[Leica] Photographic skills

[Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

Here we have the bottom line of the age-old discussion if we can see 
the quality of Leica lenses in itself and compared to other marques. 
I fully  agree with Jonathan's statement that if a lens gives better 

values in a properly conducted optical test, it is simply a better 
lens. And a better lens has better recording capabilities than a 
lesser one, and these recording capabilities cover two- and three 
dimensional objects in a like manner. So a better lens will give a 
better (that is a more accurate) recording of the three dimensional 
world we live in, also called the real world.
Now if we have a lens with better capabilities and one with lesser 
capabilities, and we record a tiny space-time slice on film, the 
better lens will give a more accurate representation of that 
time-space slice. Period.
If we cannot see the difference than it is not the lens that is at 
fault, nor the fact that we are physiologically unable to see it, nor 
can we conclude that there are no differences to be detected. What is 
lacking is the skill of the photographer in recording the 3-D world 
as good as the lens is capable of.
Mike's test is set up to see if one can detect differences between 
pictures taken with lens A and lens B. His conclusion is that if one 
cannot see any difference, the lens is not better or we are not able 
to see it, therefore it is not relevant. Given the above statement, 
the test (if and when properly set up and executed) will only allow 
for one conclusion. If pictures taken with two lenses that are proven 
to have different optical quality by a properly conducted optical 
test, can not be distinguished by several expert  observers as such, 
then the pictures are below the required standard of photographic 
quality.
We have one absolute constant here and at least two variables in the 
gauntlet equation. The constant is the proven recording capability of 
lens A and lens B. The variables are the skill of the persons who 
took and processed the pictures and the skill of the observers. In a 
remarkable twist of logic we are proceeding as if the skill of the 
picture takers and the skill of the observers are the constants in 
the equation and the optical quality of the lenses the dependent 
variables.
Now Mike will try to show that his setup is relevant for allowing 
conclusions of an empirical nature, as opposed to a scientific one. 
Well if that were the goal, there is no need to proceed, as it has 
been established countless of times since 1925 that in many instances 
pictures taken with Leica equipment cannot be identified as such. 
Most recently one Lugger noted the book about Magnum photographers 
who presumably used Leica for some of their pictures. But to ask the 
question if indeed these pictures are taken with Leica equipment is 
an accurate forecast of the results of  Mike's test. Statistically at 
least 30% will identify correctly the pictures taken with a Leica. ( 
3 of 10 pictures are Leica pictures, so any random choice has a 3 to 
10 chance of being correct).
Long years ago there was the famous discussion if pictures enlarged 
with a condenser or a diffuser enlarger are different. When I taught 
at a photography school I asked all teachers to sit around a table, 
look at a few pictures taken with both types of enlargers and 
identify the enlarger type. (Same scene, both negatives developed 
according to the rules). Some teachers quickly identifed the 
condenser and diffuser prints, some used a longer time but eventually 
made a positive choice. Of course I cheated: all prints were 
identical. So the upshot is this: humans will see differences when 
told there are differences. If Mike's ten samples of prints included 
no Leica print some would identify some print as taken with Leica 
equipment. If all ten prints are Leica prints some would identify a 
Leica print as taken with  non-Leica equipment.

Erwin