Summilux what for?

[skuromis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lastly why does everyone only quote the DOF of a 1.4 lens at minimum focus distance? At 10 meters there's plenty of DOF for a group shot with a nice softeneing of the unimportant or distracting background.

I think the point was that a narrow DOF is widely misused or overused. I've seen loads of pictures with a narrow DOF, which look really great, also because of the wide open aperture. On the other hand, I've seen 10 times more pictures, where it was simply used to create a background soup as the main attraction of the picture. E.g. only one eye of a the model was crisp and clear, while the rest already started to blur...

[paulsydaus]

My two cents on this are as follows. Less is more. Thoughtful and appropriate use of "bokeh" removes unnecessary detail from an image therefore making it stronger. In these scenarios I generally find that images shot wide tend, on average, to be better than those shot stopped down. That's the trend I find with my photos. However obviously there is no one rule to apply to everything. The majority of Leica users probably do shoot wide often more often than stopped down. Otherwise why bother buying Leica's glass in the first place?

[Guest Marc G.]

My two cents on this are as follows. Less is more. Thoughtful and appropriate use of "bokeh" removes unnecessary detail from an image therefore making it stronger. In these scenarios I generally find that images shot wide tend, on average, to be better than those shot stopped down. That's the trend I find with my photos. However obviously there is no one rule to apply to everything. The majority of Leica users probably do shoot wide often more often than stopped down. Otherwise why bother buying Leica's glass in the first place?

 

But you shouldn't act like the glass dictates you to shoot it wide open and from the writing of some people in this forum I think this is the case. It's good that Leica produces such high performance lenses but why not stop down more often if needed? A tool shouldn't tell you how it should be used.

[paulsydaus]

But you shouldn't act like the glass dictates you to shoot it wide open and from the writing of some people in this forum I think this is the case. It's good that Leica produces such high performance lenses but why not stop down more often if needed? A tool shouldn't tell you how it should be used.

 

I don't think I said that...?

[Guest Marc G.]

I don't think I said that...?

 

sorry.. to clarify: it was intended as an addition, not to correct you

[Gerard]

To surmise, if I may:

 

Summilux what for?

 

Because, for those who can afford them, they really are rather good. The current crop are beautifully made and, offering class leading performance whether stopped down or wide open, they are highly flexible tools that offer no limit to creativity.

 

Leica also produce a number of other lens ranges. Some are cheaper, some more expensive. All, in the right hands, are capable of producing fabulous images.

 

What a wonderful world we live in.

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Bokeh is a relatively new term but it has little to do with what amateurs might talk about it in the sense of. It's a quality and an aesthetic characteristic.

 

However, selective use of depth of field and depth of field control have been around since there were apertures on lenses.

 

It's only really been the last 50 or so years that it has been gaining popularity and acceptance as an aesthetic though. In terms of the so called greats as people are here talking about them, they had different ideas about photography and sharpness front to back came as a result of photography turning it's back on, and differentiating itself from painting to legitimise itself as an art form back in the the early 1900's and was an aesthetic mainly pushed by Alfred Stieglitz, who at the time was a big hitter in the movement of photography. Ansel Adams was one of his protege who later founded the f64 movement which carried it further.

 

So in historical terms the aesthetic had a reason and was part of it's artistic statement. How about today though? It's not just about representing reality. It's about representing thought and expression and finding new ways of talking and saying new things and does not need to fit within a well held box that has been around for an age.

[CalArts 99]

How about today though? It's not just about representing reality. It's about representing thought and expression and finding new ways of talking and saying new things and does not need to fit within a well held box that has been around for an age.

 

Although it's not a "new way of talking." It's already become heavily coded and is a signifier in itself representing a signified concept (it is a sign.) And that sign is: 'short DOF = arty.' Just like the heavily coded images of the f/64 group (deep DOF and high resolution from large film), or the B+W "street" ('street' is another 'new' term for an old phenomenon) photography of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Current "street" photographers are emulating those images and utilizing the signs that make them 'street photographs.' One can easily recognize the codes (signs) of a 'street' photograph. (B+W images are heavily coded because they are in B+W; i.e., a B+W photograph itself has a specific social context.)

 

One should understand that images develop signs that make them to be read in a particular way. These codes are developed social codes that are learned. They can sometimes change in meaning but they are the way we read and interpret things we see. The 'bokeh sign' is just one example. It has meaning now all by itself. It is a sign that signifies the image as being 'arty.' Whether one agrees that 'bokeh' is 'arty' or not, that is what it means in a current social context.

