[Leica] Antagonist?

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

> I don't know if you are referring to me as someone who you believe is one
> of 'his antagonists', but if you are, that is completely unfounded.  In
> fact, I have not seen anyone 'antagonize' him at all.


Actually, I would rank myself as one of Erwin's antagonists. First, in a
descriptive sense, because he antagonizes me and _vice versa_; but further,
in a philosophical sense, because I feel 1.) that he overstates his
expertise and authority (or perhaps he merely implies an inflated estimate
and others are the ones who actually state it) and 2.) that he pretends to
be objective when actually he isn't. My best estimation of Erwin is that
he's a freelancing, mainly self-taught enthusiast of a technical and
scientific bent and background who has worked with great gusto to research
the field of photographic optics as it applies to Leica lenses. There's
nothing dishonorable, and, as others have pointed out, quite a lot useful,
in that; one of the leading experts of photographic materials life
expectancy, Henry Wilhelm, began the same way.

However, Walt's questions are well taken. They're exactly the same questions
I had to ask myself in evaluating Erwin as a contributor to _PHOTO
Techniques_ (where evaluating the expertise and reliability of authors was a
continual part of my job responsibility).  My conclusion was that his
expertise is suspect, because in my judgement he's an apologist for Leica
first and foremost--essentially an amateur who has been flattered by
attention from his contacts at Leica and by the official access they've
granted him and who, in return, has devoted his loyalties zealously to their
products and to the company's interests. That is, if given a choice between
reporting objective evidence dispassionately and finding a way for the
evidence to exalt or justify Leica products, I'm fundamentally unsure as to
which of the two he would choose. To me he resembles no one so much as Ernst
Wildi, the "house expert" on the payroll of Hasselblad for so many years.
Erwin's a volunteer, and not on the payroll, but he's adopted a similar
role.

That's only my own opinion, and if and when others wish to hold their own
opinions, fine. Others aren't shy about offering their opinions of me, which
they're entitled to. It's somewhat unfortunate (if occasionally
entertaining) that my estimation _has to_ put me in an antagonistic position
relative to Erwin's self-appointed champions, but this list is polarized on
the question and there doesn't seem to be much alternative. He's preaching
to the choir hereabouts, naturally. But if anyone would like to dispute my
evaluation _with me_, then I'd like to see, as Marc suggested, hard
evidence: evidence of earned (degreed) technical education, especially in
the field of optics; publication of scientific papers in peer-reviewed
journals; scientific or technical jobs he's held (what _does_ Erwin do for a
living, anyway?); evidence of acceptance of his work by acknowledged experts
in the field, especially academic experts (and not those who have a plain
conflict of interest, such as a Leica lens designer who's been feeding him
information); and, mostly, some kind of actual evidence of his alledged
objectivity, since that's mainly what I would tend to call into dispute.

Of course, when you get right down to it, I don't really want to discuss it,
since that doesn't promise to be enjoyable and it honestly doesn't matter to
me. I'll buy Erwin's book to help support his efforts and probably read it
with interest, while taking it with the fairly considerable "grain of salt"
he's repeatedly demonstrated he deserves. And I imagine his stuffy pomposity
will continue to bug me, and that I'll continue to bug him. No harm in that,
really.

- --Mike