Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]That's what all my Italian relatives tell me; they don't get my Irish side. On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Sonny Carter <sonc.hegr at gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >