F-Stops, Fads, Monstrous Lenses and Composition (Plus Sony A7R with Zeiss Otus Comparisons…)

Karel van Wolferen
Karel van Wolferen
By KAREL VAN WOLFEREN

You must have noticed that as popular cameras became smaller, to almost everyone’s delight, the lenses became bigger. Greater portability of one is offset by more weight of the other; unnecessarily heavy normal focal length lenses, some of them pretty monstrous. Could this involve some heretofore unknown law of nature, deserving to be called: conservation of equipment burden?

With the Sony NEX series this phenomenon seemed to have become the norm. From the early ones onward they always appeared to be on the verge of tipping over, all sense of balance gone. How to explain this development into inconsistent directions, the second appearing to defeat the advantages of the first?

Just as carrying basic equipment can no longer cramp our style, lens designers and manufacturers are spoiling the party. Explaining this would seem to have become urgently necessary. The quick explanation consists of two Japanese syllables: bokeh.

When I read about photographic matters in Japan a couple of decades ago this did not seem such a big thing. But since then it has conquered the world. And it has turned photographic aspiration inside out or upside down, whichever you prefer. You get bokeh if most of your photograph is unsharp, and if only one thing in it can be recognized for what it is.

Depth of field, making everything sharp, used to be something to sacrifice other things for. Today references to ideal DOF are nearly always with the understanding that the writer wants as little of it as possible.

Once upon a time a maximum lens opening of F3.5 for a 35mm or medium format camera seemed good enough, and F2.8 desirable and more costly. Bigger openings were considered desirable only for low light situations. Super high ISO and accompanying noise suppressing software (try the just out DxO Optics Pro, now also good for the A7R and miraculous in that department) have practically abolished those.

Now we have enthusiasts on forums exclaiming, “What on earth were they thinking!”, as they castigate manufacturers for sticking with that once desirable maximum opening. What they want is nothing less than F1.8 or F1.4. Because for bokeh upon bokeh you need fast lenses.

Sony A7R with Minolta AF 28mm F2.8 -- F16 1/160 ISO 1,000 | Karel van Wolferen
For the sake of composition: a shadow filling up an empty part of a frame — Sony A7R with Minolta AF 28mm F2.8 — F16 1/160 ISO 1,000 | Karel van Wolferen

That’s a photographic ideal upside down. In the early 1930s the photographic luminaries Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham and several others had formed a group they called Group f.64. They wanted sharpness in their 4×5 and 8×10 negatives. My friend Greg Davis, a photographer for TIME Magazine who died in his early fifties from the effects of agent orange, used to talk with me about starting an f.90 group, once he would be back from the wars and conflicts in Vietnam and Cambodia.

Now some enthusiasts, and they appear to be an expanding tribe, want nothing so much as depicting just a wafer-thin slice of what is out there. What comes to my mind is a picture on one of the forums of the focussed nose of someone’s dog. Its proud owner was equally proud of the shallow DOF he had achieved. The rest of the dog, well… bokeh.

Why does this fad thrive? I think I have an explanation. If most of your photograph is not going to be in focus, you need not worry about composition. And composition is not only the most crucial factor in taking a good photograph, it is also its most challenging aspect.

There are no rules for it. Courses and books will not help you much. The so-called “rule of thirds” is silly. You achieve good compositions mostly by fast decisions about framing if you work handheld, and by anticipating the right moment, like when shadows on a sidewalk fill the empty corner of a frame.

When you work from a tripod and masses of people are in view, you must react instantaneously when you have what could be called a Bruegel moment, clusters of people all doing something different, like in the photograph of the area with incense burner in front of the Sensoji Temple in Asakusa.

Sony A7R with Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 -- F11 1/80 ISO 800 | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 — F11 1/80 ISO 800 | Karel van Wolferen

You learn composition, like journalism, through experience. Especially the experience of looking at thousands of paintings, and at photographs, preferably in black and white from before the autofocus age.

What you take in from all that is stored in the back of your mind, and called upon, tacitly, as you move around with your viewfinder. You do not have much time to deliberate.

Such compositional skill does not become second nature for bokeh photographers. Isn’t that ominous for the future of photography.

