Re: [Leica] Antagonist?

[Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>]

I don't think anyone has antagonized anyone above a level 
inherent in any good debate.  I work in a school where one 
cannot get anyone interested enough to argue...a sad state 
of affairs...this group, as well as some others I frequent, 
is composed of well read, passionate enthusiasts, both 
of photography and that lunatic perversion, Leica.....

One only has to bring up bicycles, fountain pens, watches, 
UV filters, (!) etc...to see that this is a well rounded 
group....though each, including Erwin, has their own "specialty".

Rabiner is the darkroom guru...I'm embarrassed, as a photo 
lab supervisor and Leica enthusiast, that I've not TOUCHED 
a developer other than D-76 in ten years.  Now, however, 
I've vowed to spend half the summer trying fine grain films 
and newer developers....such is the power of the group...Erwin 
has inspired me to load up with APX and a tripod and rodinal 
and see (AGAIN) what this junk of ours can do....No, I haven't 
changed my "professional" opinion that it's all overkill....
that the world will still use Tri-x and the Pentax is fine...
but what the hell, it's something to do!!!

If Erwin is lacking in darkroom (stated earlier, NOT by me)
he makes up for it in knowledge of lenses--maybe he's a 
Leica apologist, but that's OK cuz I gots some Leica lenses....

The "real" photogs, you know who you are, keep us in line with 
a dose of reality.

B.D. is funny when he goes totally apeshit.....

I answer as many "internal" questions about M stuff as I can, 
and I'm somewhat annoyed that the "current" repair folks either 
don't frequent the list or refuse to post....certainly their 
info would be more valuable, but mine is accurate at least 
as long as we stay away from the M6/M6ttl electronics.

I feel that all have something to offer, even the non-technical
non-logical well-heeled obsessive "consumers"....hey, they'll 
eventually "upgrade" and sell their stuff on here....and it'll 
be fairly priced and represented.

God forbid that this group should ever be a "feel good", civility-
and-sensitivity-trained company meeting....I can go to work for 
that bullshit.  

In the legendary words of another Texan,
Rave On!!
Walt

On
Sat, 4
Nov
2000, Mike Johnston wrote:

> 
> 
> > I don't know if you are referring to me as someone who you believe is one
> > of 'his antagonists', but if you are, that is completely unfounded.  In
> > fact, I have not seen anyone 'antagonize' him at all.
> 
> 
> Actually, I would rank myself as one of Erwin's antagonists. First, in a
> descriptive sense, because he antagonizes me and _vice versa_; but further,
> in a philosophical sense, because I feel 1.) that he overstates his
> expertise and authority (or perhaps he merely implies an inflated estimate
> and others are the ones who actually state it) and 2.) that he pretends to
> be objective when actually he isn't. My best estimation of Erwin is that
> he's a freelancing, mainly self-taught enthusiast of a technical and
> scientific bent and background who has worked with great gusto to research
> the field of photographic optics as it applies to Leica lenses. There's
> nothing dishonorable, and, as others have pointed out, quite a lot useful,
> in that; one of the leading experts of photographic materials life
> expectancy, Henry Wilhelm, began the same way.
> 
> However, Walt's questions are well taken. They're exactly the same questions
> I had to ask myself in evaluating Erwin as a contributor to _PHOTO
> Techniques_ (where evaluating the expertise and reliability of authors was a
> continual part of my job responsibility).  My conclusion was that his
> expertise is suspect, because in my judgement he's an apologist for Leica
> first and foremost--essentially an amateur who has been flattered by
> attention from his contacts at Leica and by the official access they've
> granted him and who, in return, has devoted his loyalties zealously to their
> products and to the company's interests. That is, if given a choice between
> reporting objective evidence dispassionately and finding a way for the
> evidence to exalt or justify Leica products, I'm fundamentally unsure as to
> which of the two he would choose. To me he resembles no one so much as Ernst
> Wildi, the "house expert" on the payroll of Hasselblad for so many years.
> Erwin's a volunteer, and not on the payroll, but he's adopted a similar
> role.
> 
> That's only my own opinion, and if and when others wish to hold their own
> opinions, fine. Others aren't shy about offering their opinions of me, which
> they're entitled to. It's somewhat unfortunate (if occasionally
> entertaining) that my estimation _has to_ put me in an antagonistic position
> relative to Erwin's self-appointed champions, but this list is polarized on
> the question and there doesn't seem to be much alternative. He's preaching
> to the choir hereabouts, naturally. But if anyone would like to dispute my
> evaluation _with me_, then I'd like to see, as Marc suggested, hard
> evidence: evidence of earned (degreed) technical education, especially in
> the field of optics; publication of scientific papers in peer-reviewed
> journals; scientific or technical jobs he's held (what _does_ Erwin do for a
> living, anyway?); evidence of acceptance of his work by acknowledged experts
> in the field, especially academic experts (and not those who have a plain
> conflict of interest, such as a Leica lens designer who's been feeding him
> information); and, mostly, some kind of actual evidence of his alledged
> objectivity, since that's mainly what I would tend to call into dispute.
> 
> Of course, when you get right down to it, I don't really want to discuss it,
> since that doesn't promise to be enjoyable and it honestly doesn't matter to
> me. I'll buy Erwin's book to help support his efforts and probably read it
> with interest, while taking it with the fairly considerable "grain of salt"
> he's repeatedly demonstrated he deserves. And I imagine his stuffy pomposity
> will continue to bug me, and that I'll continue to bug him. No harm in that,
> really.
> 
> --Mike
> 
>