 

This is basic semiotics that is the foundation of all images and how we read (view) those images. Images are heavily coded not only in content but in style and execution.

[IkarusJohn]

I suspect the popularity of fast glass (Summiluxes in particular) is also a reflection of improved quality.

 

After sticking a piece of plaster on the back of my first camera with f stop guides, my father told me to try to take my pictures stopped down as the glass is best in the middle. Wider apertures revealed flaws in the glass.

 

These days, one stop down from wide seems to be pretty close to the best the lens has to offer. I tend to use f4 a lot.

[Paul J]

Although it's not a "new way of talking." It's already become heavily coded and is a signifier in itself representing a signified concept (it is a sign.) And that sign is: 'short DOF = arty.' Just like the heavily coded images of the f/64 group (deep DOF and high resolution from large film), or the B+W "street" ('street' is another 'new' term for an old phenomenon) photography of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Current "street" photographers are emulating those images and utilizing the signs that make them 'street photographs.' One can easily recognize the codes (signs) of a 'street' photograph. (B+W images are heavily coded because they are in B+W; i.e., a B+W photograph itself has a specific social context.)

 

One should understand that images develop signs that make them to be read in a particular way. These codes are developed social codes that are learned. They can sometimes change in meaning but they are the way we read and interpret things we see. The 'bokeh sign' is just one example. It has meaning now all by itself. It is a sign that signifies the image as being 'arty.' Whether one agrees that 'bokeh' is 'arty' or not, that is what it means in a current social context.

 

This is basic semiotics that is the foundation of all images and how we read (view) those images. Images are heavily coded not only in content but in style and execution.

 

In the bigger picture of photography, it is a relatively new way of speaking since it's only the last 20 years it has been widely accepted and proliferated to the point of it now being a cliche. I would actually say, on a personal level, it has only been the last decade or less that clients can look past at image that "isn't focussed properly", see a soft, shallow DOF, or motion blurred picture as an acceptable, intentional and valid form of communication. It was an old school ideal that a photographers job was to get things in focus and it is still largely with us today.

 

I actually said earlier in the thread that I thought wide open shooting imposes something on a photo that isn't always appropriate, yet at the same I think those codes you speak of only mean something if the art doesn't. I like to speak of it terms of a visual language. You choose your words appropriate to the conversation.

 

I believe that stopped down is simply more natural to the eye and easier to understand. It doesn't challenge the viewer when they want to look at something other than what the photographers wants the viewer to see. Also because society puts art in a box and it needs to look like it has in history, shot by "the greats", to be accepted by the lowest common denominator. That, to me, doesn't make it any more relevant, to the point that shooting wide open should be avoided. I just think it should be avoided if it has no purpose and is just being done for the sake of it.

 

Of corse once something is accepted, however, a band wagon starts and it quickly becomes a cliche as people try it out. but that cliche, is no different, to me, as the cliche of everything needing to be sharp. It was a cliche adopted in the 20's and 30's and it has been ever since. It has been around long enough as a visual language for the cliche to be considered the normal.

[Jeff S]

Less is more. Thoughtful and appropriate use of "bokeh" removes unnecessary detail from an image therefore making it stronger.

 

For me the strongest pics are often those without unnecessary detail (or flaws) in the first place, i.e., ones that fill the entire frame with good content, and geometry. Blur may sometimes make a photo stronger, but sometimes that's because it isn't otherwise strong enough in its entirety. Less may be more, but there are other ways to get to less besides just blurring parts.

 

I keep one Summilux in my kit for when it suits my needs and preferences. [Currently that's the 50 Summilux asph, but that has as much to do with other qualities, e.g. flare resistance, as the wider aperture.] Otherwise Summicrons have served well for many years.

 

Jeff

[CalArts 99]

 

I actually said earlier in the thread that I thought wide open shooting imposes something on a photo that isn't always appropriate, yet at the same I think those codes you speak of only mean something if the art doesn't. I like to speak of it terms of a visual language. You choose your words appropriate to the conversation.

