Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]A small point of clarification, Marc. When you say 'The Mike Johnson nonsense of "it looks good so it is good" is just that: nonsense' I understand you to mean that it is indeed nonsense *to the technically predisposed*, rather than simple absolute nonsense. As you point out later, the "stylists" will have different criteria for image quality than the technicians, and the judgement "looks good so it is good" is precisely one of their criteria. The inverse observation is that there is (university art professors' protestations notwithstanding) no way to technically analyze the value of a composition. On the questions that Walt asked, I think that if someone is going to be widely respected as an expert, we have the right to ask for credentials as well as output. It's facile to say that even a stopped watch is right twice a day, but knowing a bit of background does help gauge the credibility of the source. Look at the number of people who think "Dr. Laura" is a psychologist, for an example of this. Paul >-----Original Message----- >From: Marc James Small [mailto:msmall@roanoke.infi.net] >Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 2:40 PM >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >Subject: [Leica] Erwin Puts > <snip> >The Mike Johnson nonsense of "it looks good so it is good" is >just that: >nonsense. Erwin is right: there are qualititave measures on >the qualities >of pictures which have naught to do with style but everything >to do with >getting the maxima out of our photographic gear, be it a 1910 ICA plate >camera or a late-century Leica TTL. > >Those who appreciate style above all will probably not >generally appreciate >Erwin's approach. Those of us who are techno-weenies and >equipment-junkies >will sit peacefully in a circle, eating poi from a bowl, >a-waiting the next >missive from The Master. <snip>