Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 1/2/02 6:27 PM, Sal DiMarco,Jr. at sdmp007@pressroom.com wrote: > What you call bokeh, I call selective focus. Selective focus plays a > part in everyone's work including Ted's and mine. Sal, bokeh and selective focus are different things. Bokeh is not the presence or absence of out-of-focus areas. It is the rendition of out-of-focus areas. Just as tonal rendition can be smooth or coarse, so bokeh can be smooth or coarse. One does not say a photo "has" or "doesn't have" tonal rendition, and neither does a photo "have" or "not have" bokeh. > > The final picture is the only thing which is important. No one ever > bought, published or liked a photo because of "great bokeh." > I prefer the look of photos made with "good" bokeh lenses. I take pride in my work more when I like the results. I don't like ni-sen bokeh. To my eye, it distracts from the main subject and looks ugly. Some people go to great lengths to get good tonality, fine grain or appropriate depth of field. On this list there are ENDLESS threads on these subjects and others related to getting the most from our tiny negatives. If none of these things mattered then there would be no reason to use anthing larger than a 35mm or APS camera. People DO buy and publish photos based at least in part on these image qualities. Not ENTIRELY because of these image properties, but at least partially. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento www.wildlightphoto.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html