Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Vince Passaro <passaro.vince at gmail.com>wrote: > Mark -- > > I wasn't rappping Leica at all, and I am probably less interested in bokeh > than anyone on the list; I think it's the microbrewery-zone of photography, > totally overrated, inclined toward the sweet and pretty. Its qualities > certainly do not determine a good photograph. In short, I don't give a crap > about bokeh. > > My point was meant to be a larger aesthetic one, to the effect that we > might > have crossed some line technologically where the physical technical > capacities of the art form (photography in this case, but it has happened > in > many ways in other forms as well) now exceed the intention of the artist > and > the generally accepted intentions of artists traditionally. Which is why I > suggested that for intimate scenes and street scenes I suspect I would like > these lenses better in black and white: this is an argument in favor of the > gesture that evokes the whole; in favor of a little bit of abstraction over > the hyper-perfect rendition. You are practical: you want the best tool > available, and these certainly are the best and I wouldn't argue that for a > second. I love sharpness in a photograph; but I'm accustomed to b&w film > mainly... And as I noted, when taking a wider view these lenses to me eye > are at their very best. But to see a street scene in color produced by an > M9 > (or any other really top rate digital camera) in combination with an ASPH > lens is to see a photograph that is now working outside its seemingly > intended genre. Part of photography's magic for me has always resided in > its seeing as we see, only a little better, or I should say, smarter, which > is to say, with a frame; and permanently instead of passingly. But the way > these lenses see the world is no longer evocative of how we see it and so > the technology borders on the sentimental, if misapplied (broadly put, not > how things are but how we wish them to be, in this case, perfectly outlined > and detailed); which is why I said 'pornographic', for pornography is > usually a vulgar sentimentalizing of the purely visual in the erotic. > > I'm sorry to anser at such length but answering is my way of thinking. > > V > You think too much. -- Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com http://sonc.stumbleupon.com/ Natchitoches, Louisiana (+31.754164,-093.099080) USA