 

I believe that stopped down is simply more natural to the eye and easier to understand. It doesn't challenge the viewer when they want to look at something other than what the photographers wants the viewer to see. Also because society puts art in a box and it needs to look like it has in history, shot by "the greats", to be accepted by the lowest common denominator. That, to me, doesn't make it any more relevant, to the point that shooting wide open should be avoided. I just think it should be avoided if it has no purpose and is just being done for the sake of it.

 

Signs (in images, in text, in music, etc.) take on meaning no matter what. Despite the practical fact that short DOF may facilitate a viewer's focus on specific elements within the frame or is more "pleasant to the eye," short DOF in itself has taken on a whole separate meaning outside of the way it functions in a practical sense. In other words, you can't get away from the color 'red' as a sign, or the word 'shit' as a sign or any of those signs (the signifier and the signified) that have developed a social context and whose meaning goes beyond literal interpretations. All the elements in an image and all the techniques and styles of the execution of that image are heavily coded in a vocabulary that is socially constructed. The color red means sex, danger, hot, etc., The color of blood is red. Although red as a color (in a literal description of its physical properties) is innocuous.

 

These signs can't be avoided. It doesn't matter what the image is, either a common photo advert or an 'artistic masterpiece.' These coded elements are always there and decoding them is how the image is read. It's the way we make sense of images. And short DOF ('bokeh') now has developed its own set of meanings. It's not that it doesn't work in a practical sense of executing an image that has a central point of focus for the eye or has a pleasant composition (in the Western sense of what a pleasant composition 'should be'), but it has also taken on an entirely different function. There's no problem in using it for an intended purpose (e.g., point of focus on the main subject) and yes, it can often look very pleasing. But one just has to be aware of the connotation that 'bokeh' has (and that connotation is currently considered 'arty' just like B+W is 'arty.')

 

And yes this all comes from a historical context of looking at photographs. The way we look at images has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is rooted in a history of viewing and defining images; we can't escape that. But the point of all this is that a producer of images needs to be conscious of the connotations of all the elements of their image (in both content and style of execution) and how that might affect interpretation.

[Paul J]

Signs (in images, in text, in music, etc.) take on meaning no matter what. Despite the practical fact that short DOF may facilitate a viewer's focus on specific elements within the frame or is more "pleasant to the eye," short DOF in itself has taken on a whole separate meaning outside of the way it functions in a practical sense. In other words, you can't get away from the color 'red' as a sign, or the word 'shit' as a sign or any of those signs (the signifier and the signified) that have developed a social context and whose meaning goes beyond literal interpretations. All the elements in an image and all the techniques and styles of the execution of that image are heavily coded in a vocabulary that is socially constructed. The color red means sex, danger, hot, etc., The color of blood is red. Although red as a color (in a literal description of its physical properties) is innocuous.

 

These signs can't be avoided. It doesn't matter what the image is, either a common photo advert or an 'artistic masterpiece.' These coded elements are always there and decoding them is how the image is read. It's the way we make sense of images. And short DOF ('bokeh') now has developed its own set of meanings. It's not that it doesn't work in a practical sense of executing an image that has a central point of focus for the eye or has a pleasant composition (in the Western sense of what a pleasant composition 'should be'), but it has also taken on an entirely different function. There's no problem in using it for an intended purpose (e.g., point of focus on the main subject) and yes, it can often look very pleasing. But one just has to be aware of the connotation that 'bokeh' has (and that connotation is currently considered 'arty' just like B+W is 'arty.')

 

And yes this all comes from a historical context of looking at photographs. The way we look at images has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is rooted in a history of viewing and defining images; we can't escape that. But the point of all this is that a producer of images needs to be conscious of the connotations of all the elements of their image (in both content and style of execution) and how that might affect interpretation.

 

While you seem to state this as fact, it is mostly all your opinion. None of which I share I'm sorry.

[smb]

I asked this question of myself several years ago. I had a Summicron V.3 and was satisfied with it. Seldom did I go below f4. It was recommended to my by a long to Leica user to try a Zeiss Sonnar f1.5 for a different rendition. I did just that. I also found that between f1.5 and f2.0 under extreme low light there was not much difference. I an using an M6 and under extreme low light conditions I found that when using 400 film if I got a good reading at 1/15 I could photograph at 1/60 as the film stock had two stops leeway. I could also photograph at 1/30, my camera being a rangefinder. Since then the new Summilux ASPH was released. The review for this lens is highly praised but the situation exists that the lens is large, costly and although the rendition is exceptional does it trump the Summicron of any version when the quality of the photograph vs. the rendition of the image is considered? Great lenses do not make great or even good photographs. Recently, I have begun experimenting with older lenses, Summitar and Elmar f3.5. The rendition of those lenses is much different. Ask yourself what is it that you are trying to succeed at? If you have the money and want the fastest lens then it is the Noctilux. If you want the best lens it might be the new Summicron. In you question I believe that you answered your own inquiry. If you are photographing mostly at f4 or higher then 4k for a new lens will not provide you with the return that you are looking to obtain.

