[Leica] cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message

[bob.zinn@chemserv.chem.lsu.edu]

- --simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Message is undeliverable.
Reason: Unable to access cc:Mail Post office.
	Please retry later.
Original text follows:
- ---------------------


- --simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us by chemserv.chem.lsu.edu (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.01)
	; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 07:26:02 -0600
Return-Path: <daemon@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA13432; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 04:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3.triad.rr.com (fe3.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.50])
	by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA13422; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 04:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1c658 ([24.28.239.254]) by mail3.triad.rr.com  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19);
	 Mon, 17 Jan 2000 07:11:49 -0500
Message-ID: <000b01bf60e3$2b1803a0$feef1c18@triad.rr.com>
From: "Robert Bedwell" <rlb@triad.rr.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
References: <v04220805b4a89be9563a@[195.64.35.213]>
Subject: Re: [Leica] Mike's new religion
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 07:05:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us

Erwin provides a wonderful and extremely credible service to LUGGERS.  Over
the past years I have learned to appreciate the research work that he does
with Leica products.  I believe that it would be quite foolish to overlook
his data when a Leica owner is in search for a new or used Leica lens.  I
believe that this is what Erwin wants us to do.  I have never read any of
his reports that state that only pictures taken with a Leica lens can be
enlarged to gigantic proportions or are only worthy or presentation.

The bottom-line for me is that I am happy for the information that I get
from  Erwin's reports.  However I would choose the lense and the camera that
gave me the highest success for the photographic assignment.  It may be
Leica, Nikon, Contax, Hasselblad or Rollei and it may be Fuji.....whatever
is takes to get the image recorded on film.    If the compostition and
subject matter is correct it doesn't really matter what it was taken
with......IMHO.  We often allow our love for the camera to become more
important than the outcome.

Bob
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Erwin Puts" <imxputs@knoware.nl>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 6:16 AM
Subject: [Leica] Mike's new religion


> Mike J wrote in part:
> " ...Or, in other words, you know full well that you cannot tell a print
> >  made with a Leica lens from a print made with a Pentax lens. And you
are
> >  absolutely correct in that assumption, I believe.
> >
> >  Any other response would have made me very surprised. Any lens expert
> >  knows that you cannot tell one brand of lens from another based only on
> >  real-world results"
>
> Well Mike: yours is a fine example of semantic armtwisting and
> logical juggling. I said that your test is flawed, not in principle
> but in execution. Your inference that by stating this I do
> acknowledge that I do know that it is impossible to identify prints
> made with a certain camera/lens combination is  a strong leap of your
> imagination. And not justified I am afraid to say.  Your  gauntlet
> test is set up to prove a hypothesis, that is what every test tries
> to do. Now simple and time honored test procedures that are conducted
> all over the world, give you the rules. Any test should be done in
> such a way that only the variable you have identified as proving the
> hypothesis should be the real and only variable. All other
> influencing factors need to be kept constant or under control.
> Secondly a control group with a placebo environment need to set up to
> ascertain the validity of your setup. And most importantly: the
> person designing the test should predict before the start of the test
> what results are required to prove or disprove the hypothesis. This
> prediction has not been published, making the test a -see-I-told-you-
> exercise.
> The most misleading of your setup is the generality of your
> hypothesis, that is: "you cannot tell a print
> made with a brand X lens from a print made with a brand Y lens". That
> is you assume that a picture made with a 180mm lens at f/2 of brand X
> cannot be told apart from a print made with a 35mm lens at f/8 of
> brand Y? Your only selection criterium is the sharpness criterium
> which is as subjective as can be.  This is a most unrealistic
> assertion and shows that you are not really focused on a true and
> meaningful test. Your mind is already made up: yours is not  an
> interesting hypothesis, but already a statement of fact as you have
> said above in the quote. Now it is very easy to conduct a session
> that will prove you "right".  Show a group of persons ten prints
> selected by the one who wants to prove himself right, include three
> pictures made with brand X equipment  among the ten and here we go:
> if 25% of guesses by the group of test persons correctly identifies
> the brand X picture is your hypothesis OK. Or do we need 53% to make
> the test meaningful. How big is the mere statistical chance that x%
> will at random select the correct print?
> I am amazed, Mike, that you go to these lengths just to 'prove' your
> point which is unprovable to start with. I did on purpose refer to
> the "angels on a pin" discussion. When we are talking religion and
> that is what you are doing all arguments and facts are futile. What
> you want to get is support  for your own belief system and values.
> Which is fine with me. But I graciously decline to be converted to
> your religious beliefs.
> Your second statement ("Any lens expert knows that you cannot tell
> one brand of lens from another based only on real-world results") is
> again one of those sentences that look charmingly convincing but are
> basically non substantive, like this one: "any political forecasting
> expert knows that you cannot tell which candidate for president will
> win the election based only on real-world results".Well it is the
> charm of any attractive religion that people can repeat mantras that
> are simple to remember and evoke the impression of deep significance.
> Our language is a powerful instrument is it not?
>
> Erwin
>
>



- --simple boundary--