Re: Vs: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens.. .

[gfen]

On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Raimo Korhonen wrote:
> And I still have a suspicion that the Pentax limiteds may be made by Cosina.

Interesting. I presumed Ashahi had its own lens plant...

In a situation like the above, who does what?
Who designs the actual optical charactoristics of teh lens?
Who builds the prototypes? The regular line?
Who quality controls, and where does the coating come in?

IE, is it the design and prototype would be done by Pentax, or Leitz, or
whomever, then given to Cosina/Sigma/etc for mass production? Does it go
back to the mother company to have coatings applied, or do Cosina have
their own machines do it to the Pentax spec?

-g.


-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Vs: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens .. .

[Raimo Korhonen]

FWIIW Sigma has produced 28-70 mm lenses for Leica. So they are not the Asian Zeiss 
(Kyocera is) but they can do a good job if they want to. And the workmanship of the EX 
line (like the 105 Macro I have) is really very good indeed. And nobody knows what 
they have made for other brands.
And I still have a suspicion that the Pentax limiteds may be made by Cosina.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: gfen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 12. marraskuuta 2002 14:26
Aihe: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens .. .


>On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Alan Chan wrote:
>> Perhaps you don't understand the Japanese industry too well (no ofference
>
>I barely understand my own industry at all, now I'm expected to learn
>world economics... Geez, you camera guys are too much... :)
>
>> btw). Cosina brand products are, well... as you know. But the factory Cosina
>> actually manufacture many great products, they just don't stamp them
>> "Cosina". All the latest Voightlanders products were made by Cosina and they
>
>I'm just baffled that Cosina, who seems to have a reputation to have all
>the quality control of Kiev, would also be known for turning out top of
>the line lenses, as well.
>
>I guess I just don't really have a good enough feeling for how lopsided a
>company can even be inside. For instance, Sigma, who isn't exactly highly
>reknowned as an Asian Zeiss also produces Quantaray lenses for Ritz. I
>know that Sigma isn't as widely trashed as Quantaray is, but I was never
>aware of just how many differing levels of quality could come from one
>company.
>
>

Vs: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens.. .

[Raimo Korhonen]

Yes, it is. Definitely.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: gfen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 11. marraskuuta 2002 22:54
Aihe: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens.. .


>On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, frank theriault wrote:
>> AFAIK, Cosina bought the rights to the name Voigtlander.  All things
>> Voigtlander are now designed and manufactured in the Mystic East.
>
>Is it too much to ask that Vivitar buys Leitz just so I can hear the
>collective howl of a million leicaphiles?
>
>

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .

[Rob Studdert]

On 11 Nov 2002 at 17:08, gfen wrote:

> Is it too much to ask that Vivitar buys Leitz just so I can hear the
> collective howl of a million leicaphiles?

It's Leica Camera AG now, there was a little yelp when the French Hermes 
International bought a great chunk a year or so back.

http://www.leica-camera.com/unternehmen/presse/data/01907/index_e.html
"Not for distribution in the United States of America, Canada, Australia or 
Japan." :-)

The current boss of Cosina has apparently taken a very personal interest in the 
Voigtlander name and product range development and photographers feedback. He 
has allowed a lot of development and production to occur that a less involved 
boss may not have, fortunately it's all been of great benefit to the company. 
Great foresight, not like Pentax.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

Vs: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .

[Raimo Korhonen]

Because they are not made the same way - Cosina lenses are cheap, Voigtländer lenses 
are expensive, although cheaper than Leica glass.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: gfen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 11. marraskuuta 2002 16:06
Aihe: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .


>

>I thought the new Voightlanders were respected cameras and quality lenses?
>If this is the case, then why-oh-why can't all Cosina lenses be as respected?
>
>

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .

[gfen]

On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Rob Studdert wrote:
> > Cosina makes Voightlander?
> Sure do and they've done so since 1997 see:

Is this the same hated and reviled Cosina that's muttered in the same
breath as Vivitar and Phoenix?

I thought the new Voightlanders were respected cameras and quality lenses?
If this is the case, then why-oh-why can't all Cosina lenses be as
respected?



-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .

[gfen]

On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Would this be an example of bad bokeh? Or would it be called something else?

It would be, to me.

Although, again, like the only example shot I've posted, this is also shot
through a tree where all those spaces between the leaves are forming the
highlights..

I've just been yelled at that I've got to go, so perhaps I'll take this up
later, only another 200 messages to go through..

