Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> After reading through the miles of "LensE testing...", the simple question > begs... "why?" Because, unlike you, I like to have facts, not myth and speculation. I can't find anywhere where someone has already done these tests, and it would be useful information for me. I find it interesting, and I am sure I will learn quite a bit by going through this exercise. The best way to learn and understand something is from experience. I thought you understood that. You're being hypocritical. WRT Xtol, people ask for "guidance", and you belittle them, and tell them to go do it on their own, and now when I want to explore this on my own, you tell me I am foolish. > And I have a question Austin. How can you actually do "round one" > of testing, > or any testing at all, when, upon looking at the LUG e-mail > times, you have > never left your computer??? In the great "Jim" tradition, I will explain ;-) The computer I've been on this week (one of 7 I have, two in my upstairs lab, one in the digital imaging lab, one in the debug lab, one in my office, and two notebooks), and why it's been easy to respond, is in my digital imaging lab, next to my Leafscan 45, Epson 836XL tabloid scanner, Epson 3000 printer with Piezo, and Epson 1160 with Piezo also. Most of the week has been making contact sheets by scanning the sleeves of negatives on my 836XL at 800DPI, and printing them on the 1160 using the Piezo plug-in and inks at 2160DPI. They come out exceedingly sharp, better than darkroom contact sheets IMO. The digital imaging lab is also right next to my film processor etc., and every now and then this week I have been also able to sneak a few rolls in, as well as some Xtol testing. > Are you simulating this? Or is it > just the usual. > Talking it to death. Oh, no, Jim. I'm a do-er. It's real easy while scanning and printing to run through some emails. It's not really that difficult. I don't believe you have a scanner or digital printing system, so you probably wouldn't have any real experience with that. > In order to show two images with possible differences, you have > to actually > take them on film, with a camera and lens, good fine grain film, > process it > properly, and then evaluate it carefully with a very good loupe. I guess you don't understand how the testing I am going to be doing works then, because that is completely wrong. I am only going to test the filter as the only variable, which, of course, is the proper way to do scientific testing. Only measuring/changing one variable at a time. How the test results translate into actual "final image" degradation is a subsequent issue. > Unless > someone > comes over to your house and looks at them with you, or you snail mail the > transparencies to someone else, your test is basically for your own > edification. Actually, you're right. This testing IS for my own edification. At least I won't be basing my conclusions on unsubstantiated hearsay. > So the question still begs... Why in hell is all of the LUG bandwidth > wasted by > totally incomprehensible chatter around someone, who has no discernable > photographic background, has offered nothing to the industry, Well, once again, you are mistaken. Unlike you, I am uncomfortable with, and it is not my style, going about 'tooting my own horn' with superfluous information about my background. But, in this case, you are publicly questioning my "qualifications", and you so readily go on about yours, so I will do so. I do apologize to the group for doing this. I am both an engineer and a photographer, and in the case of "filters degrade the image" with no qualification, I just do not accept that at face value, and I have the wherewithal to find out this information for my self. I have been doing commercial photography for over 20+ years. Starting from free-lance work in my teens, to having owned/co-owned two studios in the Boston area. We did quite a few national advertising campaigns, won numerous awards, as well as had our pictures in the Boston Museum of Science. We did the corporate brochure/annual report pictures for Dana Farber Cancer Institute, BayBank...restaurant brochures for the Marriot and Regency hotel chains... On the engineering side, with respect to digital imaging only, My undergraduate was mechanical engineering and computer science, and graduate in computer engineering/AI. During college, I developing robotic vision systems, and later developed the first commercially available digital vision inspection system (late 70's using a 2903...Jim) still used by GM today, through designing digital halftone equipment in the early 90's. I also developed the first digital imaging system to do real time inspection of band saw blades for Simonds Saw, which was quiet a feat, having to measure down to .0005" with a band saw blade screaming by at 12"/sec was quite a challenge. I also have a very deep background in digital audio and digital signal processing, as well as developed a series of process timers for both the photographic and medical industry. My first job out of college was as a Scientist with IBM Cambridge Scientific Center, one of five IBM Scientific Centers in the world, each with no more than 30 scientists. Since my graduate work was in Artificial Intelligence, I was hired to develop a heuristic network path manager for the IBM 3705 NCP. I've also been a founder and/or Chief Engineer for at least 4 or 5 companies over the years, as well as on corporate staff of one of the largest computer manufacturers. Oh, and to toot my wife's horn a bit, she was the Director of Server Engineering for this same large company, now she's mostly a stay at home mom to our 1 year old son, and an advisor to a SAN start-up company. She's a great cook too ;-) I think that's a reasonably strong photographic and engineering background, and I apologize for doing this on-list...it really goes against every grain in my body and any modesty I have. I like to just stick to facts, and let them stand on their own...but in this case, my credentials were claimed to be "not discernable" and that I have "offered nothing to the industry". > yet > promising to > "get to the bottom of the filter debacle" Well, you are on a roll. You are, once again, mistaken. Those are your words. That is not what I 'promised'. I said I was going to do the tests and provide the results. I also will use the numbers I acquire to provide some level of analysis and conclusion as to how it may or may not effect the resultant output image. I am sure this will not end the debacle, especially for you. > to satisfy that someone's own > incapability to understand the simplicity of the answer. I believe that shows that YOU don't understand the question. It's my question, and I asked it. I also understand the simplicity of the answer, and it is not YOUR answer. The answer is: "Two hours in a prestigious optical testing lab will give me the answer." That simple. > No testing need be done. Just use very simple everyday logic. > > What everyone should actually do is very very simple. Listen to > the experts. What experts, Jim? You? You are no "expert". You have no test results you can show me that quantify the degradation, nor does anyone else for that matter. If you do have this elusive data, please reveal it! > The people who have been doing this (photographing) for decades, > for a living. Of which I am one... > If a filter cannot make the photograph BETTER, why in hell would > someone use > one? This makes absolutely no sense. Absolutely NO SENSE. Yes, > absolutely no > sense what-so-ever! Well, it makes my photograph better in that my lenses are easier to clean and don't as easily suffer any damage. That to me, and others, is making the photograph better. Just because YOU don't believe that is so, does not make it not so, nor does your belief really matter. Jim, it is really too bad you are unable to allow others to know something, or have any knowledge that is different than your own. This bit about you are the ultimate knower of all knowledge and photographic methodology is pure bullshit, and quite tiring. You do NOT know everything. There are many REAL professional photographers, who make their living at photography, who on this list, and who do NOT respond as confrontationally as you do. They share their experience and opinion and do not degrade others in their doing so. I've tried like hell to be nice to you, but it's really hard to do when at every step of the way, you want to tell me what I know is right is wrong, and that what ever I am doing is wrong. It is hard to respect someone who shows no one else any respect, unless they agree with them. I know I am not the only one who feels this way. Personally, I don't give a shit if you think I know what I am talking about. I actually did try to befriend you for a while there, and sadly enough, your latest round of "Jim shit" just sent that South.