Of course unsharpness can have a function in street photography, but as Bellamy Hunt, British street photographer living in Tokyo, responded to my theory, “You have to be bloody good before you can make that work; those fast lenses make lazy photographers.”

Japan Camera Hunter Bellamy, who by the way is the person to consult if you want to find legacy lenses and vintage cameras in Japan, can become indignant about this: look at that lot that Sony took to Nashville to try out its new camera. “They all took the same picture using the lens full open, this is not what I consider to be good photography, merely a press junket.”

Sony A7R with Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 | Karel van Wolferen
In recent conversations here in Tokyo with people familiar with the lens industry, or right in it, they confirmed that the only reason for the size and weight of those new lenses, the only reason why they cannot be small and jewel-like in the way of the F4 Voigtländers is the bokeh mania.

The Zeiss Otus is a magnificent piece of optical engineering, as I could confirm having borrowed one from the Zeiss people here. It is F1.4, has no noticeable flaws and is very sharp if you focus correctly.

Zeiss calls it “the absolute best SLR lens in the world today.” It also weighs one kilogram and is huge.

If its designers had applied their great skill to making it close to perfect at F2.8, it would probably have been half the size, suitable for handheld photography and I would have wanted to have one.

Sony A7R with Minolta MD Macro 50mm F3.5 | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Minolta MD Macro 50mm F3.5 | Karel van Wolferen
Might it be a good idea for some of us to form an anti-bokeh mania movement, for the sake of getting lens manufacturers to start contemplating the desire for smaller and lighter lenses?

The notion that the Otus is the sharpest lens the world has ever seen is, of course, nonsense. In 1981 Minolta produced the MD Macro 50mm F3.5 which from F5.6 onward — and certainly at F8 — is a match for the Otus. See the three comparison samples further below.

In the picture it also seems a bit large, but it is one fifth of the weight of Otus. And whereas the Otus will cost you some $4,000, the MD 50mm Macro can be had on eBay for between $100 and $150.

Comparing some photographs taken with both lenses on the A7R, on a big high resolution screen of a fellow large format stitch photographer, we could not detect differences in sharpness, while my friend marginally preferred the contrast of the 32-year-old Minolta.

Back to bokeh. Would you have preferred that, when you look at the sharp leaves of a ginkgo tree just beginning to turn?

Sony A7R with Zeiss Planar 45mm F2 for Contax G | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Zeiss Planar 45mm F2 for Contax G — F11 1/125 ISO 800 | Karel van Wolferen

We are dealing here, of course, with almost unrivalled image quality of the Planar 45mm F2, made for the Contax G.

The bokeh mania has yet another drawback. It tempts photographers to leave important equipment at home.

+++ We’ll be posting more A7R and Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 sample images in a few days, stay tuned!

Karel van Wolferen is a writer, but photography has been his second life since he was 11 years old, now 61 years ago. He built his first darkroom at the age of 14. His passion is for high resolution. He used to work with 8×10 and now tries to achieve 8×10 by other means through stitching. Until the Sony A7R came along.

Karel left the Netherlands in 1960 at the age of 19, with one hundred dollars, with the idea to hitchhike to India (before there were hippies). He lived in Turkey, India and SouthEast Asia before arriving in Japan two years later. He worked as a newspaper correspondent covering a large chunk of Asia for 16 years before it became possible to live on income from writing books.

The University of Amsterdam asked him to become professor of comparative political and economic institutions, a position he held until retirement seven years ago. Karel still write books, many for Japanese readership. His second life in photography, which saw the building of three 8×10 darkrooms in Tokyo, has continued with all manner of digital experimenting in which I mix techniques to achieve super realistic images.

