Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: WAS: Bokeh'm - Help for Ted!!!
From: "Richard W. Hemingway" <rheming@attglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:39:28 -0500
References: <200107121956.MAA13138@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> <001e01c10ad8$87369700$56234d18@gv.shawcable.net> <AMEAKJGEMGJNKBKGMMCAGEALCBAA.arbos@silva.net>

Jim,

At 01:34 PM 7/12/01 -0700, you wrote:
 
>You are missing the point. Bokeh isn't something you define and look at. It 
>is all about arguing over the word. B-O-K-E-H, what it means, where it came 
 [snip]

You mean that I got wrong again???  I will try harder.

Dick H

P.S. Just got my 80/1.4 and am R outfitted with the R8 and 35/1.4. I should
never have sold this outfit before.  (I am only taking out of focus
pictures and projecting them with a strong flashlight behind them - now I
can sell my Leica Pradovit P2002 and 90/2.8 SuperPlan lens and help to pay
for the lenses<gr>)

In reply to: Message from "Richard W. Hemingway" <rheming@attglobal.net> (Re: [Leica] WAS: Bokeh'm - Help for Ted!!!)
Message from "Ted Grant" <tedgrant@home.com> ([Leica] WAS: Bokeh'm somebody, naw nuke it! ;-))
Message from "Mikiro" <arbos@silva.net> (RE: [Leica] Bokeh'm somebody)