[Leica] Down goes the Gauntlet!

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

You know, this is really starting to scratch my black-paint finish, if
you know what I mean. It's beginning to ding my titanium plating. It's
commencing to make my strap-lugs show wear, if ya follow.


Erwin P. : >>>Mike J noted that it does not make sense to try to got to
the limits of what might be the optimum/maximum image quality of a 35mm
negative<<<

I never noted any such thing. I told Martin to knock himself out if
that's what he wants to do. ("Knock yourself out" is a slightly derisive
but not entirely unfriendly way of saying "go ahead and try your
hardest, it doesn't matter to me.") What I noted (_ad nauseam_, with
barely anybody actually bothering to read what I actually wrote) is that
when you cannot see the difference in the results then there is no
practical difference there that matters.


>>>If leica designers would have followed the dictum that you can stop
when it is good enough we would never have seen the current much
improved optical systems<<<

Very obviously, I am not talking about lens designers. I am talking
about users. Users never do nine-tenths of the things lens designers do
with lenses and I think it is self-evident that the approaches of the
two must be different.


>>>it is a consistent line in Mike's prescriptions that Leica
lenses are overhyped (my interpretation!)<<<

Given the amount of typing I do, at the very least you could be good
enough to refute something I actually say. <g>


>>>This will give you potential imagery to medium format
levels...[snip]...the intriguing and challenging and gratifying
possiblity of Leica lenses/bodies to produce medium format like
imagery...<<<

Simply not the case. WE'VE RUN THE EXPERIMENTS. Do you want chapter and
verse? Extract: a Leica print optimized for image quality (best film;
heavy tripod; best enlarging lens; all parameters optimized, very
careful technique) was compared to ordinary Pentax 6x7 shots, NOT
OPTIMIZED for image quality (faster, low-sharpness film; handheld, etc.)
with the results evaluated for "subjective image quality"  by a panel
comprising photographers, other visual professionals such as graphic
artists and picture editors, and non-photographer lay people: in 8x10
enlargements, no significant preference; in 11x14 enlargements, majority
preference for the Pentax 6x7 prints; in 16x20 enlargements, unanimous
preference for the Pentax 6x7 prints.

Given comparable skill and technique, NO 35mm results hold a candle to
medium format for image quality at anything more than about 8 diameters,
EVEN WITHOUT strict parity in equipment quality and technique.


>>>Again imagine the average cardriver, put him in
a racing car: let him drive around the block and ask him if he now
has experienced the best of modern automotive  engineering. So let a
Leica user shoot a roll of film in his backyard and ask him if he now
sees Leica imagery<<<

Poor analogy. Why? Because the race car is NOT the best engineering for
driving around the block. However, Leicas certainly are designed and
intended for fast, reactive, handheld, photojournalistic-style shooting,
so it's hardly a case of misapplication to use them that way.


>>>I will reflect on any suggestion and advice, unless I am ordered to
forget my tripod, that I must shoot handheld, that I may only use a
Leica lens at full aperture, that I may not enter a studio with my
Leica, and that I should settle for a quality level of (generically
speaking) the Pentax type<<<

I don't follow this. I never "ordered" anyone to do anything. I did say
that most great Leica photographs are not taken from tripods of static
subjects, and I'll add now that I think most great Leica M photographs
are not taken in studios, and I believe that's a defensible
position--although this is based on my impression of all the Leica
photographs _I've_ seen, and you are free to disagree based on your
impression of the sum total of all the Leica photographs _you've_ seen.


>>>Many of my images  (whatever the content) are handheld shots on
100ISO film even in twilight hours and they do give that unique quality
that Leica lenses give their outstanding fingerprint<<<

I'm afraid I don't even follow this argument. I never spoke about the
recognizability of Leica optics in slides or prints. Nor would I. Rather
unfortunately, I have an altogether too highly developed ability to
decipher the visual fingerprint of a lens. I can thumb through an issue
of _Sports Illustrated_ and identify shots made with Canons and shots
made with Nikons. I have a very good eye for seeing the visual effects
of characteristic lens aberrations, and not just the easy ones. If I
know a lens, it is difficult to disguise this "fingerprint" to my eye. I
can go through thousands of my own prints and tell you which lens made
each.

My friend Nick Hartmann once came to my house with 17 prints. He
challenged me to try to figure out which of his three lenses were used
for each print. I knew all three lenses. I nailed all 17
identifications. He will attest to this. He will also attest that I
cannot always do this. But sometimes I can.

So...

***Whappp!!***

Now you've done it! There went the gauntlet! <g>

A CHALLENGE: I will make ten prints that I believe to exhibit optical
excellence. All good negatives, all sharp, all big enlargements, all
showing fine technique, no attempts to fudge the test or fool you--no
cheap tricks. All films and developers identified, all made with the
same paper, paper developer, enlarger, and enlarging lens. Camera lens
apertures used will be identified. Tripod vs. handheld shots will be
identified. All ten shots made with various unidentified lenses. Three
or four of the ten will be shots made with Leica lenses. Do you think
you can recognize which three are Leica pictures? Will you try to tell
me that you can distinguish the Leica pictures from the Pentax, Zeiss,
Olympus, Nikon, and Canon pictures from looking at the prints?

I'll bet not one person here can pick which shots were taken with Leica
lenses. If I had any money, I'd bet money on it. ;-)

Anybody want to try? I'm serious--I'll make the prints. I can't do it
this month, but I'll do it. I'll make three sets of prints and we'll
send each set to, say, three volunteers. Each can try to identify the
Leica prints. I'll post the data and let smarter brains on the LUG
crunch the statistical implications.

Anybody game to try to prove me wrong? Any volunteers?

- --Mike