[Leica] Rotary xtol processing

["Tom Schofield" <tdschofield@email.msn.com>]

There have been a number of questions about rotary processing with xtol, if
I have my lists straight.  I noticed there is a bulletin on the Jobo site at

http://www.jobo-usa.com/bulletins/xtol.htm

Tom Schofield

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Erwin Puts" <imxputs@ision.nl>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 11:31 AM
Subject: [Leica] Konicagate


> The topic of the difference in film register between Leica and Konica
> gives some insight into the working of the Lug and the level of image
> quality Leica users are willing to accept or demand.
> When presented with my facts (K=28.00), the response is as to be
> expected: to kill the messenger(Puts has no qualifications (Stephen
> Gandy), to question his sources (Dante Stella: I do not trust the person
> from Germany), to diminish to impact (Cummer family: I do not see any
> difference, therefore none exists).
> Then Dante Stella calls a repair person in New Jersey with identical
> info and now it is credible  ! Were is Stephen Gandy to question the
> status of Dante Stella: does he have 20 years of engineering experience
> which is Stephen Gandy's limit.
> Then the Cummer family does a quick survey and finds that from 15
> individuals 15 are happy! Therefore there is no issue! Of course if I
> had done such a survey Stephen Gandy would have asked for my 20 years of
> experience in social surveys and statistical methodology.
> Any one knows that a survey based on a non-random sample is worthless,
> especially as the main criterion: image quality is not all defined in a
> way that is repeatable with a control group. But the results will
> without any doubt please the group that will deny that there is an issue.
>
> What we have here is the very classical case of negating the evidence,
> which started with the burning of the scientists who claimed that the
> earth is not flat (contrary to common sense), the earth moves around the
> sun (again), that atoms are the basics of the fabric of our universe,
> that ours is a relativistic universe etc.
>
> At stake is the reputation of all those  journalists and dealers who
> claimed that the statement of Konica that their mount was not identical
> to the Leica M-mount, was just a figment of the imagination to
> circumvent possible legal actions by leica (which were unlikely as the
> patent had been expired as amply documented).
> Here we have a unique case:  the manufacturer (who in most cases knows
> best) says that his product is not fully compatible with that of a
> competitor. This is denied by many individuals who without any facts
> other than a quick scan of the fitting of the lens and some pictures
> declare that the manufacturer is wrong.
> As soon as it is established that indeed the manufacturer has been right
> all the time the full barrage of user experiences, fact negating,
> semantic word twisting is brought in place.
>
> Bottom line the issue is more fundamental: there is without any doubt a
> difference between the film register of a Leica body/lens unit and a
> Konica body/lens unit and mixing these systems brings incompatibilities
> and a drop in image quality.
> If some argue that they do not see this difference, does that proof
> there is no difference?
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, someone of lost fame wrote in the
> past. I would paraphrase: "image quality is in the eye of the
> photographer".
>
> The classical discussion about which lens is best (Summicron DR or
> current one) can be illuminated by the insight of the Konica/Leica
> compatibility issue: if you do not see a difference, it does not imply
> that there is no difference, but that the standards of image
> quality/optical performance need to be upgraded or redefined.
> Quoting from Zeiss for once: if a lens has a potential of 100%, most
> users would have trouble extracting 50% of that. To extract 80% or more
> needs considerable expertise and years of experience.
> If the Konica/leica incompatibility will reduce image quality
> significantly but not enough to get below the 50% threshold with which
> most users seem to operate, all is fine?
> In a wellknown German book (by Mr Scholz) the author fitted a Leica body
> with  a simple glass element  from his spectacles (he could have used
> the bottom of an empty bottle of whiskey with equal results)  to prove
> that a simple meniscus (box lens) would suffice for highly acceptable
> image results. The resulting picture is very convincing. As long as we
> seem unable to differentiate between a 9 element super quality optical
> system and a simple spectacle glass in front of the M-body (or Konica
> body) why question the impact of a mere 0.2 mm of defocus.
> Would it not be time for a re-calibration of our standards of image
> quality?
>
> Erwin
>
>