[Leica] Stupeh anti-bokeh

[Michael Johnston <70007.3477@compuserve.com>]

>>>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<<<

I do come across some unusual opinions in my work, but this is
extraordinary even in that context. A quick survey of the history of
photography, most peoples' contact sheets, or the pages of darned near any
newsstand magazine would leave very many pictures disqualified. Including
some very famous and indisputably great ones. I find Mr. Hull's opinion
very similar to saying, "all pictures which are not verticals are invalid,"
or "all pictures not made with infrared film are invalid." I.e., truly
arbitrary to the point of utter outrageousness!

But perhaps we should forgive this strong opinion anyway. I can sympathize
with the way people tend to feel strongly about certain technical issues. I
_do_ know people who truly like only infrared pictures (Gene Hollander); or
who are crazy about contact prints (Oren Grad); or who love toned images
(Eddie Ephraims); or who love motion blur (Ernst Haas); or who only like
photographs of nude women (Jeff Dunas); or who love gaudy saturated color
above all else (Pete Turner); or who must have shadow detail in their
prints (David Vestal); or who must let the shadow detail drop out into
strong, rich, unrelieved blacks (Brett Weston). Conversely, some people
hate infrared (actually, I confess I once wrote an article about technical
artefacts called "Why I hate Infrared"); David Jay, former editor of my
magazine, dislikes nudes intensely; John Szarkowski once peered sidewise at
my black-and-white prints to detect the presence of selenium, which he
evidently associates with pretentious artiness and preciousness, and which
he disparages. "_Forget_ about your damned ridiculous selenium toner," he
snarled dismissively, "that has _nothing_ to do with photography."

Personally--let's revisit the parent topic, however briefly--I love
full-frame enlargements of 35mm Tri-X, especially when shot with Leicas. I
do have a rather irrational love of this particular photographic treatment.

I think perhaps Mr. Hull expressed his opinion forcefully and not a little
obnoxiously (who he callin' stupeh?), but I can't really hold that against
a man. Weakness and wishy-washiness is worse, sez me. 

Again--I disagree with him, totally and completely, but I'm willing to
respect his position. I'd have to see what he manages to do with his idea
before I'd be willing to dismiss the idea.

- --Mike


P.S. on another topic:
Jeff S.>>>[Ansel] Adams' genius was in manipulating the medium to invoke a
desired ("previsualized") emotional response, but in a way which owned
nothing to the traditions of the past<<<

Sorry to say so, Jeff, but this is mistaken. Adams owed everything to the
19th century landscape photographers of the West--Jackson, Muybridge,
Carleton Watkins, etc. A major critic once called him "The apotheosis of
the 19th century landscape tradition." He may have been rebelling against
pictorialism, but that doesn't mean his work owed nothing to the past. Hie
thee to a history of photography text!