Sony A7R with Minolta MD Macro 50mm F3.5 | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Minolta MD Macro 50mm F3.5 — F8 1/1,600 ISO 200 | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 — F8 1/1,600 ISO 100 | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Minolta MD Macro 50mm F3.5 | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Minolta MD Macro 50mm F3.5 — F8 1/20 ISO 500 | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 F8 1/30 ISO 500 | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Minolta MD Macro 50mm F3.5 | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Minolta MD Macro 50mm F3.5 — F8 1/125 ISO 320 | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 | Karel van Wolferen
Sony A7R with Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 — F8 1/125 ISO 125| Karel van Wolferen


  • Passageways

    return to film, use primary lenses with reasonable f-stops and be rid of the burdens of the beasts…

    • Andy Umbo

      Passageways has it right, altho I don’t know if he’s being a cynic or off-handedly amusing, but if it wasn’t for the clients dictating their needs, I wouldn’t shoot digital at all! It’s be me and my Hasselblad, and chasing color film processing around to find the best labs in a dwindling market. Still, every chance I get, I shoot film, and when I retire, it’ll be more of the same. Sitting in front of a computer for an hour for every 15 minutes of photography time (unpaid in my market, no less), is not why I became a photographer. Much prefer living in the darkroom than computers…120 and 4X5 cameras have never been cheaper, mint condition used.

  • Trackback

    (SR5) Zeiss says they will launch a Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 in 2014! | sonyalpharumors

    […] To see how good the current 55mm Otus works on the Sony A7r check out the latest test posted at The.me. […]

    http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-zeiss-says-they-will-launch-a-zeiss-otus-85mm-f1-4-in-2014/

  • MarcoSartoriPhoto

    I’m a happy m43 user, I love its double depth of field. I had a friendly discussion with a friend: he was showing me a portrait taken at f1.8 with Sony 7r. The model had only one eye in focus, the other was (disturbingly) blurred.
    I told that to my friend and his reply was: “That’s the reason why you go full frame, otherwise you stay with smaller sensors”.
    Heck, I just had my first exhibition and guess what, the title is “Composizioni”.
    Yes, I think that bokeh is too often the last standing man on the top of a broken photo.

  • Pascal645

    Great argument Karel. To be fair to Zeiss, they did launch the Sonnar 35/2.8 with Sony’s A7r in that spirit : small(ish), very light weight and exquisite image quality.

    Fads come and go in the photo community. A few years ago, it was all about ultra high iso, as if suddenly everyone in the universe felt the compulsion to produce sharp images of fast moving coal sacks under moonlight. With bokeh, I think there are two non-parallel dimensions to consider : amount and quality. While the search for sheer amount of defocus has given us the Summiluxes, HyperPrimes, Noctiluxes, anf other f/1.2 heavywieghts … it has to be said that not all of these succeed at the second level : quality.

    I think real lovers of bokeh are not all in search of today’s greatest apertures. Some are also buying classic lenses of more traditional design in which the beauty of unsharp areas is not sacrificed (via aspherics, often) for the sharpness of others and which provide a sense of depth rather than plunging 90% of the frame into a pickle-hiding veil of bokeh-secrecy.

    So let the lab rats burden themselves with the heavy and expensive glass and please continue to give hints into superb vintage glass such as the G45 and MD50/3.5 for the rest of us ;)

    Cheers,
    Pascal

  • Passageways

    always comments about gear…f stop this and f stop that,,,go out and take photos. Just make sure when you use digital to have a good post processing software to make it look like film.

    I am not kidding and being provocative. That’s what i do. Sharpness and “perfect” rendition is for people who want to count bricks.

    • Gorodish

      So I guess you must regard Ansel Adams as a mere “brick counter”?

      • Passageways

        you must have missed the gist of what i intended. It is the pushing of sharpness and detail by the digital market I am referring to.

        • Gorodish

          Sharpness and detail may not be important in your photography. But in landscape photography it is paramount, whether digital or film. Back when I used film, I shot almost exclusively with Kodachrome 25 for that very reason, using quality primes at ƒ5.6 or smaller on a tripod. But since that film is now dead, the pursuit of digital IQ is as important to some of us as sharpness and DOF was for the ƒ64 group. You may prefer film, but digital is here to stay.

          • Passageways

            Nobody forced people to join F64. And not all landscape photography was, or is about sharpness. In particular if you are doing commercial work then I guess it is more so. But that is another discussion. The needs and preferences of one niche is exactly that, nothing more.

            I did not claim sharpness is never “good” or needed. But digital marketing pushes sharpness and detail down our throats.

            Oddly your comment about f64 sort of proves my point. If photographers got the results they did using film way back when, we could at least consider the ever-increasing accent on need for more sharpness and detail has become absurd.

