Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Whew... thank you very much. Finally!!! A completely understandable and rational explanation of "an objective evaluation of leica M lenses." For a moment there, I thought I was heading down the wrong track. But then, like a miracle, this post. Alas. Saved. I had forgotten to apply "set theory". Boy do I feel foolish. And to think that all this time, I've been photographing only probabilistic models. Completely missing those illusive little atoms. Damn! Oh well... tomorrow's another day. I think I've been operating in negative space. My film was made out of anti-matter. I don't know how Fuji let it get out. Probably used a hyperspace worm hole. But starting tomorrow, Ted and I promise to only use our ordinary Leica cameras, and ordinary Kodak film (maybe some Fuji), and taking ordinary photographs of ordinary people and objects. And we will blitz past good, so there is no more debate, and move on to excellent. Aye Ted? Quark9 At 12:42 AM 4/27/98 -0400, LP6 wrote: >Eric: > >I agree with your general observations regarding science; except, there is a >basis for some objective reasoning about about what constiutes a "good >picture" and the "good" in human affairs generally. > >Namely, a picture is "good" insofar as it satisfies your or my concept of a >good picture. i.e., a "good" picture is one that satisfies the >photographer's concept and purpose rearding what he is doing in the moment >(of image capture). > >The more expert the photographer the more properties his concept has. Thus, >property density increases with experience (expertise); but, a "good" picture >always remains one that satisfies our concept (definition) of a good picture >carried in our heads. g it. "Good" always remains concept fulfillment . >Anything good is also rich in properties! Property density and concept >fulfillment set the stage for the application of set theory, set algebra and >other formal, logical moves that can lead us to a science of "good", and >therefore a probabilistic science of aesthetics and ethics for the first time >in history. Physicists looking at the atom are also must use probability >models. > >For the more analytically minded may I suggest the following reference of >ours: FORMS OF VALUE AND VALUATION , Edited by Edwards and Davis, University >Press of America, Lantham, Maryland (1991). > >LP6@aol.com >