[Leica] No bokeh, no stupeh

[John McLeod <johnmcleod@worldnet.att.net>]

Alan,

Folks on the list thought you were kidding with your original post, so we
(including myself) joked back in an (admittedly strong) teasing manner. 
Don't take it seriously.  We have all been "attacked" at one time or the
other on this list.  The fact is you have a point of view, and an
interesting one at that.  Most may not agree with you on this point
possibly, but that's ok, right?  Let's hear more.

I can't remember your original post, but if I recall correctly, you talked
about how these "no bokeh" photos can make for some interesting long-term
viewing.  I cannot argue with this really, though I certainly would not lump
everything that is not sharp into the category of uninteresting (it's
probably not what you like that motivated the responses, by the way; it's
what you don't like).

I think of two general categories of photography that meet your criteria,
but the two are quite different.  First might be photographs similar to
those by Gary Winogrand or Lee Friedlander.  Especially with Winogrand,
there can be this controlled chaos, where everything is sharp and the
subject is clearly rendered and identified, but there are unsettling, often
humorous, elements in the also-sharp background or foreground.  This kind of
stuff was shot with a Leica, often on the fly. The second group of all-sharp
photos might include very studied landscapes or still lifes, where much care
was taken in set-up, composition, etc.  Which of these (or other) groups of
photographs most appeal to you?

John McLeod
- ----------
From: "Alan Hull" <hull@vaggeryd.mail.telia.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Subject: Re: [Leica] Mike's Ten Books(2)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:37:16 +0200


I repeat my opinion that when a photographer throws the background out of
focus to emphasis the main subject he is guilty of LAZY technique.  A
photographer that cares about the final image will search for diagonals and
lines and light and shade and many other devices to get his message across.
 To simply point the camera and rack the lens is LAZY.

I am not 80 years to late for the f64 club.  Ansel Adams and his group was
80 years too early because the  technical quality of the film then
available forced a very slow shutter speed for the DOF they sought.  It was
not even fast enough to freeze the moving clouds or the wind in the trees
or moving water.  But at least they tried.  The experiment failed for
technical reasons not for aesthetic.

The comment that the eye doesn't work that way so why should pictures, is
correct, however the eye has a brain behind it and signals the eye to
adjust focus until a mental image of the whole scene is gathered.  A good
picture allows the viewer to do the same.  I don't live in a 1/125 sec
world.

Maybe your right, I don't belong in this group.  One thing is certain I
will not risk the personal attack and ridicule again.   So this will be my
last posting to you and with my last "stupeh"  i will bid you goodbye.  It
was good to know you.

Alan Hull