            I am sure know you know what I refer to when speaking of “counting bricks”. It is ridiculous to open page after page of gear reviews and seeing actual photos of bricks side by side to make comparisons between last year’s perfect lens and the new one hitting the market next week.

            Post processing is still used in large part to make digital appear more film-like. If digital cameras were so perfect the ubiquitous software for altering the resulting images would be unneeded.

            “the pursuit of digital IQ is as important to some of us as sharpness and DOF was for the ƒ64 group” you write. I am sure it is, and justifiably so for a few.

            But this article refers to gear size and often, the larger lenses will be faster. So at f1.2 you will hardly get “f64” DOF that you would not be able to get @ f4. I hope the humor here is noted.

            My personal opinion of Ansel Adams is he was a great technician with a specific goal in my mind and photography was his way to reach that goal; the photography itself was probably not the goal, nor exceptionally “creative”.

            I say that somewhat tongue in cheek and with the full knowledge I am not an expert in landscape photography (nor any other kind for that matter)

          • Gorodish

            You write: “It is ridiculous to open page after page of gear reviews and seeing actual photos of bricks side by side to make comparisons…” I couldn’t agree with you more. I personally prefer to judge IQ with photos of natural beauty. I’d rather count leaves, than bricks. :)

            I also concur there should be more focus on the art of photography and less fetishism with gear or obsessive pixel peeping. For me, the gear is merely a tool to get the photo I want. And like any craftsman, I prefer the best tools… although a master can take a great photograph with even the cheapest camera.

            “But this article refers to gear size and often, the larger lenses will be faster.” I think you missed the gist of Karel’s argument above. It was more about the current obsession with bokeh and deliberate shallow DOF. I could care less about ultra fast lenses like the Otus. I usually shoot at ƒ5.6 or smaller apertures for maximum depth of field anyway. Which is why I like the A7r as a platform and digital back for my Leica R primes. It will give me all the sharpness I need and I always have the option of purposely defocusing if I want a “soft” look. But a soft lens cannot be made sharp. Of course anything can be done in PP, but that is no different than all the manipulations that were done in darkrooms back in the film days. If you prefer the look of film to digital, as you say you can achieve that look with post processing.

            We are probably closer in approach than it might appear, but I took issue with what I perceived as your rather churlish disdain for digital photography in general and image sharpness in particular. I can relate to your romantic attachment to film, but am finding the latest sensor technology like the A7r produces results very similar to my dearly missed Kodachrome 25. However, the sharpest details and most film-like image quality I have ever seen in digital are from the Sigma DP cameras and their Foveon sensor.

          • Passageways

            Oh I am sure we agree on a lot of things but disagree on some and probably, because of a lcm of understanding each other’s language use to some extent.

            I do not agree “digital PP…no different than all the manipulations that were done in darkrooms back in the film days”. I am sure there are differences but I intuit you may mean “for photographers that know their craft”.

            I am not being “mean-sprited” (or churlish as you put it, proof you are from the days of film) and apologize if you felt that r took it in a personal way. I not infrequently have that kind of remark. But it is unintentional and reflect a lack of ability at being subtle rather than speaking from a pedestal. The written word can be easily misinterpreted.

            The following quote might be applicable:

            “We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are.”

            Anaïs Nin

            PS You write “Sharpness and detail may not be important in your photography. But in landscape photography it is paramount”

            I am sure you know this is not always true. I am also sure you see “things the way you are”.

            There are many forms of landscape, including the so-called alternative processes and pinhole which have little to do at all with sharpness and detail and are often splendid (seeing things the way I am)

            I have to ask forgiveness for using a Henri Cartier-Bresson quote, in particular when referring, as here, to landscape although it could apply: “sharpness is a bourgeois concept”.

          • Gorodish

            Thank you for that wonderful quote by Anais Nin! I love it because it is so true, especially how it applies to photographic vision.

            Regarding landscape photography, certainly it takes many forms and I personally use selective focus whenever the subject or shot I “see” is enhanced by it. But I think you would concur that of all the many styles of photography, landscape and architectural are arguably the ones that most often rely on maximum depth of field and image sharpness. Using sharp lenses and high-res sensors does not preclude soft focus when desired, but if bokeh is paramount, one must have a fast lens and large sensor.

