Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 7 Nov 99, Erwin Puts wrote, at least in part: > This is in it itself a very old discussion topic. And I am most > surprised this topic never seems to rise above the obviously > easy dichotomy between artistic photography versus image > performance. <snip> Your ability in a non-mother tongue, and now, your displayed statesmanship, continue to delight and amaze me, Erwin. I'll add a reason that I truly believe enters the picture. With no intention of being pejorative, I would offer that it is *easy* to be of the notion that "lens testing is ridiculous". Easy because we all make images, here. Hopefully, we make images that ocassionally please us, and, if we are really good at it, *very* ocassionally please others. Image making, though, can, and often is learned empirically. It has been learned that way by some of the accepted 'greats'. When I view an image, I know that it appeals or it doesn't, for reasons that are valid to me only. It is my judgement and though open to question, it is my judgement, by God! Your pursuit of the scientific aspect of optics *requires* study of what has preceded you before you can begin making contributions to your discipline. That word discipline is key! To disparage the endeavors of those who have made that committment really doesn't mean "intellectual suicide". It merely shows that intelligence was not present in that arena to begin with. Most readers will, thankfully, be of the 'feel' school with respect to their lenses, BUT still have an appreciation of what got that lens there in spite of not understanding its path. - -- Roger Mailto:roger@beamon.org