(glad to know I started this bokeh conversation, bwahaha)

-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .

[gfen]

On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Paul Jones wrote:
> Also even though a lense has good bokeh, it doesnt mean it can make a harsh
> background look good,  shoot a lense wide open into a heavily back lit tree
> with light popping through and i doubt any lense will make the bokeh look
> really nice.

-cough- And nwo the conversation has come full circle.. :)

-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .

[gfen]

Worry less about the word "bokeh," and the endless arguments about it, and
instead go as you wanted to, to a local univeristy or museum or whatever,
and LOOK at the pictures...

You'll see that some of them inevitably have a smoother, nicer look to
their out of focus areas.. Some of them do not. This is easy enough to
see, notice, and enjoy.. its not so easy to define.

Is it not a big part of the picture? Perhaps to you its not, but it is to
me.. its essential to me. I thrive on minimal depth of field, I crave it,
and without, most of my pictures would suffer, as the way I take a
picture, I like to take one single element, and stand it out against
everything else.

Perhaps its not important to you, it is to me. As such, bokeh, as
irritatring a concept as it may be, is of prime importance. Its only now
that I'm becoming aware of it as a potential shortcoming in the lenses,
and unfortuantly for me (and myt wallet), I can't dismiss it so easily as
you do.

Different strokes for different folks.


-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Herb Chong]

Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>What an awesome rose photo.  I loved the pink rosebud, but this one
totally
blew me away.  I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera. 
Now
I really want one.  I know this is not on the original topic, but if you
wanted a print made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20?

Kathy L.<

this is taken with my 50mm 2.8 at around f5.6 or maybe 4.0. it definitely
could go to 12x18. http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/temp/01-08.jpg

this is taken with my Nikon Coolpix 5000. i am not sure i would do a 12x18
because i don't like the picture that much, but if i did, the hairs on the
willows would be a bit soft by comparison.
http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/temp/DSCN0567.jpg

Herb

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Herb Chong]

Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>What an awesome rose photo.  I loved the pink rosebud, but this one
totally
blew me away.  I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera. 
Now
I really want one.  I know this is not on the original topic, but if you
wanted a print made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20?

Kathy L.<

Rob shoots with an Olympus E10, a 4MP camera. it depends on how sharp you
want the image if you can go to 16x20. it will be a bit soft, but then
again, unless you have a good lens on your enlarger, a wet print could be a
bit soft too. with a 3.3 megapixel camera, i find that if i use the
softness as part of the effect, i can go to 12x18 pretty easily. with a 5
megapixel camera, it's still a bit soft at 12x18 compared to a well focused
film image, but again, that can be used for a positive effect.

Herb...

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Keith Whaley]

What camera, please?

keith whaley

Rob Studdert wrote:
> 
> On 10 Nov 2002 at 6:02, Kathy L wrote:
> 
> > What an awesome rose photo.  I loved the pink rosebud, but this one totally blew
> > me away.  I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera.  Now I really
> > want one.  I know this is not on the original topic, but if you wanted a print
> > made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20?
> 
> Hi Kathy,
> 
> Well I'm glad that you liked them, I have quite a stash, I find that I'm far
> more productive using digital equipment. WRT quality I'd be happy to send you a
> full resolution pic for your viewing/printing pleasure (over 3MB), I'm sure
> that you'd be pretty happy with a 16x20 :-)
> 
> I just put a couple more up:
> 
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA022182n.JPG
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012167m.JPG
> 
> They won't be there for long though.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Rob Studdert]

On 10 Nov 2002 at 6:02, Kathy L wrote:

> What an awesome rose photo.  I loved the pink rosebud, but this one totally blew
> me away.  I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera.  Now I really
> want one.  I know this is not on the original topic, but if you wanted a print
> made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20?

Hi Kathy,

Well I'm glad that you liked them, I have quite a stash, I find that I'm far 
more productive using digital equipment. WRT quality I'd be happy to send you a 
full resolution pic for your viewing/printing pleasure (over 3MB), I'm sure 
that you'd be pretty happy with a 16x20 :-)

I just put a couple more up:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA022182n.JPG
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012167m.JPG

They won't be there for long though.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Kathy L]

What an awesome rose photo.  I loved the pink rosebud, but this one totally
blew me away.  I would never have guessed it was from a digital camera.  Now
I really want one.  I know this is not on the original topic, but if you
wanted a print made, do you think you could get a decent 16 x 20?

Kathy L.
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens .
. .


