[Leica] Message or messenger?

[imx <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

I try to draw a very clear and firm line between the content of a message
and the person, who presents the information. (I am human, so sometimes I
fail!). That is why I never on this list have pubicly commented on any
person's capabilities, qualifications or credibility or lack of knowledge
about whatever topic.
My view is a simple one: a message should be approached as it stands: what
facts are presented, what logical reasoning supports the conclusion, based
on the premisses or factual evidence. How are the facts gathered, how
reasonable are he assumptions. Etc. The person behind the message is
invisible or even irrelevant. If an unknown person produces content that is
valuable in itself, it is worth much more that a wellknown person who speaks
nonsense. 
From a birds eye perspective (having studied books and magazine-articles
from 1870 till today) I have to remark that the craft of photography and the
progress in photographic technique has been seriously hampered by the
hundreds if not thousands of illfounded explanations, superficial and
ideosyncratical advice and myths, presented as fact. From the moment that
photography became a mass-activity and a big industry, the scientific
exploration of the basic ideas and concepts in the photographic craft have
been diluted and distorted by a long parade of spin- and witch-doctors, who
from an Olympic Tower dictated what the photographer should know in order to
be happy with his hobby.
How else can we explain that the notion that resolution is an important
aspect of the quality of a lens, still is so popular. (Pop Photo has even
resurrected these notions). Is it a simple idea, anyone can do such a test
(make a picture of a copy of a the USAAF test chart, take a picture and
count lines), it seems to be a quantified approach, the numbers can be
easily compared (50 is less han 60). But is thee anyone who has ever asked
himself if there is any basis for this criterion? Optical designers reject
it since 1940,the scientific study of vision does not give it any
attention,there is not one study that experimentally and heoretically
founded has correlated resolution with our perception of image quality.
Of course resolution as a concept has value. But only when discussed
appropriately and in context.
The world of photography is full of this type of concept-migration, that
brings only confusions. Concepts, that have a limited and valuable meaning
in a certain area (microscopy and astronomy in the case of resolution), are
hyped up in a different context (image quality of a lens). It is, in my
viwew, not in the interest of photographers who care about the craft of and
the progress in photography, to continue to jump on or stay on whatever
bandwagon, that has been constructed in the past or the present.
I believe that only facts can bring insight and progress, and the method of
finding and presenting facts is wellknown.  It is indeed my goal, to try to
explore the basics of the photographic craft, as they are relevant for the
improvement of the core aspects of photography: to reproduce by mechanical
means a slice of reality, fixed in a split second.
Bokeh, in my view, is the successor of the concept of resolution: it is easy
to talk about, anybody can see it, a relation with the image quality of the
lens is easily supposed and so on.
Of course bokeh has its value and it is a  concept, which may acquire in due
course a role, which can enlighten the discussion about the perception of a
photograph, artistically and even visually.
As long as people discuss bokeh as it has been done in the  recent past, I
will comment on the topic. The background why? See above. Who makes the
comment, is for me irrelevant.

Erwin