Re: [Leica] sharpness & optical quality

["Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>]

Larry-
Point well taken, and I say that because the same photo has given me pause
as well... usually I end up kicking myself, and saying, "Now why the hell
can't I get a shot like that!?"
I do feel that for some of us more mundane shooters- like myself, we need
ALL the help we can get. JUst yesterday, I was printing some test shots
taken with a 50mm Summarit-M inside a dimly lit restaurant. I know that at
1/30 of a second at f1,5 that it was as sharp as it would have been handheld
with the Summilux, but my friend Bob, who was there, commented on the
'bokeh' of the people in the background. They weren't shapelss blobs, or
angular shadows, but smoothly rendered out of focus, beautiful soft edges,
and that seemed to blend into a chiarascuro rather that be a mosaic of
clashing lights and darks.
I sometimes wonder why I keep the Summilux- it is an outstanding lens, to be
sure, but for my style, the Summarit, and HP5 in the PMK seems so natural
that I immediately felt 'at home'!
Then again, that's probably why I carry the 1939 IIIa and Elmar around as my
'tote camera'! I'm a retro kinda guy. I fault no one on their choice of
equipment- if it suits their way of seeing the world, than I am all for it!
Ithink that Ted illustrates that with his Friday For Sales! If he doesn't
use it, he sells it, and gets what the next job demands! I don't think we
can all be like the guy, Norm Abrams, on the TV woodworking show- we can't
have every tool that Porter, Makita, and Craftsman makes- like he does- but
picking the right tool for your vision, AND being able to use it to build
the image you want is what seperates the true artists from the wannabees!
 That is a tip o' th' hat to you, Ted, and Tina too!- and anyone who depends
on their vision and work to put beans on the table.)
Regardless, the refugee photo, uncropped in several books, is a really
decent image, and has its own 'bokeh'. The Nikkor 105 is a really
outstanding lens- it may not benchmark like a Leitz lens, but it is no
slouch, and the way it was used was very effective. Luck? I don't know, but
my hat's off to him anyway!
Dan ( Have Leica, will schlepp) Post
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Kopitnik" <kopitnil@marketingcomm.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 12:58 PM
Subject: [Leica] sharpness & optical quality


> >>>>>>>>>>
> Now bokeh, which is just a new word for the older concept of
> 'rendition of unsharpness areas' is a very imprecise notion and is
> based on perception and personal judgment and appreciation. The
> sharpness impression is also imprecise and based on perception etc.
> <<<<<<<<<<
>
> Well, so is like or dislike of the resulting photograph. Which makes
> the concepts of "bokeh" and "sharpness" relevant to the evaluation of
> the photograph a lens produces. They may or may not be rigorously
> defined concepts used or not used in the current optical design
> theory. Of that, I could not care less. What I care about is the
> quality and aestheic appreciation of the photograph that I get when I
> use a particular lens on a particular camera body with a particular
> film in a particular kind of light. And in that photograph, the
> perception of sharpness, of tonal gradations, of the quality of
> unsharp areas, along with artistic composition, all combine to
> generate a reaction that it the photo a good photograph or a poor
> photograph or a photograph which elicits an indifference. And for me,
> nothing in photography takes precedence over that.
>
> Case in point: The National Geographic photo of an Afghan refugee
> girl, staring out with haunting green eyes, was taken with a Nikon FE
> and 105 mm f/2.5 Nikkor lens. It's an image as memorable and as
> perfect as any ever burned into my mind. Every time I see it
> reprinted, it stops me for a prolonged look. Would that 105 f/2.5
> Nikkor test as well as a 90 mm APO ASPH? I seriously doubt it. Would
> that image be any better -- better as in evoking a more impassioned
> reaction, or being more greatly appreciated -- if taken today with a
> 90 mm APO ASPH, a lens no doubt designed to the best of current
> optical theory? Not that I can conceive.
>
> I suppose, as someone trained as an artist, I place the value of
> aestheic response over scientific theory. In evaluation of
> photography and art, that is a valid approach.
>
> Larry