> On 9 Nov 2002 at 21:50, frank theriault wrote:
>
> > Hi, Rob,
> >
> > Wow, I love that shot!  What lens was it taken with, and (if you know),
what
> > exposure?
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> I'm sorry but it is pure evil, the work of the devil, I was captured with
my
> Oly E-10 (I still have no film scanner).
>
> The details are embedded in the pic:
>
> Exposure time: 1/640
> F-stop: 4.8
> ISO speed: 80
> Focal length: 36.
>
> The lens opens up to f2.4 at 36mm (~135mm equivalent) however the shutter
only
> goes to 1/640th and I don't have NDs. The nearside fill was accomplished
using
> a small reflector.
>
> Here is another and whist quite different it may give you an idea of the
> dynamic light capture range.
>
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/P9302137m.JPG
>
> Exposure time: 1/640
> F-stop: 4.8
> ISO speed: 80
> Focal length: 29.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
>
>

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Paul Jones]

> >See: http://www.shinozuka-family.com/200110autumnlux2/kittyleaves4.jpg
> >http://www.shinozuka-family.com/200110autumnlux2/tedkitleaves2.jpg
>
> Urr... I am feeling a bit dizzy... I like the 1st photo though.

Its sort of nauseating :) but i'd still like to own one.

There's some great shots on that site if you wade through it, i'm usually
not into looking at shots of people kids, but i looked through 95% of this
page.

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Paul Jones]

> Smooth "bokeh" can however make a background less obtrusive when there is
> little other option but to include it in the shot see:
>
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012164m.JPG
>

True, i ment that, but didnt make myself  clear :)

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Dan Scott]

On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 08:52  PM, Dan Scott wrote:




Those are the very photos. Like I said, "Rod Studdert posted a 
link..."

Dan Scott




Crap!

Sorry Rob.

Dan Scott

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Dan Scott]

On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 09:33  PM, frank theriault wrote:


O, Rob,

You are indeed Satan himself, aren't you?  

Well, whatever, they are both lovely shots.  I can't deny it, they 
rock!

So tell me, did you do this on purpose?  Post some digital captures, 
and wait for
us dyed-in-the-wool film guys to drool?  If so, it worked!  

Seriously, good work.

cheers,
frank


Frank, don't ask to see his 'beaters'. You'll cry.

Dan Scott

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[frank theriault]

O, Rob,

You are indeed Satan himself, aren't you?  

Well, whatever, they are both lovely shots.  I can't deny it, they rock!

So tell me, did you do this on purpose?  Post some digital captures, and wait for
us dyed-in-the-wool film guys to drool?  If so, it worked!  

Seriously, good work.

cheers,
frank

Rob Studdert wrote:

> Hi Frank,
>
> I'm sorry but it is pure evil, the work of the devil, I was captured with my
> Oly E-10 (I still have no film scanner).
>
> The details are embedded in the pic:
>
> Exposure time: 1/640
> F-stop: 4.8
> ISO speed: 80
> Focal length: 36.
>
> The lens opens up to f2.4 at 36mm (~135mm equivalent) however the shutter only
> goes to 1/640th and I don't have NDs. The nearside fill was accomplished using
> a small reflector.
>
> Here is another and whist quite different it may give you an idea of the
> dynamic light capture range.
>
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/P9302137m.JPG
>
> Exposure time: 1/640
> F-stop: 4.8
> ISO speed: 80
> Focal length: 29.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

--
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears
it is true." -J. Robert
Oppenheimer

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[William Johnson]

Yep, I had a Vivitar 70-210/4.5 that did the same thing at the longer focal lengths. 
It was my first experience with "bokeh", though the term was unknown 15 years 
agoIn 
fact, I didn't really understand the specifics at the time, but that was the beginning 
of when I would choose lenses based on how the "total" image looked, including the out 
of focus areas.

William in Utah.

11/9/2002 6:01:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>Would this be an example of bad bokeh? Or would it be called something else? 
>
>That circular swirling motion/pattern in the background around the subject. It 
>happens everytime I use my cheap Vivitar 80-200 zoom set at 200mm. I haven't noticed 
>it at 
80mm and I haven't really tested it at other focal lengths.
>
>http://members.aol.com/doepage2/pigeon.jpg
>
>I find it distinctly weird and I don't like it.
>
>But maybe it's called something else.
>
>Doe aka Marnie Parker ;-)
>
>
>

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Rob Studdert]

On 9 Nov 2002 at 22:00, Fred wrote:

> > Smooth "bokeh" can however make a background less obtrusive when
> > there is little other option but to include it in the shot see:
> 
> > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012164m.JPG
> 
> What was the lens used for that photo, Rob?

