Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Robert Appleby wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand I doubt I could tell the difference between the varieties of bokeh, the sharp parts of the picture are what interest me most. > After using the new aspherics for a while I really appreciate the difference between critical focus and zone focus - not the same thing at all. Of course, I could be wrong. Tell me I am.<<<<<<<<<<< G'day Rob, Not the least bit wrong at all. As it wasn't until this bokeh subject appeared on the LUG screen did I have a clue about what it was and although I now understand what they are talking .....to some little degree.... I still don't give a whit of an ants a... to waste my time getting sweaty knickers over it! I mean, what is more important, the subject and main point being in focus, capturing the peak of action, the moment of reaction or having the twitchys over what the hell all the out of focus area in the background of a frame looks like? I suppose rock and ferners need it to add excitement to the image as the peeling paint is drying. However, it's my strong impression that the majority of photojournalists even think about the back ground characteristics while concentrating on capturing the " decisive moment!" Hell most of the time I prefer to shoot as close to wide open to have the background out of focus and the main subject leaping off the screen or page. When the subject first broke water, I began looking at many of my photographs from the past and what the bokeh did or didn't do for the picture, and you know what? To me it didn't mean diddly squat! So I dismissed it from thought because it just broke my rule of "Keep it Simple Stupid!" ted Victoria, Canada http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant