Re: [Leica] Bokeh vs. Nukeh

[Krechtz@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/29/00 10:23:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
apbbeijing@yahoo.com writes:

<< Do you regret exploring the potential of all these lenses? Sounds like a
 rewarding creative enterprise if it leads to the results you are after. >>

    No regrets, except that I can't seem to part with some of the lenses, 
although I do not regularly use them.  Some have redeeming qualities that are 
hard to dismiss.  On second thought, I do regret having dumped certain lenses 
along the way.  
    I agree with your overall assessment of Erwin's approach.  It is 
consistent with his ethic.  I also question whether there is anything to be 
gained in attempting to analyze or predict bokeh scientifically.  Knowledge 
of one's own photographic tools is the key, and I agree that the process of 
acquiring that understanding can be a rigorous one.  Go back and read the 
oldest "how to" texts on photography.  They pretty consistently make this 
point.  
    As for myself, my main concern is to eliminate visual detritus from my 
work, one way or another, not to become an afficianado of bokeh.  I also want 
the balance and contrast between areas in and out of focus to be a component 
of my work.
    If you will permit me to draw an analogy, I would submit that the most 
efficient model for the catching of fish would resemble something like the 
Russian fishing fleet.  In this context, there is no conceivable rationale 
for the continuing existence of sport fishing or fly fishing.  Arguably, even 
the independent commercial fishermen operating off the coasts of North 
America should simply give up the struggle for survival, using their 
obsolescent methods and tiny craft.  
    I believe that most of us as photographers are neither commercial 
fishermen nor fly fishermen in our approach to photography in general,  nor 
any particular technique or facet specifically.  There is essentially a 
continuum, and each photographer occupies a point or space somewhere on it.  
    As for me, I am not a fly fisherman, at least with respect to the bokeh 
question, but I cannot help admiring the dedication of those who may be.  
Under any circumstances, their right to pursue their own ends, enjoy their 
pursuits and share their insights with the rest of the photographic world 
must be respected.  
    They have already made a significant contribution in merely helping many 
photographers to understand what had previously been only a vague, gnawing 
uneasiness about the appearance of their own work, resulting from "bad" 
bokeh.  
We need to be pragmatic.  If we can eliminate such photographic malaise 
simply by using different lenses, then we should by all means change lenses.  
In this process, the empirical predominates over the hypothetical or 
analytical.  
    In theory, my Hexar had the potential, at least according to the 
published report, to mimic the reproduction of a Leitz lens.  In practice, it 
did not.  Call me a troglodyte if you wish, but I really did not need to know 
why in order to remedy the problem or, for that matter, to sleep at night.  
    I sold the camera and moved on.  Lens bad - sell lens - get good lens - 
take pretty picture - be happy.  That's all the formula I needed.  If it 
looks good, it is good!  By the way, I have since developed my private 
understanding as to how MTF curves can indicate bad bokeh.  But that, as they 
say, is a whole 'nother story.

Joe Sobel