Hi Fred,

You'll probably see my answer to Frank before this but I'll just add that I 
believe that Bokeh was a criterion in the design of the Oly E-10 zoom (which is 
what it was shot with), its barrel distortion and chromatic aberrations aren't 
great though.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Rob Studdert]

On 9 Nov 2002 at 21:50, frank theriault wrote:

> Hi, Rob,
> 
> Wow, I love that shot!  What lens was it taken with, and (if you know), what
> exposure?

Hi Frank,

I'm sorry but it is pure evil, the work of the devil, I was captured with my 
Oly E-10 (I still have no film scanner). 

The details are embedded in the pic:

Exposure time: 1/640
F-stop: 4.8
ISO speed: 80
Focal length: 36.

The lens opens up to f2.4 at 36mm (~135mm equivalent) however the shutter only 
goes to 1/640th and I don't have NDs. The nearside fill was accomplished using 
a small reflector.

Here is another and whist quite different it may give you an idea of the 
dynamic light capture range.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/P9302137m.JPG

Exposure time: 1/640
F-stop: 4.8
ISO speed: 80
Focal length: 29.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Fred]

> Smooth "bokeh" can however make a background less obtrusive when
> there is little other option but to include it in the shot see:

> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012164m.JPG

What was the lens used for that photo, Rob?

Fred

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Dan Scott]

On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 09:30  PM, Rob Studdert wrote:



T'was me, the images were captured with a Leica-M Noctilux 50/1 and 
from what I
have read the distortion is mainly a function of spherical distortions.

See: http://www.shinozuka-family.com/200110autumnlux2/kittyleaves4.jpg
http://www.shinozuka-family.com/200110autumnlux2/tedkitleaves2.jpg

Cheers,

Rob Studdert


Those are the very photos. Like I said, "Rod Studdert posted a 
link..."

Dan Scott

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[frank theriault]

Hi, Rob,

Wow, I love that shot!  What lens was it taken with, and (if you know), what exposure?

thanks,
frank

Rob Studdert wrote:

> On 10 Nov 2002 at 11:52, Paul Jones wrote:
>
> > Also even though a lense has good bokeh, it doesnt mean it can make a harsh
> > background look good,  shoot a lense wide open into a heavily back lit tree with
> > light popping through and i doubt any lense will make the bokeh look really
> > nice.
>
> Smooth "bokeh" can however make a background less obtrusive when there is
> little other option but to include it in the shot see:
>
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/PA012164m.JPG
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

--
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it
is true." -J. Robert
Oppenheimer

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[frank theriault]

Hi, Len,

Cosina-Voigtlander.  Or Curriculum Vitae.  But since this is usually a
photography related forum, I'm guessing the former.  

-frank

Len Paris wrote:

> This is the second time in as many days that I've seen "CV" here.  Once
> it had to do with a stupid thief and now it's a lens. I must have missed
> something in my life because I don't know what a "CV" is.  Please,
> someone, enlighten me.
>
> Len
> ---
>
> > heres a bokeh shot, wether its good or bad is up to the
> > viewer, from a CV 75mm lense on a Leica.
> > http://www.nrg666.com/bokeh.jpg
> >
> > Regards,
> > Paul

--
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert
Oppenheimer

RE: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Len Paris]

This is the second time in as many days that I've seen "CV" here.  Once
it had to do with a stupid thief and now it's a lens. I must have missed
something in my life because I don't know what a "CV" is.  Please,
someone, enlighten me.

Len
---

> heres a bokeh shot, wether its good or bad is up to the 
> viewer, from a CV 75mm lense on a Leica. 
> http://www.nrg666.com/bokeh.jpg
> 
> Regards,
> Paul

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[eactivist]

Would this be an example of bad bokeh? Or would it be called something else? 

That circular swirling motion/pattern in the background around the subject. It happens 
everytime I use my cheap Vivitar 80-200 zoom set at 200mm. I haven't noticed it at 
80mm and I haven't really tested it at other focal lengths.

http://members.aol.com/doepage2/pigeon.jpg

I find it distinctly weird and I don't like it.

But maybe it's called something else.

Doe aka Marnie Parker ;-)

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Paul Jones]

For me as a photographer i find bokeh to be a factor to consider when buying
or desciding to use a lense, because bad bokeh really bothers me! i also
like shooting portraits quite wide open. Nice smooth bokeh can add a whole
other element to a portrait, where as harsh bokeh can totally detract!