[CalArts 99]

While you seem to state this as fact, it is mostly all your opinion. None of which I share I'm sorry.

 

For the record, it's not my opinion. It's not something that I made up, and so I can't take credit for it even if I wish I could.

 

However it is common knowledge within the context of art history and the history of photography and image making. I do share the premise of such theory and have studied it at the graduate level (I also teach photography in a university art department.)

 

If you'd like some references to where these 'opinions' come from I'd be happy to share them with you. One pair of straightforward essays to begin with is Roland Barthes' The Photographic Message and Rhetoric of the Image. Also John Berger's classic: Ways of Seeing. The latter is often used as a text in beginning semiotics. It's a bit dated now but nonetheless is very appropriate. Berger's collection of short essays in About Looking is also instructional in respect to why we attach meaning to what we see.

 

Saussure is the probably the best place to start with the foundations of semiotics. It was primarily the basis of a theory of linguistics but since imagery is a from of language, it's spilled over into visual disciplines like photography and film making.

[250swb]

And for another point of view don't forget Marshall McLuhan's 'Understanding Media' from which we get 'the medium is the message'.

 

Personally I think the casual (without a big plan) use of 'bokeh' we are talking about here creates the same sort of personal bubble for the photographer to operate in as does playing a video game. And it maybe isn't so coincidental that they seem to have grown alongside each other. The outside world is de-contextualised in both mediums, just as the video game is intensely personal, there is nothing for third party viewer to engage in, so the bokeh removes context and only the photographer knows that the portrait was made in Paris, or the litter bin was in New York. The significance of wielding the 'Sword of Doom' is only available to the player, just as the significance of the object photographed is only available to the photographer. It is an intensely personal and introverted activity.

 

The significance of photographing something using shallow DOF is boosted in the photographers mind to the point he thinks the viewer can see and sense the same things which add context to the image. But of course the viewer can't, bokeh excludes the context, context is only a memory for the photographer, not something to share. So to a viewer it is irrelevant that the portrait was made in Paris, because Paris is only a blur, yet to the photographer it remains exciting and significant. And getting to Game Level 10 is similar, the excitement is internal, you can only mention it on the off chance somebody else recognises the achievement, but generally, as with habitual use of shallow DOF, it is not what can be called communication. It is what defeated Pictorialism, there was no wider communication, and technique alone is a meagre meal.

 

So casual shallow DOF is part of an ever internalised world, where the means of communication get ever easier, so the messages get ever shorter and weaker. People generally find significance in ever more personal things that they assume are understood by others simply because they can 'publish' their images and thoughts. This is why photographing your dinner and posting it on Facebook is as meaningful to an outsider as casual DOF is to somebody expected to look at the picture, they can't smell the aroma and we can't see where the white picket fence goes.

 

Steve

[Gerard]

Steve; I have to say, and with no offence intended to CalArts 99, I was getting irritated by the deep 'theory book' talk. It just rubbed me the wrong way - similar to how I feel after seeing a play at the theatre and hear people dissect it to prove they have a great understanding of the deeper 'hidden' meaning of it. Perhaps I'm shallow.

 

Anyway; your post managed to engage me. I get your point, and I found it interesting. I hope this does not indicate that I may be slipping from my precipice down a steep descent into artiness.

[Peter H]

...................... similar to how I feel after seeing a play at the theatre and hear people dissect it to prove they have a great understanding of the deeper 'hidden' meaning of it. Perhaps I'm shallow.

 

..................................

 

Maybe that is why some people dissect a play, or a photo.

 

But often its no more than the equivalent of "dissecting" a fantastic car engine, or a gorgeous watch mechanism, or a great camera. People who find these things fascinating and beautiful often like to get a better understanding of how they work, and so they look into them more closely. And if you want to try to make your own engine, for example, understanding how other people have done it is likely to be very helpful.

