Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/06/18

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] Bokeh (sp?) rant - hot to handle!
From: "Jeffery Smith" <jls@runbox.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:45:05 -0500

I don't think many pictures are "made" due to bokeh, but there sure are
some that were "wasted" due to bad bokeh.

Best Regards,

Jeffery L. Smith



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us 
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of 
> Matthew Powell
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 3:22 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Bokeh (sp?) rant - hot to handle!
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, at 02:55 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> >> There images consist of a smallish sharp subject and the 
> larger rest 
> >> of the area is out of focus. Most of the area of the image 
> is out of 
> >> focus. This area serves to set up the subject.
> >> If its clumpy and bunchy then who the heck wants that?
> >> If it's smooth and creamy then so much the better. I'm all for it.
> >> Is it possible to ignore this stuff?. I cant see how.
> >> Sure the biggest thing is the subject. Getting the shot.
> >> But the way everything else looks comes in a close second.
> >> Figure/Ground.
> 
> What do you figure the percentage of "published images" or 
> sold prints 
> is, Leica vs. everything else?
> 
> While the bokeh of a mirror lens may be awful, not that many fine art 
> photographers or pros are using them. The bokeh of a Canon/Nikon/etc. 
> prime/upper-level zoom may not be as peanut-butter creamy as a Leica, 
> but it's certainly serviceable.
> 
> I still can't think of an image that was "made" because of its bokeh, 
> and I've never seen an image that was rendered useless because of its 
> bokeh.
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see 
> http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-> users/unsub.html
> 


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