Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/06/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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