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

[Thomas Pastorello <tmp@mailbox.syr.edu>]

   Thank you, Alan.  You provide a fine voice of moderation.  And I'm glad
to read that this debate has been moving in the useful direction of our
moderating eachother's views to find the truth in the middle.  Tom P.

On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, Alan Ball wrote:

> 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!
> 
> 
>