Re: [Leica] Gandy & Puts objectivity

[Krechtz@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/1/00 4:13:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Stephen@CameraQuest.com writes:

<< I feel most of my differences with Erwin are honest differences of opinion
 that could be argued either way.   However if there are two sides to a Leica
 question,  I do find it odd that I can't remember Erwin ever siding with
 anything but a  viewpoint that would just happen to support the sales of new
 Leica product (variations of its the newest, its the best),   while at the 
same
 time claiming he is objective.   hmmm. >>

    That would be consistent with Erwin's consistently stated belief that the 
primary and sometimes only criteria by which a lens is to be judged are those 
susceptible to verification, analysis or quantification through use of the 
process he characterizes, generally with justification, as the scientific 
method.  His posts of 11/23/00 exemplify his approach.  
    My interpretation of these posts is that he has not yet found a reliable 
and accepted standard for the characterization of the phenomenon known as 
bokeh in all its various manifestations, nor has he decided that it is of 
sufficient importance to the majority of his readers to prod him to work 
toward development of such descriptive terms, quantifiable parameters or 
measurements.  At the same time, he acknowledges that serious appreciation 
and study of bokeh is appropriate in cultures having a "tradition of visual 
awareness and sensitivity" (post of 11/23/00 - Test versus Trial?, part 2).  
    He concludes that post by asserting the necessity for "substantial fact 
finding based on repeatable experiments", but he does not suggest that he 
intends to develop a methodology for so doing.  My inference is that Erwin 
leaves that task to those who have advocated the genuineness and importance 
of the phenomenon.  For him, the subject has been throughly considered, and 
it is now closed.
    It is understandable that such an approach may be frustrating to those 
who, like me, lack the experience, expertise, training, funds and time to 
explore the optical and mathematical underpinnings of the various aesthetic, 
chemical, physical, mechanical and other components of the mystery we call 
photography.  However, it is generally not within the realm of possibility 
for us to control how such resources are applied by those having them, Erwin 
included.  Moreover, because he claims no special authority or suasion, he 
does not feel called upon to justify his choices or opinions.
    Applying his personal standards, which he has repeatedly stated publicly, 
it is probably quite true, as Stephen suggests, that Erwin generally 
concludes that more recent technology produces technically superior optical 
performance than earlier materials and techniques.  I have found his 
observations about the observable characteristics of images produced by 
certain lenses both valid and, in some cases, helpful in making purchasing 
decisions.   I am not aware that he has, however, held himself out either as 
an expert in aesthetics or an artist.  He has even tacitly excluded himself 
from the ranks of those having the gift of "visual awareness and 
sensitivity", in his words.  
    He acknowledges his limitations.  I recall having seen no comments from 
Erwin on aesthetic matters, not even the kind of general praise we tend to 
express for the work of some of our members who quite well deserve it.  I 
cannot recall his having touted or shown us his work as a photographer.  In 
other words, I see no sham or pretense in Erwin's approach to photography.  
He appears to reserve his strongest expressions of ideas to areas in which he 
believes he has done his most effective work.
    He, like the rest of us, occasionally offers an opinion on a subject of 
general concern, like the future of photography.  Applying his own standards 
for assessment of non-scientific observations, I assume that Erwin does not 
regard his own views on such matters as any more valid than those of any 
other group member.  The problem is that once one holds oneself out as an 
authority in any area of inquiry, the public scrutiny and questioning begins.
    If Erwin is completely self-educated, that is irrelevant for our 
purposes.  Everything I know about photography I have either learned through 
experience or picked up from magazine writers and other photographers.  It is 
not my profession, merely an obsession (sounds like Jesse Jackson), but I 
suspect that this description would apply to many of us.  
    We have no genuine ethical right to question the credentials of those 
providing the information we receive from the LUG, Erwin included.  They are 
not paid instructors, and we pay nothing for the data or opinions they make 
available.  If we believe they lack objectivity, veracity, integrity or 
background, we are free to ignore them.  None of it will "be on the exam".
    In the final analysis, the question is primarily one of style as opposed 
to substance.  We are all free to object to what I understand as perceived 
condescension, smugness, self-satisfaction, pretense, arrogance or similar 
personality traits or undesirable behaviors on the part of those posting on 
the LUG, Erwin included.  However, if he is indeed the charlatan some have 
implied he is, he is a damned industrious one.  
    If Leica has been paying Erwin to promote sales of new equipment, I hope 
the money has been well earned.  I assume the LUG would like to see Leica 
prosper.  Ultimately, Erwin's motives are irrelevant.  We either find his 
work useful, informative or valuable or we do not.  We are free publicly to 
agree or disagree with his opinions.  In these critical respects, he has no 
greater rights or powers than any other member.  I, for one, feel perfectly 
free to ignore or delete every one of his posts.  But I don't.  Nor do I 
frame them.  
    In fact, I find Erwin's approach to such phenomena as bokeh unduly 
limiting.  I believe that every photographer should consciously strive to 
understand all the elements which can have an appreciable impact on a 
photograph and its viewers, including the photographer.  Then the process of 
prioritization becomes a valid one, ideally culminating in the development by 
each photographer of individual and distinctive style.  
    To the extent that rejection out of hand of any such element limits this 
process, it is to be rigorously questioned.  In the final analysis, I would 
assert that visual awareness and sensitivity are essential to the making of a 
quality photograph.  The issue is a transcendant one for every photographer, 
not just those trained in a cultural tradition attuned to the fine points of 
bokeh.  

Joe Sobel