RE: [Leica] Bokeh - proven myth ?

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

Good Morning, Ted,

> Quite simply I have never related to the effect, as it's put
> forward by some
> very good shooters here.  I'm always looking at the content
> factor / moment
> with never a thought about the effect of bohek, as bokeh happens just like
> breathing, in particular when shooting primarily wide open.

Agreed, but I try to be conscious about the image I am taking, and whether
it warrants shooting open for the bokeh effect...or not.  It IS very image
dependant for me.

> When you're photographing your son, by the way I love the effect.

Thanks.  So you admit it exists, and is a viable effect that enhances
certain images, I take it?

> The question is,  when you were shooting this photo or similar,
> do you have
> the thought in mind of how the bokeh factor will look for the lens you're
> using? As in a specific thought, "the bokeh will look great for this xyz
> lens" ? And if all of a sudden you think,  "Oops, I better change
> to the XXX
> lens for a better bokeh."

If I'm shooting with the 50/2.8 (Hasselblad), I know it isn't going to give
me near as good a bokeh as the 110/2 (again, Hasselblad lenses), same with
Leica 35/1.4 vs 75/1.4....BUT...if I happen to have the 50 or the 35 on the
camera, and don't have another lense (I RARELY change lenses on the road,
but if at home, I will grab the camera with the "right" lense...or change
lenses) I know I am not going to be shooting "bokeh" type images, so I shoot
with what lense is on the camera, and "create" my image so it brings out the
best of that particular lense/scene.  I do purposely go for "bokeh" and
mount the 110/2 (Hasselblad) or 75/1.4.

> "Do you deliberately change to a better effect length of lens?" And in
> doing so maybe miss an excellent picture?

If I can, but as I said above, probably not.  Every scene perhaps has more
than one "excellent picture", don't you think?  I just won't shoot for
"bokeh" type images with my WA lenses on the camera.  I'll purposely look
for an interesting background to frame in the picture.  I definitely
associate the short teles with the best bokeh for my type of shooting.

> Maybe I'm wrong on this whole bokeh question simply because I
> can't get past
> the thought that while I'm shooting an assignment that I'd be
> thinking about
> the bokeh effect rather than concentrating on the precise moment for the
> "perfect picture."

I completely understand.  If I were doing the work you do, I would be doing
the same thing you do...and not thinking about bokeh...  I believe I gave an
example of taking pictures of a fire (which would be a somewhat distant
picture, as opposed to a portrait)...building burning...lots of people
moving about...which would not work with bokeh, but if I was taking a
close-up of a single person, or small group, sweat and soot on his/her
brow(s)...I might want to use the bokeh effect, and than again, I might want
to get the background in...it's all in what you want for your image.  My
real point is, it is a viable photographic technique.

> Or am I seriously missing something? Over to you my friend.
> ted

I doubt you're missing anything, just different types of images.  I believe
the point of pictures with great bokeh is that you DON'T notice it, it
blends in nicely with the image...but believe me, I notice the bad bokeh of
my Fuji lenses!  It's harsh.

Regards and Happy New Year,

Austin

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html