cheap trick by the larger houses, but it built a
>foundation for the magical effect of Leica lenses.  And it also explains
>why older designs do not test well, but produce images which stand out from
>those of other houses.
>
>This changed following Berek's death in the early 1950's.  Certainly, Leica
>lenses produced today test competitively and, in many cases, blow the
>competition away.  But such was not always the case -- and the Leica 'glow'
>of 1930 has become the 'bokeh' of today.
>
>Marc
>
>
>msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!
>
>