Re: [Leica] Leica lenses

[Ted Grant <tedgrant@islandnet.com>]

Jim Brick wrote:

>Of the more than 700 members of the LUG, a mere handful participate in
>discussions. The personalities of these people become vividly apparent.

Jim,

Thanks for getting me reigned in here for allowing my hormone driven
feelings get the better of my mind and fingers.

>But human nature, as it is, leads one into these forayers, before one knows
>they are there. At that point, one should simply stop, because it is simply
>feeding a lifeless entity.>>>>>>

My apology to LUG members for wasting your space by allowing myself to get
so stupidly dragged into a dumb word situation!

ted


>Some people will argue anything, just simply for the sake of arguing. Some
>will argue that, no matter what proof anyone has, their own viewpoint is
>the only viewpoint possible. Basically, these two types have no life and
>look to the LUG (or whatever list) to supply them with stimulation that is
>missing from their life outside of the network. This is unfortunate because
>tones of typing and sentence structures have no human presence. It's just
>someone's or something's meaningless words appearing on a screen.
>
>This list contains many many professional photographers. People who make
>their entire living via everyday photography. And they use Leica equipment.
>It is pretty obvious that Leica makes outstanding equipment. The testimony
>of professionals, still using forty year old equipment for their bread and
>butter, is significant.
>
>Professionals have learned, that it is how it looks "on the light table" is
>what counts. If you are competing for work, or a stock pick, or whatever,
>it still all boils down to "what it looks like on a light table." Of the
>partici[ating professionals (on this list), we have heard, time and time
>again, that their Leica images "stand out" on a crowded light table. Which
>is why they use Leica.
>
>Erwin can tell us the engineering and numerical data behind Leica lenses.
>But even that is useless if your slides are passed by for some others.
>
>So it is not just the equipment, it is the "eye" of the photographer as
>well. But a good photographer will be an "outstanding" photographer, if the
>equipment that they are using, will work in a way that art directors and
>AD's choose, time and time again, over the competition. So having
>"confidence" in the equipment is a great help as well.
>
>Putting the package together, is it any wonder that the professional
>photographers that we have on board, and here's where I'm going to get into
>trouble as my feeble mind will miss someone... Ted, Donal, Harrison, Eric,
>Tina, Michael, Fred Ward, Henning, Tim, Jeremy, Carl, ... and many many
>more (this is off the cuff folks), are OUTSTANDING in their field, and
>command the utmost respect from the professional photographic community?
>
>My personal opinion is that is the "whole" package that makes these folks
>stand-outs. Not any one item. Like a catalyst, each element works to help
>the other elements, providing a whole, greater than the sum of the parts.
>MTF numbers, lines per MM, film brands, AF, all the technical stuff, alone,
>just doesn't do it. It's the person behind the equipment AND the
>capabilities of the equipment that add up to outstanding photographic
>abilities.
>
>So arguing about which brand lens is better than which other brand lens is
>a meaningless exchange of drivel. We all know that Leica makes lenses that
>can hold their own in any photographic situation. And are the ONLY act in
>town in many situations.
>
>So it is my philosophy, that when mindless arguments, of meaningless words,
>appear on my screen, I push delete. By acknowledging a "going nowhere"
>subject, is a total waste of time.
>
>Of course, if totally erroneous data, is put out as fact, the fallacy
>should be corrected. And then dropped.
>
>
>Jim


Ted Grant
This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler.
http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant