Re: [Leica] Bokeh controversy

[Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net>]

sorry for the pick-apart comments that follow...

>I whole heartedly agree with everything you say! :-) I'm not putting the bokeh
>down, it's just that it's something I've known as "neat out of focus
>background"
>for many years picture taking with Leica's of all sorts and lens lengths.


ted: you hit the nail on the head. "neat out of focus areas" is the most
appropriate english translation of "good bokeh," i do believe.


>But it has not been something I dwell on, nor really look for in the picture.
>Possibly because I always try to shoot with the widest possible aperture
>and the
>highest possible shutter speed, whatever they maybe in combination, therefore
>the bokeh happens and I don't give it a second thought. I simply go back
>to the
>"subject itself" has to be as smashing as possible.


another right-on comment: "bokeh happens!" it's unavoidable, unless you're
stopped waaaaay down, and who is when you're using a leica lens?


>I suppose the bokeh factor is the kind of subject we could discuss until the
>cows come home and until we could all sit down,  prints in hand for
>comparison,
>would we really learn the true value of it to our picture taking. I think what
>happens in my case is that it's there, it happens and is just part of the over
>all image without me even thinking about it and in effect its enhancing to my
>pictures without me even considering it.
>[snip]
>ted Grant

yet another right-on comment: boken is a part of the over all image, it's
there every bit as much as the tack-sharp, snapped-into-focus elements in
the picture. in fact, the tack-sharp elements look tack-sharp in relation
to the out of focus areas. as a matter of fact, if everything were always
in crisp focus (as in traditional figurative painting, for example), we
probably wouldn't remark how sharp a given lens is because there wouldn't
be any out of focus areas to compare the sharp areas to.


guy