 

The same applies to great literature and art. Its perfectly valid to enjoy all these things without looking into the mechanics of what makes them work, but equally I see nothing wrong in those who want to delve deeper. Its not a search for "hidden meanings". Just for a better understanding of why some things work better than others.

[CalArts 99]

Maybe that is why some people dissect a play, or a photo.

 

But often its no more than the equivalent of "dissecting" a fantastic car engine, or a gorgeous watch mechanism, or a great camera. People who find these things fascinating and beautiful often like to get a better understanding of how they work, and so they look into them more closely. And if you want to try to make your own engine, for example, understanding how other people have done it is likely to be very helpful.

 

The same applies to great literature and art. Its perfectly valid to enjoy all these things without looking into the mechanics of what makes them work, but equally I see nothing wrong in those who want to delve deeper. Its not a search for "hidden meanings". Just for a better understanding of why some things work better than others.

 

That's right and it's not at all about "proving a deeper understanding" (that just gets you nowhere fast) but is simply about inquiry and a desire to understand 'why' (and in my case, often it's just a bad habit of always being in 'teacher' mode..... sorry about that.)

 

And one could apply it to this entire forum. After all, it's primarily a discussion and dissection of photographic equipment in way that is actually quite 'bookish.' It's all pretty much "deep theory talk." There isn't much difference (to me) about discussing the functions of a CMOS versus CCD sensor or the design constructs of an aspherical lens, then there is about discussing the meaning of a photograph or the operation of semiotics in language and images. And yes, both types of discussions have their own vocabulary and both can sometimes be quite abstruse.

 

I think what can sometimes make some people uncomfortable is the differences between empirical and quantitative discussions and qualitative and theoretical discussions. My comfort level in the heavily technical (and to me, esoteric) discussions of the equipment is not very good. I sometimes have an interest in what's being said despite that my knowledge is nowhere near the level of the experts here. Yet I feel that I can't necessarily dismiss it altogether just because I don't understand it very well. And if it really doesn't interest me, then one option is to skip over it and go on to something else.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Paul J]

For the record, it's not my opinion. It's not something that I made up, and so I can't take credit for it even if I wish I could.

 

However it is common knowledge within the context of art history and the history of photography and image making. I do share the premise of such theory and have studied it at the graduate level (I also teach photography in a university art department.)

 

If you'd like some references to where these 'opinions' come from I'd be happy to share them with you. One pair of straightforward essays to begin with is Roland Barthes' The Photographic Message and Rhetoric of the Image. Also John Berger's classic: Ways of Seeing. The latter is often used as a text in beginning semiotics. It's a bit dated now but nonetheless is very appropriate. Berger's collection of short essays in About Looking is also instructional in respect to why we attach meaning to what we see.

 

Saussure is the probably the best place to start with the foundations of semiotics. It was primarily the basis of a theory of linguistics but since imagery is a from of language, it's spilled over into visual disciplines like photography and film making.

 

Well it seems I'm in the minority with this and personally I have no problem with that.

 

I know a couple of these books, I read them at art school myself. Ways of Seeing probably struck the best chord with me. While I think Art School was valuable in the sense it put me in an immersive environment where I could learn and discover, I left feeling that I knew everything I needed to know about art and image making. I then spent the next decade unlearning a lot of what I had learned because much of it was not relevant. That the curriculum was out of touch and generally, I think Art School, in many ways is a waste of time in terms of artists being artists. I think it tends to close your mind off to a set way of thinking and I don't believe that is what art is about. That is not my experience as a photographer and artist who has successfully worked and exhibited all over the world for the last 20 years.

 

In regards to the content of your posts, I'm sorry but I will always argue as I did with my professor that none of this is fact. The reality of practical art is in the now, and in the future, and so many theories of art which are still studied today have fallen by the wayside to the organic growth of movements driven by human nature and experience. Art and photography differs from person to person. What works for one is entirely different to another - that is how the world is: Organic and multi-faceted.

 

I know this probably sounds harsh to someone such as your good self and I mean no offence by it, but quantifying and transforming art into something of academics, to the point it puts everything in a box is counter productive to the process of image and art making. It misses the point entirely. I'm not trying to refute these theories, as i have already previously stated in this thread I put some weight in them, though I've learned to see out side the box, and have learned to accept that what we understand as the truth is truly limited. Thank god, as we have no point in going on.