Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]My measured thoughts are- Naturalistic Photography. F/64 School. F/64 group. Pictorialism. Depth of Focus. Depth of Field. I would argue that from a Historical point of view- this has all been discussed before. >As I said in another post, just because YOU may not use it, doesn't mean others don't enhance >their images by the use of it. And the converse: just because you use it, doesn't mean that it will enhance the images of other by the use of it. >Your comment is what is utter nonsense, and arrogantly demeaning. No more of a nonsense than worrying about the shape and quality of out of focus areas of a photograph. No more arrogant than saying that since some photographers use it, that it is therefore "viable" for everyone. >Bokeh DOES exist and IS a viable technique. Ultimately this IS the point. For Ted and me and others it doesn't exist and isn't a "viable" technique. For You it is. We should agree to disagree and (as you correctly point out) discuss it as it relates and/or doesn't to our work. Afterall, it could be symantics- Bokeh/ depth of focus? Bokeh does exist as it defines a real entity- out of focus areas of a photo. But for me, all of the articles and discussions (on this list and others) all come down to a "subjective" judgement as to whether it is good or bad/ useful or a waste of time. yours waiting to be convinced, Garry D. Lewis - -- - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html