Also even though a lense has good bokeh, it doesnt mean it can make a harsh
background look good,  shoot a lense wide open into a heavily back lit tree
with light popping through and i doubt any lense will make the bokeh look
really nice.

If i was shooting landscapes at F8 or smaller then i really wouldn't care,
like for my 645 45/2.8 i have no idea what the bokehs like and dont really
care, because the chances of me using it in a situation where it was
distract from the shot are about nil.

heres a bokeh shot, wether its good or bad is up to the viewer, from a CV
75mm lense on a Leica.
http://www.nrg666.com/bokeh.jpg

Regards,
Paul



- Original Message -
From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens .
. .


> Eccellent, Rob. I was thinking about digging up Harold, but thought
> I'd let Pentaxguy do it himself. He's the grad student, not me! I'm
> done with my structured learning from Universities! 
>
> keith whaley
>
> Rob Studdert wrote:
> >
> > On 9 Nov 2002 at 15:53, Pentax Guy wrote:
> >
> > > These are all online resources which because of their nature, are
suspect, I
> > > wanted published works -- books, manuals, journals (that includes art
journals,
> > > which are generally not quantifiable)
> >
> > A well constructed article on "bokeh":
> >
> > http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf
> >
> > A Technical View of Bokeh by Harold M. Merklinger
> > as published in Photo Techniques, May/June 1997.
> >
> > Some credential references for Harold M. Merklinger
> >
> > http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/
> >
> > Technical Books on Photography by Harold M. Merklinger
> >
> > Enjoy,
> >
> > Rob Studdert
> > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> > Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> > UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
>

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Keith Whaley]

Eccellent, Rob. I was thinking about digging up Harold, but thought
I'd let Pentaxguy do it himself. He's the grad student, not me! I'm
done with my structured learning from Universities! 

keith whaley

Rob Studdert wrote:
> 
> On 9 Nov 2002 at 15:53, Pentax Guy wrote:
> 
> > These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect, I
> > wanted published works -- books, manuals, journals (that includes art journals,
> > which are generally not quantifiable)
> 
> A well constructed article on "bokeh":
> 
> http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf
> 
> A Technical View of Bokeh by Harold M. Merklinger
> as published in Photo Techniques, May/June 1997.
> 
> Some credential references for Harold M. Merklinger
> 
> http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/
> 
> Technical Books on Photography by Harold M. Merklinger
> 
> Enjoy,
> 
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Dan Scott]

On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 05:06  PM, Brad Dobo wrote:


Your words, not mine. ;-)  Yet they sayseeing is believing 

Indeed you haven't seen my documentation, but you need not go that far,
however, I may not be Brad Dobo at all but Pete DeCall.  Fooled ya! ;-)



Please, I've seen through you all along. Your real identity is Mojo 
Dobo, whose hero is Mojo Jojo, chief villain and fav punching bag on 
the "Power Puff Girls" series on Cartoon Network. Unable to get your 
own show in primetime, you've decided to work your way up in the sticks 
of the PDML.

Yep, Mojo Dobo, you're busted.

Dan Scott (I know that remote is around here somewhere...)

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Keith Whaley]

Pentax Guy wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens .
> . .
> 
> > Here's a paragraph from the web source Robert Soames Wetmore posted,
> > which is:
> >
> > http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v17/msg11841.html
> >
> > Mike Johnston is speaking here:
> >
> > "In 1997 I helped introduce a new term into the lexicon of North American
> > photographers: "bokeh," which was my own rendering of a katakana term
> > more properly romanized as _bo-ke_ or boke (a spelling which provoked a
> > hail of puns and jokes on a pronunciation that was totally incorrect).
> > It's the Japanese word meaning "blur," specifically the visual
> > properties of the way a lens renders out-of-focus areas in pictures.
> > _PHOTO Techniques_ presented three articles on the subject: "What is
> > 'Bokeh'?" By John Kennerdell, an American-born photographer based in
> > Bangkok; "Notes on the Terminology of Bokeh" by Oren Grad, an M.D. /
> > Ph.D. researcher at Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA; and "A Technical
> > View of Bokeh" by Harold Merklinger, who is Senior Scientist at the
> > Canadian Defense Establishment Atlantic in Halifax, N.S."
> >
> >
> > All these senior scientists' and researchers' emanations are probably
> > suspect too, because they were found "online," not so?
 
> Ah-Ha!  Keith, you didn't read through your red haze of anger.  