            No need for apologies. I took your comments in the spirit of a friendly riposte. :) I’ve enjoyed our little debate and I think we can both agree that the photographic tent is big enough for all types of cameras and styles of shooting. And one of the reasons I enjoy commenting in this forum is the high level of civil discourse and the timely topics provided by Dan on this site.

  • Ferrell McCollough

    The first pic is very sharp, there are no less than 5 other photographers shown in the pic, can you find them?

  • dierk

    I agree 100%, Karel.

    Only one remark and I am sure, that you can explain that much better.

    Using large format the DOF decreases very much and therefor you find f/64 on those large format lenses. To get the desired DOF you have to stop down very much – and end up with very long exposure times (wind is a problem very often for example, as you can find in some pictures from Ansel Adams). That was the reason, why they called their group f/64, as far as I know. Besides that you have to use all the possibilities of tilt and shift with these cameras for the desired sharp focal plane.

    The smaller the sensor (film) is, the larger the DOF gets for the same aperture.

    @MarcoSartoriPhoto
    I even used a tilted lens (Micro Nikkor 85/2.8 PC) for portraits, to get both eyes sharp,
    and the nose in the middle is unsharp :-)

    here is one of these portraits:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dierktopp/8266248621/in/set-72157627967118544

  • Andy Umbo

    Have to say, I don’t get the ‘bokeh’ thing very much. As a professional, especially doing annual reports and group oriented pictures, the client, by nature of the needs of the image, basically assigns what need to be in focus, and it NEVER would result in a wide open camera, and finds me shooting around f/5.6-8. Ditto for portraits, no one wants a picture with nothing but your eye in focus, hence even with an 85mm and a single person to shoot, I could be at f/4-5.6. An f/1.4 or wider lens, was something that you rented for a very specific purpose, you wouldn’t own one…

    This Japanese concentration with ‘bokeh’ maybe the root cause for Nikon not making a series of smaller, relatively inexpensive f/2.8 primes in the “G” series, basically the types of lenses all pros owned back in the 60’s/70’s/80’s. They’re using their relative meager assets (compared to Canon), to make ridiculously fast primes and zooms the size of coffee cans…

    As others have stated on here, I too have started concentrating on M4/3rd’s. Better primes. The lens makers in that format have really serviced the professional…

  • Homeros

    Very insightful article.

    2 caveats: I have ordered the Otus even though it will be useless for my usual street shooting. I will use it for night streetscapes, portraits and special situations. It is not just the bokeh and the resolution, but the overall contrast and rendering and, especially, the ability to handle the inevitable flare in contre jour and urban night photos that it will excel at.

    At the same time, I almost never shoot at the street wider than f2.8, even at night. It is just not a useful setting for me. I would much prefer smaller f2.8 primes from Nikon. I sometimes use older D primes for their small size, but their rendering and flare control are inferior to modern lenses.

    The point about composition is spot on. Composition is just as important, perhaps even more so, with a blurry background.

  • amalric

    Congrats, I couldn’t have said it better. Your excellent compositions demonstrate it too.
    I find it a day to day battle in forums. As Marco I love Olympus for the depth of field, and because it has imposed a moratorium on maximum aperture.

    Some experience in photojournalism taught me a skill which is basically lost on marriage hacks and the trend towards miserable beautification.

    Juggernaut lenses on tiny bodies should show the hubris of it all, but the ignorant masses have lost the sense of ridicule.

    I only hope that sometime the pendulum will swing back.

  • Marksetgo

    Great post – thanks for this. Your point about the dog photo is so very true. I’m amazed at pics on various Leica and RF forums where people applaud what I think are woeful photos. No fault of the camera or those remarkable lenses, but rather it’s awful composition, very average subjects and a ridiculously small plane of focus. I thought I was missing the point until I read this.

  • Widder Shins

    Great article. Even though a large part of my photography is shot wide open or close to it I agree that the somewhat recent fascination of bokeh is a bit of a pradigm shift in photography. But everyone chooses to express their art in a different way I suppose.

