Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric Welch wrote: This is the same as people who claim no-one can see the differences between lenses. They have good imaginations, because they've never seen a difference, regardless if there is or not. That leads one to ask: how are people to tell whether differences they can see (or cannot see) between lenses are seen (or not seen) because those differences are there (or not there), or whether those seen (or unseen) differences are merely products of their imaginations? :-) Art Peterson -----Original Message----- From: Eric Welch [mailto:ewelch@neteze.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 11:24 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: [Leica] Re: LUGPhotographic skills Sometime around 1/18/00 6:29 AM, Erwin Puts at imxputs@knoware.nl mumbled something about: > (Same scene, both negatives developed > according to the rules). Some teachers quickly identifed the > condenser and diffuser prints, some used a longer time but eventually > made a positive choice. Of course I cheated: all prints were > identical. So the upshot is this: humans will see differences when > told there are differences. All that proves is that the teachers have good imaginations. It did not prove that there is no difference between condensor and diffusion enlargers, which is well established. This is the same as people who claim no-one can see the differences between lenses. They have good imaginations, because they've never seen a difference, regardless if there is or not. -- Eric Welch Carlsbad, CA http://www.neteze.com/ewelch Computers can never replace human stupidity.