Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 8/26/00 8:54:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, apbbeijing@yahoo.com writes: << I am still convinced bokeh is too non-scientific to be of value: some of the recent discussion on the LUG seems to illustrate this. For example Henri Cartier Bresson's remarks referred to blurred backgrounds due to limited depth of field from lenses used with wider apertures and said nothing about the characteristics of this background beyond blurriness. >> The issue is not whether great European photographers are or ever have been devotees of Japanese photographic philosophy or lens tests or have made published observations as to all possible nuances to be seen in the out of focus areas of photographs. I hope it is generally agreed that even the most reasoned and scientific efforts to measure, analyze and quantify all aspects of optical performance are less than universally acceptable or useful as predictors of what a given lens will do with each different film under all reasonably possible conditions. It is a fact of photographic life that in many instances out of focus areas may occupy a significant amount of space within a frame. What that area looks like surely merits at least some consideration on the part of the photographer. Joe Sobel