Re: [Leica] Formal education needed?

[Barney Quinn <barney@ncep.noaa.gov>]

Erwin and Stephen,

This is out of hand. It needs to be stopped, IMHO, for several reasons. You are both
doing real damage to your credibility as experts. Continue and you both run the risk
that other readers will, with justification, ignore you both. I don't know what it
is between you two. But, it begins to sound more and more like a personal problem to
me. Carrying that kind of stuff around inside harms you both as people. Lastly, and
perhaps most important, the situation between you both isn't good for the group as a
whole. What sane person wants to post messages in an environment where anything they
say gets severely challenged on both a personal and professional level? Who wants to
participate in an endeavor one key feature of which appears to be some kind of
sibling rivalry? If what's going on continues it will, at some considerable cost,
polarize and politicize the group.

I believe that each of us has gifts, and that we each, from time to time, has
something to put on the table. I'd prefer that we spend our time celebrating each
other's strengths, not turning them into weaknesses. Formal education, per se,
usually doesn't lead to either wisdom or spiritual strength. What you are both doing
may be "right" in some aggressive, competitive sense of the word. It isn't, however,
wise. Please stop and cool down before you both manage to do some unnecessary damage
which can't be easily repaired. How important, under the circumstances, is it to
prove yourself  "correct" particularly at the cost of branding yourself as someone
with a problem?

Stop and think. Just think.

Barney

Stephen Gaudy wrote:

> nice juggling of  apples and oranges Erwin.  photogs without formal training can
> often take great pics and have successful careers,  but how many amateur
> engineers  or opticians,  without formal training,  have  designed quality
> production 35mm camera lenses in the last half century?     Your hobby field of
> expertise is extremely technical.  Whether or not you have formal training in
> such an extremely technical field  is a fair question because many (most?) of
> your readers will  not have the background needed to recognize an error on such
> a technical subject.      I do have training as a photographer, and you probably
> do as well, but that does not make either of us a lens and/or optical expert.
> My hat is off, though, to the real lens and optical experts who work for lens
> makers producing better new lens designs which make it to the end of the
> production line.
>
> And your background of training, or the lack of it, seems to have had an effect
> in the Konica Hexar discussion.  Faced with questions and data that do not fit
> in with your claim, you attack -- even going so far as demeaning the standards
> of photogs who report sharp pics with their Hexars -- without even seeing those
> pics.  Instead of trying to help solve a problem for some Leica / Konica owners
> which you helped bring to the forefront, your main aim seems to be only to
> defend your position on the subject.   Sorry Erwin, that does not sound like a
> very "expert," educated, or scientific attitude to me, but it does sound like
> someone insecure about their "hobby of expertise."
>
> it's nice your book is selling well, Leica can use the extra lens sales.   If
> your book is like LUG postings, however, your Leica lens "tests" always say the
> same things.  1.  Newly introduced Leica lenses are slightly better than the
> older design. (so the reader should buy the new lenses)   2. Leica lenses are
> better than other makes of lenses (so the reader should buy Leica.)   3. Older
> Leica lenses are nice, but not nearly so nice as the new lenses (so the reader
> should buy the new Leica lenses.).   If Leica isn't supplying your book to ever
> Leica salesman, they should,  since it will help photogs past the money
> objections and on to parting with that all important green stuff to help keep
> Leica in business.    Perhaps instead of Zen, you might consider a book on
> quality control and statistical sampling.   Apparently it will be news to you
> that testing  only one or two sample products,  especially suspect product
> samples on loan from the manufacturer or the manufacturer's local distribributor
> that may have been specially selected for you, is generally frowned upon  as
> being  a good and accurate quality indicator for  thousands or tens of thousand
> of products (or more) sold at random over an unknown period of time.   Your lens
> tests might improve if you spent less time comparing yourself to great
> scientists and more time comparing your methods to theirs.
>
> Stephen  Gandy
>
> Erwin Puts wrote:
>
> > It is quite remarkable that the insistence of formal education has popped up
> > recently and even more remarkable seems to apply to one individual only.
> > If we stay in the realm of testing lenses, which according to that ad hoc
> > criterium can be done reliably only when having a university degree in
> > optics and/or a long working life in a company that designs lenses, we
> > should discard all lens testing in the photographic world:
> > None of the testers of Chasseurs d'Images has such a degree or working
> > experience, nor the Modern Photography testers (Herbert Keppler as example),
> > nor the Photo Techniques people (has Mike Johnston (I have forgotten more
> > about photography that you will ever know) a degree in these topics?), nor
> > has Popular Photography, Photodo, Shutterbug etc, Color Photo, Photo
> > Magazin, even the super famous Geoffrey Crawley, cited often in Viewfinder,
> > does not have these requirements.
> > And to stay on a personal level: have Tom Abrahamson, the staff of
> > Viewfinder, and all of the other respected Luggers who occassionally present
> > their test results these qualifications? Not to forget Mr Gandy himself!
> > What is his track record in these topics?
> > It is well known that most photographers do not have formal education in
> > their craft or art and still can produce outstanding work.
> > To drift a bit: the mechanical clock and  and the invention of the latitude
> > as a tool for navigation were invented by amateurs against the formally
> > educated university professors who argued against their knowledge.
> > Fraunhofer, of the famous glass works and Fraunhofer lines was an amateur
> > etc.
> > The topic of the necessity of a formal education as a prerequisite for being
> > taken serious or being able to perform at all, has a long cultural history.
> > The balance of history is in favour of the amateurs. But that as an aside.
> >
> > It is quite strange that the individual(s) who demand formal expertise from
> > others, do not possess it themselves, and in the same sentence  refer to
> > others as reliable and trustworthy sources, who do not qualify either.
> >
> > It is evidently the case that this demand for qualifications is not
> > introduced as a serious safeguard against quaks or charlatans, but as a very
> > blunt and conspicious instrument to fend off and discredit the work of one
> > specific individual only.
> >
> > Luckely for me the reviews of my book in all magazines are quite positive,
> > if not raving. So are the readers. And I did state that I am not formally
> > trained in these topics. Some at least are less blinded and more open minded
> > than others.
> > But you need to have some quality to recognize quality in some body else.
> > Read Pirsig: Zen and the Art of Motorcycling for a discussion of these
> > topics.
> >
> > Erwin
> >
> >