Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Austin Franklin wrote: <snip> . . . Because of "great bokeh", a particular image may have been quite appealing to someone...just because they didn't make a comment, or even know it was "great bokeh", doesn't mean it wasn't important in their "liking" the image. . . <snip> ====================================================================== I agree with Austin. I think Doug Herr made a similar point, that the quality of a photograph's OOF area (i.e. the bokeh) can make a difference to its attractiveness and marketability. Customers are more likely to buy a brilliantly composed and executed photograph of a beautiful bird in a tree if the branches and twigs in the background look pleasantly blurred and soft than if they look like twin strands of barbed wire! However, unless the customer is given a choice between two pictures of the same subject, one with nice bokeh and one with sh*tty bokeh, he/she is unlikely to be aware of the importance of it. Most people become conscious of bokeh only when it's ugly, just as people only comment on a child's behaviour when it's unruly. Owing to the quality of Leica glass, most Leica users rarely, if ever, get to see ugly bokeh. This makes them wonder what all the fuss is about when people start discussing it as a serious subject (and some of them actually get angry!) Perhaps b*k*h should be added to the list of taboo subjects, like p*l*t*cs and r*l*g**n. ;-) Regards, ===== Ray "The trouble with resisting temptation is you never know when you'll get another chance!" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html