Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Bokeh - proven myth ?
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 01:28:18 -0500

> > It's not that 35/2 won't "provide" bokeh, but a 35/2 won't
> "provide" near
> > the bokeh that a 50/1.4 or 75/1.4 will...nor be as
> distinguishable, from my
> > experiences...
> >
> > Austin
> >
> Won't "provide bokeh"?

Hey, I didn't originate the word...that's why I ""'d it ;-)

> You mean you can't get an area out of focus with it?
> In my mind that is what that would have to mean.

Of course that's not what I meant.  Certainly "amount of OOF/bokeh" can vary
substantially, depending on, but not limited to, aperture, distance and
focal length.

> Bokeh does not have to mean WAAAY out of focus. It just means soft.

For different images, different amounts of OOF/bokeh work better IMO.
Typically, I either want very high bokeh, so everything in the background is
very OOF, or I don't care about the OOF rendering.

If I'm shooting a fire scene, I won't care about bokeh...but if I am
shooting a fireman's face, all sooty and teary...I may want the background
completely OOF so the image of his face is framed by the OOF region, and it
isn't distracting to the purpose of the image I have a vision of.  That's
just how I shoot, that doesn't make it right or wrong...but I believe using
bokeh to frame certain images is a very viable technique.  It also gives the
image a dimensional quality.

For example:

http://www.darkroom.com/Images/LABOWL02w.jpg


Regards and Happy New Year!

Austin

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca> (Re: [Leica] Bokeh - proven myth ?)