From: Frank Ernens <fgernens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] Hoya lens? and other grumblings...
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 19:37:29 +1000
Lex, your response is an ad hominem attack on me:
That many of us believe we are as talented as some well-known
photographers
- - but nobody's heard of us.
The fact is that we can safely potshot from our anonymous foxholes at
those
who have taken the risk of making themselves accessible targets by putting
their work before the public where it succeeds or fails on its merits, or
lack thereof.
Frank, no such thing was intended.
I believe I'm a rather talented photographer and writer, but have as yet
done nothing significant to promote my own work, apart from photojournalism
done years ago. So my own remarks apply to myself as well.
How good or bad a photographer I might be is beside the point. I'm
not asking anyone to accept my unsupported opinion of filters based
on my reputation - in fact, I haven't even expressed an opinion on
filters here. You, OTOH, are suggesting that Hick's reputation
is such that we should all accept what he says. Then his reputation
becomes a valid subject for discussion, together with any links he
might have with publications that get advertising revenue from filter
manufacturers. BTW, you call him "Roger". Do you know him, and do
you by chance write for magazines?
I know Roger only through online correspondence over the past couple of
years, and through having read his writings over the past several years. He
seems to prefer "Roger" to "Mr. Hicks."
Nope, I don't currently write for any magazine or newspaper. I have no
pecuniary interest involving Roger or any medium he writes for.
I do, for the most part, share a philosophy of photography with Roger and
many others. In summary it is that for most 35mm photography ultimate
resolution is irrelevant. It amounts to counting angels on the head of a
pin. Especially when photographs are seldom enlarged or projected more than
8x, and when viewer-subject distance is an important factor.
I happen to think it's easier to finesse the whole question by replacing
celebrity endorsement with objective tests and the scientific method.
What matters most to me is the intrinsic value of the image, an admittedly
nebulous thing that defies measurement. If I'm guilty of finessing the
question it is in this regard, and not by substituting celebrity endorsement
for quantitative analysis. Otherwise I could quote Andre Agassi or Mario
Andretti (whose groundbreaking 1979 Formula 1 car is now emblazened with the
Olympus logo for vintage class racing).
I can imagine that someone whose income was gained from the existing system
might not like the idea of individuals publishing such tests in an
uncontrollable medium like a mailing list or newsgroup, and might want to
hamper that by bombarding the list over a period of weeks with megabytes of
off-topic ramblings and by rubbishing the testers. Surely this isn't you,
but it would be wise not to get mistaken for such a person... they do exist
on the net.
Well finessed sideswipe noted.
Since the web opened its doors to the public that assertion has often been
tossed around - that more traditional or conventional media feel threatened
somehow by the fast spreading, freely accessible nature of 'net news. In
reality the 'net itself is a frequent source of rubbish disguised as news
and requires readers and consumers to discipline themselves to determine
what is true, relevant and significant.
For the record I value Gary's tests above any others I've seen on the web,
including those with a larger sample group. While his tests could be
dismissed because the sample groups are too small to be statistically
significant, I believe it's fair to factor in a manufacturer's overall
reliability and reputation for quality and consistency, which minimizes the
need for a larger sample group. If we were testing Texas yellow pine,
Mexican strawberries (both of which are often excellent but subject to whims
of weather) or lenses made between 1890-1920, it would be another matter.
Other website tests have larger sample groups but rely on reader input which
automatically interjects error, as readers may not actually test their
lenses but instead submit opinion disguised as data, or may misunderstand
how a particular test is conducted or how to spot a particular flaw.
Therefore I consider these tests less reliable.
Whether I'm guilty of trashing a person may be beyond my control, as this
sort of thing is open to interpretation. The reason I say "may be" is
because I'm quite capable of making myself understood, unmistakably and
irrefutably. I'll openly express my thoughts, opinions, feelings or beliefs
about anyone, and all too frequently do so.
And whether this thread has led to an excessive discussion of anything, on-
or off-topic, I'm not qualified to say. It's been both interesting and
relevant to me as a valid element of photography, if not pertinent to
Olympus specifically. The feedback has demonstrated "diversity in unity",
the Holy Grail among the politically correct, which should be something of a
tribute to list members.
Lex
===
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|