You assume I'm angry. Not so. Sometimes exasperated, but...

> You have produced evidence.  That is what I wanted!!!  

Of course it is! That's what I DO when I argue. Produce evidence, and
let the protagonist wallow around in new, exciting information!  ;^)

> I can go and pull up bios on
> these people, check credentials, read published material. 

Exactly so!
Sighhh. Don't you see, that was what I was HOPING you'd do?

> Of course, if I
> look into Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA and there is no record of Oren
> Grad being related there or anywhere and no record of his materials, then
> it's a fraud, happens all the time on the Internet.  I'm not saying what you
> just posted is.  But now I can use a better method to check it's
> authenticity and read more about him/her and their research.  And perhaps
> learn more about bokeh.See?

Of course! Do you? How wonderful!

Thanks!

keith

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Brad Dobo]

Your words, not mine. ;-)  Yet they sayseeing is believing 

Indeed you haven't seen my documentation, but you need not go that far,
however, I may not be Brad Dobo at all but Pete DeCall.  Fooled ya! ;-)

> Nonsense? Brad, you might as well say "because I have never seen 'X',
> 'X' does not exist. Therefore the speaking or writing of it is
> nonsense." Actually, I've never seen you documented in print...hmm...
>
>   ;-)
>
> Dan Scott.
>

Re[2]: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Bob Walkden]

Hi,

you seem to be mixing up several separate issues.

First of all, the word clearly exists, since we're all using it. The
different spellings are not important since they all clearly refer to
the same thing and can't be confused with something else (except
perhaps a bunch of flowers, but context should make the meaning
obvious). You couldn't use the word in the way you suggest (clouds,
sky) because the word refers very specifically to photographic out-of-focus
highlights.

Other people have admonished you gently for distrusting web-based
information solely on the grounds of the medium, and I agree with
them. This web-page http://www.web-options.com/paradox.html lends
support to their claim.

People do refer to the way painters handle out-of-focus highlights,
although they don't use the word bokeh because it is of very recent
origin (in English at least). One painter whose work is frequently
discussed in this way is Johannes Vermeer. I refer you to almost any book
which discusses his technique, but in particular to "Vermeer's Camera"
by Philip Steadman. I would post a link to Amazon, but as an online
reference it must be unreliable .

So clearly 'bokeh' the word exists, however it's spelt. The referent
- i.e. out of focus highlights - exists, not just in photography but
also in painting, and are discussed academically in at least one
hard-copy book written by an academic (Steadman is Professor of Urban
and Built Form Studies at University College, London, and an authority
on various art-related subjects). Differences in the quality of
out-of-focus highlights are visible even to the untrained eye, and
other people have provided some references which describe how to
quantify the differences. All that remains, as far as I can see, is
how much importance any person gives to it, and that is a matter of
taste.

---

 Bob  

> These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect, I
> wanted published works -- books, manuals, journals (that includes art
> journals, which are generally not quantifiable)

> 'Bokeh' is still not a term, or a word, at least one could argue.  When
> looking at out of focus areas we know (at least for now) that there is no
> quantifiable way of proving it or saying it is good or bad, etc.  We know
> out of focus areas look nice, or not so.  Is colourful is not, is this, is
> that.  We can do that with just about anything you can think of, 'Wow, that
> sky and cloud has some nice bokeh', and no one talks about or refers to
> 'bokeh' when looking at a painting where areas are painted in ways similar
> to out of focus areas on film.  That I know of.  That's why I'm looking for
> something real on 'bokeh'.  Also, there is considerable debate on the
> spelling of the word in question.  That muddies the water further.

> So, basically, as I see it, 'bokeh' does not exist.  Therefore the speaking
> of it or writing of it is nonsense.  But I still say, someone prove me
> wrong.  Give me hard proof (again, no math required), and I will start
> analysing the 'bokeh' of photographic prints.

> I do think it's nonsense.  But I'm also playing a Devil's Advocate role
> here.  Next time I'm up at the library, I'm going to give it a go, I hope
> some others do as well.  The results may be interesting, who knows?!

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Pentax Guy]

- Original Message -
From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens .
. .


