Re: [Leica] The Machiavellian LUG

["David L. Duff" <duffdl@uswest.net>]

So Mike,
  Why is it you have closed your correspondence with me? In particular
re: your invitation to submit an article to your magazine? Granted I
have had "coffee" with Mark R. (enjoyed it and plan to again) and had
private e-mail correspondence with him, Erwin, Tom A., Jem K., and Tina
M., but the subject of you has never come up (yet!).
  Have I offended you in some way, or is it the company I keep?
  Back to list-lurking,
David (who uses N***n, and Z***s professionally since '83, and owns and
uses O*****s (since '77) and Leica (since '94) for personal work, Duff.

Mike Johnston wrote:
> 
> Ah, the little light bulb above my head just flashed on.
> 
> I get it.
> 
> I was puzzled by Mark Rabiner's post of yesterday, in which he taunted
> me at length about "my own" Summicron and whether I had been doing any
> shooting with my Leicas and so forth.
> 
> Then I remembered something. A few weeks ago, I was contacted privately
> by Bob Bedwell ("rlb"), who offered me sympathetic advice in what he
> professed to be a "fatherly" vein (in fact he said twice that he wished
> he could adopt me--which I thought was a bit peculiar, but whatever).
> 
> Naturally, in the way of cordial e-mails when people intend to make
> friends, we began sharing details of our lives and so forth.
> 
> But then something strange happened; concurrent with our private
> conversation, Bob said something on the LUG about me in a curt and
> unkind tone, which I thought was strangely at odds with the persona of
> his private messages. He explained himself in private, but that sent up
> the red flares to me, so I brought my correspondence with him to a
> close.
> 
> So when Mark's taunting message came through the Digest, I was
> mystified. Until I remembered--I had mentioned to Bob in private that I
> don't own a Leica. I said something like "don't repeat this on the LUG,
> or I might get kicked off!"
> 
> The second thing I remembered was that Bob had explained his unpleasant
> comment about me by saying that it was meant to be in support of Mark
> R., who is his friend.
> 
> So what Mark said yesterday was based on information about me provided
> to him by Bob, and was intended to humiliate me. I get it now.
> 
> Mark probably assumed that the information I posted about Gary Reese's
> lens tests was an attempt to justify the fact that I shoot with Olympus
> and can't afford Leica. Which might be the way HE would feel. Only
> problem with that idea is that I don't shoot with Olympus. I shot with
> the Summicron much more recently than I shot with the Zuiko. I haven't
> had the Zuiko for years.
> 
> Bob and Mark are playing Machiavellian games here. Bob falsely poses as
> a friend, plies me for personal information in private, then provides
> the information to Mark, who exposes it in public and imagines he has
> made some sort of coup.
> 
> Which is pretty interesting. I have to say I'm amazed at the lengths to
> which some people will go around here to play evil games! You guys are
> sick!
> 
> Unfortunately for our earnest Machiavellian duo, I don't care. Here's
> the scoop: I use whatever cameras I want to. I don't own my own cameras,
> except intermittently as the mood strikes. Right now I'm using a Mamiya
> 645AF, a Deardorff 8x10 with a Ries tripod, and a Leica M4 with a
> Nokton. Nothing but the Nokton belongs to me (a birthday gift from dear
> Mom), and I simply bought that because it will be a few months before
> THK would be able to provide one to me to try for free. Maybe next month
> it will be a Maxxum 9, a Linhof Kardan M, or a Contax 645. Who knows?
> 
> Here's the main reason I don't own my own cameras: because I review them
> as a part of my job. I wrote our recent cover story on the Contax Aria
> (_PHOTO Techniques_, Nov/Dec 1999), and I write our year-end "World's 25
> Best Cameras" feature every year. I simply think that to write honest
> reviews, a reviewer needs to be using the camera in question on a
> day-in, day-out basis for real work. I don't think it's fair to "try" a
> camera in a superficial way and then fall back on one's "real" equipment
> whenever there's actual work to be done. The last job for pay I did was
> two weekends ago, a bat-mitzvah portrait. I did it with the 645AF. First
> time I'd ever used the camera. You learn more when you're under pressure
> to perform.
> 
> In the interests of full disclosure, I have to say I *do* own a few
> cameras and lenses, but they're basically detritus: odds and ends, old
> junk that isn't worth trying to sell, or point-and-shoots that were sent
> to me to try that the manufacturers don't want to restock. I try to keep
> the cabinet cleaned out, but it gets ahead of me. And I do have a few
> antique cameras, but they're all heirlooms.
> 
> So, dudes, nice try. (You're creeps, but nice try). Leica sends me
> whatever I want to try. I can get my hands on just about anything that's
> remotely of interest to me. The same is true for films, chemicals, and
> papers; enlargers, enlarging lenses, and other darkroom equipment; and
> digital equipment. Whatever.
> 
> And in any case, it's more a responsibility than anything else. I got
> over the "toy store" aspect of my job back in the late '80s. But
> congratulations on your own good taste, guys. I'm sure your own
> photography is much better, and much more valued by gallery owners, book
> publishers, museum curators, photo editors, and the public, because
> you've got the right brand name on your equipment.
> 
> I can only imagine how difficult it is for you to buy clothes.
> 
> --Mike