Re: [Leica] Food for thought for Thanksgiving (revision)

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Thomas,

Great point you make. But times are changing and the design and
production of lenses and films tend to standardize at an extremely high
level across all manufacturers. That is good news and bad news. Good
news because those designs are providing us with extremely high
benchmarkable qualities, thus giving us the 'safety' of knowing what is
possible to do regarding enlargement ratios, light orientation, degree
of recordable data, etc. 

But you are right that there are bad news as well, and this is true not
only for Leica, because that standardisation on benchmarked parameters
contradicts the idea that lenses could each have their own 'signature',
their own personality, with a mix of unplanned 'defects' and original
corrections.

You people who have grown with the complicated family history of Leica
lenses have gathered a very nice knowledge base, which will probably
fall in oblivion. This phenomenon is not limited to the photography
world...

Alan


Thomas Pastorello wrote:
> Tom S.   I understand your point and do value low distortion, high
> resolution and good contrast.  However, I get these fine qualities
> from my SLR Nikkor lenses.  I turm to my M Leitz lenses to get the
> qualities I described in my earlier post:  what I and many others
> interpret as 3-D sculpting, edge definition which separates fore-, mid-
> and background objects, superb tonal gradation even in shadow, and
> distinctive bokeh. As Leica moves to greater resolution, etc., as its ASPH
> line replaces its traditional line, we are losing the special image
> forming characteristics that made Leica lenses unique.  I realize that my
> assessment is subjective, but I believe the assessment of an image should
> be subjective.  The resolution of an image won't make or break it as an
> image which stirs the soul or elevates the intellect. And just what is the
> value of *objective* measures?  Do we restrict our appreciation of and
> desire for another human being to her/his height, weight, IQ, bank account
> balance, etc.?  Ultimately, I think personality and character make the
> crucial difference among people.  Ultimately, I think personality and
> character make the difference among lenses.  It's great for a person to be
> tall -- to a limit.  Perhaps 6 feet for a guy is better than 5 feet, but
> is 7 feet better? 8 feet? 9 feet?  Resolution and contrast is great for a
> lens -- to a limit.  There is such a thing as resolution beyond the
> capacity of any film and contrast that's in appropriately high for many
> applications, e.g., portrature, and distortion control that's irrelevantly
> precise for three-dimentional subjects such as landscapes. Unless we do
> only technical photography,
> we have to understand the relationship between our lenses and and
> our photographic objectives and and make a subjective assessment.  The
> traditional Leitz lenses are contrasty enough and have high enough
> resolution (I don't want to be much taller than 6 feet), I focus on their
> special qualities (we strive in our lives for better character, not
> greater tallness).
>    Do I have any defenders out there?  Subjectivity is much more credible
> when its a consensus of subjectivity.
>    Thank you for your perspective, Tom.  I really believe our opinions are
> not that different.  I'm sure we both value both the objective and
> subjective criteria.     Tom P.
>    Happy Thanksgiving to you and all!