Re: [Leica] LUG Critique - listen up!

[chefurka@sympatico.ca (Paul Chefurka)]

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 16:39:45 -0700, Bill Larsen <ohlen@lightspeed.net>
wrote:

>Paul Chefurka writes:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 16:05:09 -0400 (EDT), Ktuckphoto@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> 2.  The vehemence of debate over eye glasses
>>See above
>
>That is no answer, Paul.  It is symptomatic of how this list has become a chat
>line.  We are also being reduced to ethno-centric debates which could quickly
>blow up in our faces.
Sorry my reply didn't strike a chord with you.  What I meant was "This
is another in the expected panorama of off-topic discussions."

What I should have said was, "Eyes are the most important organ a
photographer has.  Some eyes are not perfect, and so we need to wear
glasses.  Glasses and cameras (especially earlier Leica M's) are
antithetical - the metal eyepiece does irreparable damage to the lens
in the course of normal use.  This reduces the photographer's ability
to pursue his craft, at least in some measure, and is irritating as
well.  As a result a discussion of eyeglass lenses is not as
egregiously off-topic as cars or malt whiskeys, since it at least has
to do with photography."

Better?

>
>There used to be a lot of talk about rangefinder cameras (which is the charter
>of the list --- not Leica in general).  Unfortunately, to my perception some
>of the really knowledgeable people were driven from the list or choose to no
>longer post to the list (they appear to be willing to post privately, though).

Can't comment too much on this, except to say that to have people
joining and leaving any discussion group is pretty much par for the
course.  For every strong contributor who is "driven out" there are
probably several others who left for other reasons, such as moving,
losing computer access, no longer being interested, or just finding
better things to do with their time.

>The replies now posted have less credibility than they did in the past.  Often
>they are flat a**** wrong.  Now you get opinion from people that have never
>seen the item in question much less used it.

There will always be wrong (or almost-right) answers on a list like
this.  New members have a right to offer their advice and opinions,
and I, for one, enjoy it when I'm able to add a bit of information to
some discussion.  The chance I take when I do this is that someone
with more knowledge will show me (and my errors) up.  Does this mean I
should wait for the "acknowledged experts" to answer all the
questions?  Not on your life.

>>Well, there are a couple of ways to look at Leica M pictures.  One is
>>"I have the best lenses in the world and nothing shall stand between
>>their magnificence and my final output".  The other is "Look at this
>>great picture.  I would hate to entrust it to the tender mercies of a
>>commercial lab - after all, I know what it's supposed to look like.
>>And seeing as how I live in an apartment with scant room for an Omega
>>D4, but I already have this computer..."  Have you ever seen the
>>output from a decent scanner and an Epson Photo 750?  I have, and
>>frankly, I don't care if I ever smell acetic acid again (except on a
>>salad, of course).
>
>
>Paul, you might want to subscribe to the Contax-G list.

Why on earth would I do that?  I neither own nor like Contax G's
(except for the hood I now have on my 90/2.8 Elmarit-M).

>They are just as
>off-topic as the LUG, but their experts on scanning and computers state their
>real life qualifications.

What's the deal with qualifications when you're expressing an opinion?
A lot of LUGgers wouldn't trade their darkrooms for anything, while  I
think the output of a good scanner and a 750 looks just fine.  Do I
need a degree in Comp Sci (which I do in fact have) to render such an
opinion?  Now if I or anyone else was holding themselves out as an
expert, credentials are an issue, and I've seen people challenged over
this even on the LUG.

>Plus their posters have not answered with "one
>worders" such as "bark."

Not sure what you're referring to here.  I will say I've gotten tired
of B&W LF images of silver birch groves where all the trees have
peeling "bark".

>'Nuff said ... other than I would hate to think that new subscribers think the
>list has always been what it appears to have become.

I think lists like this are like the people that create them.  They go
through cycles in their lives - sometimes interesting, sometimes dull,
sometimes brimming over with creative energy and good ideas, sometimes
obsessed with inanity.  Just like the weather, if you want it to be
different just wait a while.

"Cheer up," he said, 'things could be worse".  So I cheered up, and
sure enough - things got worse.

Paul Chefurka