> Here's a paragraph from the web source Robert Soames Wetmore posted,
> which is:
>
> http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v17/msg11841.html
>
> Mike Johnston is speaking here:
>
> "In 1997 I helped introduce a new term into the lexicon of North American
> photographers: "bokeh," which was my own rendering of a katakana term
> more properly romanized as _bo-ke_ or boke (a spelling which provoked a
> hail of puns and jokes on a pronunciation that was totally incorrect).
> It's the Japanese word meaning "blur," specifically the visual
> properties of the way a lens renders out-of-focus areas in pictures.
> _PHOTO Techniques_ presented three articles on the subject: "What is
> 'Bokeh'?" By John Kennerdell, an American-born photographer based in
> Bangkok; "Notes on the Terminology of Bokeh" by Oren Grad, an M.D. /
> Ph.D. researcher at Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA; and "A Technical
> View of Bokeh" by Harold Merklinger, who is Senior Scientist at the
> Canadian Defense Establishment Atlantic in Halifax, N.S."
>
>
> All these senior scientists' and researchers' emanations are probably
> suspect too, because they were found "online," not so?
>
> keith

Ah-Ha!  Keith, you didn't read through your red haze of anger.  You have
produced evidence.  That is what I wanted!!!  I can go and pull up bios on
these people, check credentials, read published material.  Of course, if I
look into Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA and there is no record of Oren
Grad being related there or anywhere and no record of his materials, then
it's a fraud, happens all the time on the Internet.  I'm not saying what you
just posted is.  But now I can use a better method to check it's
authenticity and read more about him/her and their research.  And perhaps
learn more about bokeh.See?

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Pentax Guy]

Oh no, another one of these.Instead of playing by the rules, and
actually proving something, another member chooses to argue and more so, put
down another member, a favourite pastime here.  I stopped reading after the
first paragraph as I knew the rest was..

'Bokeh' must be truly important to get such a long winded and opinionated
response.  For such a suble, minor, subjective thing, some of us are sure
getting upset.  I plan on visiting the art department at my local U, and
specifically photography and see what who ever is around has to say on the
subject.  When I don't know, but I'll let everyone know what happened,
anything from pulling out an article about it from saying 'Bokeh?  What was
that?  I didn't understand.'  From there perhaps I can look into the subject
in more depth, or get a feeling from someone highly educated in the field
thoughts on 'bokeh'.   Amateur hobbyist photographers serious or not, cannot
be of aid.  Emails saying bokeh is real, I like it.  Or it's meaningless
lingo referring to a blotch of many colours that form no shape.  Or, I found
in so and so, this  Are all perfectly fine.  Then we all know where we
stand on the issue.  If someone points out something of value, not some
hobbyist view or a online Shutterbug issue or a UK tabloid trash online mag.
I can then verify and learn and say, ya, bokeh is something.  I was wrong.
All I said was I think it's nothing.  No need for panty bunching...so, let's
keep it civil eh?

Bandwagon members are free to help defend the poor author of the email with
insults and demeaning comments.  We are unmoderated.  And I'm a favourite
target, but am hardened to such things by now.

Of course, you could impress me by saying nothing...and others that don't
want to see such muck slung all over and have to leave the list.  Then the
author and I can take this off-list for the benefit of all.

> Number one, it's obvious you've not done sufficient reading about what
> bokeh is, so all your current 'arguments' are specious.
> It does exist, you're just not adequately educated in the subject to
> be able discern it by yourself. You need training.
> The rest of your argument is merely supported by your lack of
> knowledge about it, so will not considered in this discussion.
>
> To say "These are all online resources which because of their nature,
> are suspect..." is a head in the sand attitude and is doing nothing
> but hindering the possibility of your _ever_ understanding it.
> The online sources are not "original works," you know. They most
> frequently draw from other hard copy sources.
> They're online siimply because it's a far faster and far more
> convenient way to access the information! Don't you (or "they")
> understand that concept?
> If you had an online copy of some highly respected, scientifically
> accepted text, would you still come up with, "Well, it's from an
> online source, and as such is not considered valid information."
> How about a bible? Any information found in the bible by way of having
> found it online, automatically makes it suspect?
>
> Sadly, I suspect you would.   Sig.
>
> You have to start thinking for yourself, instead of parroting all the
> illogical, uninformed and stilted rules and regulations that come out
> of acadamia...
>
> Enough of my rambling...
>
> keith whaley
>

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Dan Scott]

On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 02:53  PM, Pentax Guy wrote:


So, basically, as I see it, 'bokeh' does not exist.  Therefore the 
speaking
of it or writing of it is nonsense.  But I still say, someone prove me
wrong.  Give me hard proof (again, no math required), and I will start
analysing the 'bokeh' of photographic prints.


