Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ted, I didn't realise why I preferred Leica pics for most of the time I have used Leicas. I have been on this list 3 or 4 years now and many posts have got me thinking about this sort of thing rather than just taking pics. It was not something I thought about before. Boke is a word I saw first on the LUG. Now I know that the two things I like about my leica lenses are shrpness wide open with non distracting oof area. If you saw the two photographs which really showed it up for me when I used a Nokton 50 f1.5 you would see what I mean. One was an abstract picture of an old tree trunk in a wood - the oof light entering the wood between the trees was so prominent, blobby and magnified that one didn't notice immediately that any of the shot was in focus. I went back and shot with a 50 summilux - the shot is not a keeper anyway but now it looks quite different with smooth highlights which seem reduced in size. The sharp part leaps out of the picture in a 3D way and I wouldn't even notice the background if I hadn't been looking for it (I've never tried this sort of "test" before) The second was a wide open portait in a restaurant, subjects back to window. The apparent size of the bright window was enlarged. Very distracting. The subject was super sharp and the flare resistance impressive. I havn't used the lens since. I am sure it wasn't concious but the lenses I still use after all these years are the ones I don't find disappointing, so I guess that I do, in effect, consider boke before taking a picture because I no longer use the lenses who's boke, amongst other things, displeases me. cheers Frank > I hope this kind of allows a better understanding of why I don't think it's the > big deal some folks make of it, even though I know in some cases it's an > enhancing factor to the subject. > > ted Grant