    I completely agree about the Minolta 50 macro. A stunning lens, my favorite macro lens for quite some time. I am enamored of old Minolta glass as they were some of the finest manual focus lenses ever made. Minolta was one of the few manufacturers to control the entire lens making process in their foundries. From smelting sand to make the glass all the way to the final assembly of the lens it was all done in house.

    Having said that, I dont shoot my Minolta Macro much anymore after finding a great copy of the Yashica ML Macro 55/4. A stunning jewel of a lens in the classic Tessar design, 4 elements in 3 groups. Yashica ML glass has a special place in my heart. Manufactured by Tomioka, as most Yashica glass was, they were produced alongside the Contax Zeiss lenses in the same factory. There is something really special about the rendering of a Tomioka lens. My ML Macro 55/4 is crazy sharp, well made and capable of some wonderful photography in the right hands. Yashica made a later 55/2.8 with a more complicated glass design that supposedly performs as well or better then the Makro Planar. Doesnt matter to me, the 55/4 is stunning and a keeper for sure.

  • JohnB

    Thanks for your work. I shot the Zeiss Otus against the Zeiss 50 Makro. The Otus is so perfect it has no character. I suppose that is what Zeiss wanted. Too much sugar for a dime, if you ask me.

  • JohnB

    One more comment about the Otus. I was easily able to shoot it on a D800, hand-held @f1.4 and only missed focus once or twice as I shot a Xmas parade.

  • Carlos N Mendes

    Oh my God. That’s it, my U$ 1,700 Nikon 85 f1.4 became a piece of junk in seconds. Fast glass make lazy photographers? For sure, my skills are actually the same before I buy the 85; but now I’m MY OWN ZOOM! Composition is a pain in the butt yet, but I’ll get there. Lazy? No, no, no. I got the point, but the photography is a world with so many paths to take… Let’s think more openly.

  • Stefan Grosjean

    +1 (why have 24+ MP sensors when 90% of the photo is out of focus (bokeh) anyway? I’m all for smaller lenses with reasonable apertures starting at 2.8 – 4.)

    • Veldask Krofkomanov

      Because there’s plenty other photographers who use really small apertures, such as landscape photographers. Do you really think a company like Nikon or Canon would be stupid enough to alienate whole areas of photography?

  • Veldask Krofkomanov

    This article reeks of stubbornness to me, much the same way as those old people who refuse to drive any car unless it has a standard transmission, or who refuse to get a cell phone, etc. Yes, they are all personal preferences, but not everyone has the same values, needs, and intentions as you.

    You state that there are no rules for composition. If that is the case, then how exactly can composition be judged. By your definition, it is subjective. It is not like a mathematics problem, which is either correct or incorrect. So, how can you then criticize others for not prioritizing composition? What is a poor composition to you may be deemed a great composition to another photographer. Because you don’t like a particular composition of a photograph from another photographer, doesn’t mean that he or she did not prioritize composition. I urge you to not be so narrow minded.

    As hard as it may be to believe, bokeh can actually be useful in many cases even when there is a good composition (in the photographer’s opinion). Clearly, we all want our subject to be the center of attention. However, sometimes there are things in the background which are just too distracting when shot at a small aperture. I know you’ll jump on me if I don’t explicitly state it: yes, I realize the best option is to find a different composition or angle. This would be great if we had unlimited time, or perhaps less requirements.

    For example, several years ago I had a shoot with a CEO of a major national warehousing company. I was scheduled to have only 15 minutes with him, which got cut down even more. It ended up being pretty much walking to the location and quickly snapping a few shots before he had more important things to do. With as cluttered as the warehouse was, the only thing to do to get a good result was to use a large aperture. The small aperture photograph I took was horrendous in comparison. To keep it short, the f1.4 lens saved me that day in the situation I was put in.

    We readers appreciate your passion. However, it is also important to keep an open mind and not be so condescending towards a particular technique which can be very useful to many photographers. Remember, just because you place sharpness above bokeh in regards to your photographic priorities, don’t think that everyone does. You have to understand and remember that photography is a form of art. And much like popular art varies by time periods, so does photography. We might just be getting into a “bokeh era” of photography. Deal with it :)