Nonsense? Brad, you might as well say "because I have never seen 'X', 
'X' does not exist. Therefore the speaking or writing of it is 
nonsense." Actually, I've never seen you documented in print...hmm...

 ;-)

Dan Scott.

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Keith Whaley]

Here's a paragraph from the web source Robert Soames Wetmore posted,
which is:

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v17/msg11841.html

Mike Johnston is speaking here:

"In 1997 I helped introduce a new term into the lexicon of North American
photographers: "bokeh," which was my own rendering of a katakana term
more properly romanized as _bo-ke_ or boke (a spelling which provoked a
hail of puns and jokes on a pronunciation that was totally incorrect).
It's the Japanese word meaning "blur," specifically the visual
properties of the way a lens renders out-of-focus areas in pictures.
_PHOTO Techniques_ presented three articles on the subject: "What is
'Bokeh'?" By John Kennerdell, an American-born photographer based in
Bangkok; "Notes on the Terminology of Bokeh" by Oren Grad, an M.D. /
Ph.D. researcher at Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA; and "A Technical
View of Bokeh" by Harold Merklinger, who is Senior Scientist at the
Canadian Defense Establishment Atlantic in Halifax, N.S."


All these senior scientists' and researchers' emanations are probably
suspect too, because they were found "online," not so?

keith

Keith Whaley wrote:
> 
> Pentax Guy wrote:
> 
> > keith whaley had written:
> >
> > > Look at this site:  
> > >
> > > There's another excellent explanation here:
> > > 
> > >
> > > Here's another:  
> 
> > These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect, I
> > wanted published works -- books, manuals, journals (that includes art
> > journals, which are generally not quantifiable)
> 
> Number one, it's obvious you've not done sufficient reading about what
> bokeh is, so all your current 'arguments' are specious.
> It does exist, you're just not adequately educated in the subject to
> be able discern it by yourself. You need training.
> The rest of your argument is merely supported by your lack of
> knowledge about it, so will not considered in this discussion.
> 
> To say "These are all online resources which because of their nature,
> are suspect..." is a head in the sand attitude and is doing nothing
> but hindering the possibility of your _ever_ understanding it.
> The online sources are not "original works," you know. They most
> frequently draw from other hard copy sources.
> They're online siimply because it's a far faster and far more
> convenient way to access the information! Don't you (or "they")
> understand that concept?
> If you had an online copy of some highly respected, scientifically
> accepted text, would you still come up with, "Well, it's from an
> online source, and as such is not considered valid information."
> How about a bible? Any information found in the bible by way of having
> found it online, automatically makes it suspect?
> 
> Sadly, I suspect you would.   Sig.
> 
> You have to start thinking for yourself, instead of parroting all the
> illogical, uninformed and stilted rules and regulations that come out
> of acadamia...
> 
> Enough of my rambling...
> 
> keith whaley

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .

[Keith Whaley]

Pentax Guy wrote:

> keith whaley had written:
> 
> > Look at this site:  
> >
> > There's another excellent explanation here:
> > 
> >
> > Here's another:  

> These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect, I
> wanted published works -- books, manuals, journals (that includes art
> journals, which are generally not quantifiable)

Number one, it's obvious you've not done sufficient reading about what
bokeh is, so all your current 'arguments' are specious.
It does exist, you're just not adequately educated in the subject to
be able discern it by yourself. You need training.
The rest of your argument is merely supported by your lack of
knowledge about it, so will not considered in this discussion.

To say "These are all online resources which because of their nature,
are suspect..." is a head in the sand attitude and is doing nothing
but hindering the possibility of your _ever_ understanding it.
The online sources are not "original works," you know. They most
frequently draw from other hard copy sources.
They're online siimply because it's a far faster and far more
convenient way to access the information! Don't you (or "they")
understand that concept?
If you had an online copy of some highly respected, scientifically
accepted text, would you still come up with, "Well, it's from an
online source, and as such is not considered valid information."
How about a bible? Any information found in the bible by way of having
found it online, automatically makes it suspect?

Sadly, I suspect you would.   Sig.

You have to start thinking for yourself, instead of parroting all the
illogical, uninformed and stilted rules and regulations that come out
of acadamia...

Enough of my rambling...

keith whaley

Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens. . .

[Ryan K. Brooks]

'Bokeh' is still not a term, or a word, at least one could argue.  When
looking at out of focus areas we know (at least for now) that there is no
quantifiable way of proving it or saying it is good or bad, etc.  We know


I don't know how to answer your question, but bad bokeh is certainly 
very real!

R