You describe my point well. The idea behind the photograph shouldn't be about shallow depth of field, there has to be substance, otherwise what's the damned point?
Wabi sabi is the beauty of worn in/broken in objects - think of the leica geeks who go crazy over brassed black paint
In the watch world, it's lume that has yellowed with age, surface scratches, etc
One man's idea of wabi is another's idea of worn out junk
I don't know if they sell summiluxes that can mount on here... :whistling:
I did have a short "Bokeh" period, thankfully Kodachrome distracted me from that. As it needed plenty of light, it did bring in bokeh too. Nowadays I find myself ocassionally using selective focus, but not in an exaggerated way.
My fastest lens is the classic 50mm 1.8. I'd love more aperture for the light gathering!
As of wabi-sabi, it reminded me of preworn/faded new jeans. I buy new solid indigo/black jeans and let them get worn.
I make fun of it by telling that you can always put 'em into the back of the van and let them drag down the road. Just as shown on brainiac (an UK science TV show) :laugh:
In fact, a perfect lens, i.e., one without aberrations, has its resolution limited only by diffraction. The larger the aperture, the more the resolution. Every doubling of aperture diameter, e.g., f/8 to f/4, results in doubling of resolution.
It's just that in the real world things aren't as easy as that.
But at the same time, counteracting that, every real lens gets sharper by stopping down, because it removes a lot of abberations that exist in 'real' lenses.
Put the two together, and you get that typical 'hill' curve where stopping down first increases resolution (to f/5.6-8 or so), then stopping down it gets worse again. If you could build real lenses as well as theoretical ones, with f/1.0 and no abberations wide open, besides having to mortgage your house for it, it would only get sharper wider open and be the sharpest lens ever. (and then it would only get used by some nerds who sit in their basement and take photos of Imatest charts and drool over numbers)
I like the simple illustration that when you take pictures of flowers using a lens with the "bad" halo-type bokeh, branches that are out of focus will still be sharp because the bright outlines will be sharply defined.
Now, we all know good photographers work to reduce distractions in images. Our "job" is to remove soda cans from stream banks and pick up trash on the grass behind our subjects... We're supposed to straighten the folds of curtains and flick the stray hairs back from foreheads... So the idea of "Good Bokeh" which reduces distractions makes sense to me in that context.
But of course I personally do not do a good job removing distractions from my photographs, I am not likely to be able to capitalize on Good Bokeh...