Re: [Leica] Bokeh vs. Nukeh

[Krechtz@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/28/00 10:15:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
jbcollier@home.com writes:

<< When I started in photography if I needed a lens of a certain
 focal length, I just bought one. Later I would find myself unconsciously
 avoiding certain lenses. It was not until I read that infamous Photo
 Techniques article that I finally understood why I loved my Leica 50 but
 seldom used my Nikon one. It is amazing how often I will not like a
 particular photo because of harsh out of focus areas.  >>

Pretty much my story.  It is a matter of preserving the harmony and balance 
of the photograph as a whole and minimizing harsh or distracting elements.  
Interestingly, as to the Johnston article, before reading it I had strongly 
considered buying the Hexar Classic for available light work, particularly 
for use in photographing string quartets and similar ensembles in 
performance.  The article's claim that the lens was an effective re-creation 
of the 1969 Summicron, with similar visual results, made up my mind.  
Sure enough, the lens mimicked the impression of overall lucidity, sharpness 
and definition.  However, every vertical line in photographs made at wide 
apertures had a tendency to appear as a double line.  A friend who at that 
time bought the same camera for the same reasons got similar results.  In 
every print, the double lines were obvious, unnatural-looking and 
distracting.  
We both sold the cameras.  I went with Leica.  I assume there are those who 
would say my decision was silly, but I simply did not like the way my work 
looked, and I was going to considerable trouble and expense to get the shots 
and produce the work, hopefully for publication.
Call it bo-keh, eye poison or chopped liver, for all anyone cares.  If it's 
visible in a photograph, for photographic purposes it is genuine.  All that 
remains is for each individual to place it in his or her own perspective.  
With Leica lenses, it is quite easy to say that bo-keh is either a marginal 
issue or no issue, because they do not exhibit negative qualities, as a rule. 
 However, they are still not all the same.  
Ideally, anyone who has a fairly clear idea as to how he would wish his or 
her photographs to look needs at least to consider the question of out of 
focus area reproduction.  If, however, the predominant concern is to meet the 
standards of an editor or the mythical "average viewer", then priorities can 
change dramatically.
Really, it is a matter involving a mixture of aesthetics, economics, 
practicality and other factors.  
I perceive a clear pattern emerging in this thread, highlighting the 
differences in priorities between professional photographers and others whom 
I take to have other "day jobs".  It is not necessary to denigrate an 
intellectual or aesthetic concept in order to recognize that different Leica 
users have diverging needs and place different demands on equipment, just as 
they have different demands placed on them by others.  
Frankly, if my livelihood depended on bringing home the required photographic 
images every day, you can bet I would make damn sure I shot first and asked 
questions later.  Stopping along the way to agonize over which lens to use 
for its aesthetic qualities would be simply out of the question.  However, 
choosing which one to buy, use and really get to know, that would be a matter 
of genuine if not critical importance.

Joe Sobel