[Leica] In search of the elusive nuances

[walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)]

 I  agree with everything you've said here.There are certainly 
characteristics of each and every lens we choose and learning those 
traits is an absolute necessity. I do believe focal length, film to 
subject distance and aperture used are instrumental in creating what we 
have termed bokeh. Selective focus has always been a tool available to 
us and helps clarify our visual statements.

Speaking of bokeh, I'm sure you remember the old Nikkor 500 f8 mirror 
lens. It had a bokek so evident as to be a bit nauseous. There is no 
doubt in my mind what many people think of as bokeh is an 
interchangeable effect consisting of the things I mentioned. To change 
the look of your background open the lens up or move closer or change to 
a longer/shorter piece of glass.

Years back a friend claimed her M3 and 50 would produce an image 
quality  far beyond my Nikon and 50. Using both on similar subjects made 
me reach certain conclusions many here might disagree with. The Leitz 
lens was superior in terms of rendering luminosity in the shadows but 
the Nikkor was sharper. A bit anecdotal, I admit, but 30 years later the 
same result wouldn't surprise me.I'm glad the term bokeh wasn't around 
then or she and I would still be debating.

My son is a professional guitarist and the search for what feels just 
right to him has been an expensive proposition for us all. I've shared 
ideas and studios with painters who never gave up looking for a method 
to squeeze out more from their work. One  big difference, or so it 
seems, when was the last time you saw an artist  present his or her work 
for viewing and list brands of brushes used. Wouldn't that seem a bit 
ludicrous? On the other hand, we list cameras,lenses, films, apertures, 
developers.etc.and trivialize the creativity involved. HCB used Leicas 
and 50s. I could be shooting over his shoulder with the same darn 
equipment and I'll bet my images would fall far short of his. (although 
I might be able to out shoot him since he's dead, but not certain of that)

In any even I'm going to continue my search for the elusive bokeh 
monster. If I have any luck you'll see him hanging on my barn door. :-)

Walt

Lottermoser George wrote:

> When I brought up the "appreciation" of bokeh I said nothing of  
> tools. I'm totally on board with the irrelevance of the "tool" in the  
> hands of the artist when initially experiencing the work. What ever  
> tool the artist uses s/he will fully harness the qualities of the  
> tool and use those qualities to express the "feeling" that they're  
> needing to express. Those various qualities have names. They exist.  
> We don't have to use their names to appreciate them.
>
> But denying the existence of the wide range of appearances in out of  
> focus areas in photographs, and their effect in the final graphic  
> work does not make sense to me; anymore than denying the difference  
> between Charlie Musslewhite's deep, full, rich tone and Junior  
> Parker's smooth tone. They achieve their results with totally  
> different choices of instruments. They could trade instruments and  
> neither would sound like the other. But their instrument choice is  
> part of the equation.
>
> A couple folks submitted examples of OOF areas which have a distinct  
> and, to my eyes, disturbing, for the given subject, rendition of OOF  
> areas. The point is not that these renditions are "good or bad." They  
> simply didn't work for the subjects. In the hands of an artist, who  
> could exploit the unique qualities, those particular tools could be  
> used to expressive advantage. Whether we use the word bokeh or refer  
> to the "rendition of out-of-focus area" we can see and talk about  
> those qualities. In many photographs those qualities are secondary,  
> or even meaningless, to the power of the image. In others they're  
> very much a part of the mood created.
>
> What we're really talking about here is not a composer's spirited  
> nature, melancholy or religious fervor; but the musician's rendition  
> of same. And I know enough musicians, photographers, and artists to  
> know that they're all constantly on a quest for the tools that will  
> deliver the "tones, timbre, and resonances" which they seek in their  
> work. To assume that a reed-man doesn't care about reeds can only  
> mean you've never had a conversation with a reed man; the same would  
> be true of string players and their strings; ad nauseam. While you  
> may not care about what reeds, strings, brushes, pigments, papers,  
> canvases, etc. are being chosen - I can assure you that the artists  
> do care - and it is their caring which finally brings the tears, joy  
> and goose bumps to us as appreciators.
>
> As an art appreciator you can simply appreciate the "feeling." Or you  
> can appreciate the feeling as well as how that feeling was produced.  
> I've always had this little "how'd they do that?" voice in me.
>
> Regards,
> George Lottermoser
> george@imagist.com
>
>
>
> On May 14, 2006, at 1:18 PM, Walt Johnson wrote:
>
>> Edvard Munch is an artist whose work I admire. When I look at it I  
>> don't care what type of brush he used or how he mixed his paints. I  
>> do care what he was thinking when he worked. He was trying to  
>> communicate with me and that is what art means. (my opinion)  Whether 
>> it's Chopin's spirited nature, Beethoven's melancholy or  Bach's 
>> religious fervor what counts is feeling. I'll let the  intellectual 
>> athletes label it all, my preference is plain old  feeling.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>