RE: [Leica] Bokeh controversy

["Dan Honemann" <ddh@home.com>]

Ted,

I can listen to a piece of music and enjoy it immensely, and listen to
another piece and find no pleasure in it.  I can't say what the difference
is--I can only say I enjoy the one more than the other.  Now, a musician who
has studied and analyzed music can very likely tell me this difference: just
because I cannot identify it doesn't mean it isn't there.

The same may be true of photographic images.  Why does this one stand apart
from the others?  We don't know why--it just does.  But perhaps on closer
investigation there are components that explain it.  And perhaps the
treatment of the out of focus areas is one such component, no less important
than the contrast and edge sharpness of the foreground subject.

As I wrote in a previous post, I have come to discover--at least thus
far--that one of the most significant components which distinguishes the
image I might call art from the one that is merely another snapshot, or the
image that stays with with me from the one I soon forget--is the quality of
_light_: how it falls on the subject and the background, the shadows it
creates, the direction its coming from, and so on.  A second important
factor--again, for me--is composition.

Film resolution, contrast, bokeh, tonality--all of these undoubtedly play a
role as well.  And I have to agree with Doug that there are times when they
can make the difference.  But that is only when the light and composition
are right.

When shooting, we can attend to light and to composition.  These are factors
very much within our control.  But we can't do anything about bokeh, just as
we can't exceed any of the limitations of the equipment we are using.  And
so we hope to find optics that won't get in the way of these components that
are largely outside the scope of our control.

Did HCB worry over this?  Of course not--he didn't have to!  He shot with a
Leica!  :)

I would submit that if optical characteristics--the sorts of things that
Erwin is so versed in analyzing and explaining to us--play no real role in
image quality, then we have wasted a great deal of money buying Leica
lenses.  Even if we argue the ergonomics of the tool, how quiet and
unobtrusive it is, and how reliable, that still doesn't justify spending
thousands more for Leica lenses over Konica or Cosina offerings.

And maybe we'd be right to conclude that!  Personally, I wouldn't know--I
haven't studied images made from a Leica 35 next to those made from the same
focal length Konica--all other things being equal--to see if there is indeed
a difference.  Instead, I trust Erwin, Johnny, Jim, Austin, Doug, you and
all of the other very intelligent and experienced gentlemen who tell me
there is a difference and who have discovered through trial and error that
there is no better tools for capturing images than those made by Leica.

Does that mean Leica lenses, with all their wonderful bokeh and the rest of
it, are an absolute requirement for producing memorable images?  Of course
not.  The one factor that can't easily be measured but outweighs all others,
even light and composition, is _inspiration_, and Kyle proves to us again
and again that inspiration overcomes any compromises imposed by less than
perfect tools (and they are _all_ less than perfect).  Even toycamera.com
proves that.

So why do we buy Leica glass?  Some say bokeh, some say resolution, some say
lack of distortion, but ultimately it is simply because we can afford it.
And we choose to buy it because shooting with the very best equipment is
enjoyable, a pleasure which inspires its use.

Dan