RE: [Leica] Photographic skills

[Paul Chefurka <Paul_Chefurka@pmc-sierra.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Erwin Puts [mailto:imxputs@knoware.nl]
>

[snipitydoodah]

>Now Mike will try to show that his setup is relevant for allowing 
>conclusions of an empirical nature, as opposed to a scientific one. 
>Well if that were the goal, there is no need to proceed, as it has 
>been established countless of times since 1925 that in many instances 
>pictures taken with Leica equipment cannot be identified as such. 

How about "for fun", Erwin?  I don't get the impression that Mike is trying
to set the scientific world on its ear, here.  And I, as a participant,
certainly wouldn't expect the results to achieve any sort of scientific
credibility - after all, there is the simple issue of the sample size being
too small to achieve the required confidence interval.

However, it's fun.  On a person level I will find it interesting.  I always
find it more interesting to look at pictures than to read analyses of
pictures (or the lenses that took them).  Whether we achieve anything
conclusive is not the issue.  Mike has explained that at least twice now,
and I really don't see why you appear to be having such a hard time with
this.  Who cares whether trials like this have been done a quadrillion times
since 1925?  *I* certainly have never done one, and that makes it
interesting to me.  Fun.  

Things don't need to be scientifically conclusive to have merit on some
level.  If I can't identify the Leica prints, that will be only one datum I
will personally draw from this experiment (oops, I probably shouldn't use
that word - you'll start insisting that all variables but one be controlled,
and that the sample size be increased to permit a chi-square analysis, or
something).

Fun.  It's one of the things photography is supposed to be about.  This
little game of Mike's sounds like fun to me.  I like having fun.  I think
Mike had a great idea, and is a prince for offering to do the necessary work
to let me an others like me have some fun.  Of course it's not Serious
Science - it's pure, wooly-minded, subjectivist, devil-may-care fun.  Plus I
get to see some of Mike's pictures.  Whoops, more fun.

Paul (my middle name is Fun) Chefurka