On Sat, 01 Aug 1998 16:02:24 GMT, kopitnil@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>Fred and David, you are two of the writers to this group whose views I have
>come to respect the most. I will always stop to read the posts you make. But
>on this matter, with you both, to a certain extent I respectfully disagree.

Wha'! Is this possible?! ;-), ;-), ;-)

>The out-of-focus areas are a part of the photograph. Therefore, for better or
>for worse, they are a part of the composition and the nature of them impacts
>that composition.

I agree with this completely! I thought I had made that point in my post (and included references to photos that very much depended on
the quality of the [mostly...] out-of-focus areas - and which could
not have been made with "good"-bokeh lenses...). I strongly believe
that EVERYTHING within the frame of the photograph is important to
the image...

>The best example I can cite is the 50 mm f/1.4 Nikkor. It's a wonderfully
>sharp lens closed down a stop or two. Several photographers who have shot
>with the 50 Nikkor and 50 Leica Summiluxes (including Leica's new R system
>50) have told me the Nikkor is sharper than Leica's offerings. But the
>"bokeh" and tonal rendering of the 50 f/1.4 Nikkor have, to my my eye, ruined
>more than a few photos I've taken with it.
[...]
>(I've since sold the 50 Nikkor and replaced it with a 35 f/1.4 Nikkor as my
>mid- range fast lens. The 35, to me anyway, renders tonal ranges and "bokeh"
>far more pleasingly.)

Tastes differ as to what kind of rendering is desired.
I prefer hard-edged "snap", and contrasty rendering of textures
(including the out-of-focus ones - though I can appreciate a preference for smooth softening with defocus...).

>As David points out, those hard-edged out-of-focus elements can be used
>graphically. But I find sharp focussed areas contasting against smooth out-of-
>focus areas more often useful in a composition.

'Pends on wha' ya shoot...;-)

>I wouldn't argue that "bokeh" is more important than sharpness when
>evaluating a lens. But I do consider it important. Because "bad bokeh" can
>ruin a photo for me every bit as much as lack of sharpness.

I agree, but it can go either way depending on taste and the kind
of images one wants to make...