Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
On 19 Nov 98, Marc James Small wrote, at least in part:
> This is absurd. First, a LOT of us on this list have home darkrooms, but
> I would suspect that damned few of us do larger than 8" by 10" work.
> Anything larger escalates the cost dramatically, and, frankly, isn't worth
> it, as the pictures then can only be displayed in a large hall. I am a
> proud Leica owner, but I'm certainly not wealthy enough to own a personal
> art gallery!
One person's absurdity is another's verity. Breathes there a home
darkroomist [sic] that hasn't, when presented with a particularly
nice negative, swung the enlarger head toward the floor or wall
and made larger than their normal prints? Obviously not often,
but, that's the ultimate and acid test of one's equipment, craft
and art. Leicaphiles can generally scrape together enough geld to
finance the sporadic soirée into large scale prints.
A local friend makes gorgeous 20x24 inch Leica prints and displays
them in his average size house. Amazing how a really large print
looks on a small wall as long as the viewing distance is correct.
End wall in a hallway is an example that most can emulate.
> Second, lens variations in SPS optics are immense, as they were with Zeiss
> and Leitz lenses until 1970 or so. These lenses are hand-assembled. As I
> have sad before, ad nauseam et ad infinitum, always buy with a MBG, and
> pick-and-choose. The best are phenomenal. The worst are horrid.
I'd wager that most of the list subscribers are pressed for time to
the extent that the time they can devote to lens selection is
limited. Likely, they can make more money by tending to their
work than they can save by endless testing of various lenses,
under money back guarantees, in an effort to find the 'diamond in
the rough'. The fact that Leica glass offers consistency, at a
price, is less expensive in the long run.
> I do not know this Mr Dembinski and, from the rathe aggressive
> tone in his post, suspect he is a bit of an edge-liver, but, if
> he wishes to post a one thousand dollar bond, I will provide him
> for ten days with my personal 1.5/50 Jupiter-3 and 1.4/50
> Summilux so that he may test them himself.
I read Mr. Dembinski's post three times and am unable to discern
an "agressive tone" in it. I detect confidence in his opinion of the
Russian optics. That opinion is rather negative, just as yours,
Marc, is the positive opinion of an admitted fancier of same.
Different strokes... There's room for you both.
> Fourth, Mr Dembinski has never tested, apparently, the 5.6/20 Russar.
> This is a Zeiss Topogon design. He should try it: I have some edge
> enlargements from 24" by 30" crops which he would find most interesting.
OK, and I bet some here have a particular lens that they can
point to that has astounding performance that you have not
tested.
> Fifth, that Mr Dembinski, buying in some Warsaw slum, has a single bad
> experience is statistically meaningless.
OUCH!
- --
Roger
mailto:roger@beamon.org
Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only
truth, but supreme beauty--a beauty cold and austere,
like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of
our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of
painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of
a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show.
-- Bertrand Russell