"Erwin Puts" Thread continued

The reference to Erwin Puts was 2005 A Watershed Year for Leica (perhaps I should not have used his name in the title of my rant). My point in writing was not to glorify Mr. Puts' photos or technique. I have seen a couple of published photos that looked quite good....and I would imagine that they'd have looked better "live" although they were neither nudes or brick walls:) both of which can work for me. Whether Mr. Puts is tidy in terms of his finished product is immaterial to me. He provides a useful reference to many of us that shoot Leicas. It's easy to take pot shots especially in a forum like this one. I thought his article was quite good.

Eric- You wrote about EP: "Nothing short of outstanding photographs should be displayed to parallel his words."

 

Frankly, using an iMac G4 with a 20" display, with millions of colors, I haven't seen ANY photographs in this forum since I joined a couple of years ago that could meet your criterion of "outstanding photographs." Simply stated, this medium (Internet) simply cannot do justification to any one's photographs, as the 57 degrees of grey scale for B&W and the corresponding range for color simply cannot be transmitted.

 

Yes, we can truly judge gross composition and subject - - but that is all. The "fine lines and colors" jusrt aren't there.

 

Now, if you want to pick on EP for other reasons, I'd suggest you take issue with his technical analyses and understanding of optics and lens design. Otherwise, IMHO, it's a cheap shot to complain about the photographic images he chooses to scan and put out for gemeral consumption on the Internet.

<I> Now, if you want to pick on EP for other reasons...</I><P>

 

No other reasons are necessary. The guy can't shoot, and has pretty low standards on the

pix he showcases on his site. Some here post stuff 100x better. Why would I believe

anything else coming from him.

George, you have a great monitor that shows a wider a colour gamut than any machine print possible, and you've been here how long without seeing any outstanding images? I think your emotions are skewing your writing. Furthermore, if you aren't able to distinguish a great photo from a bad muddy print that lacks contrast on your monitor, then I think you should give it to me. I'm not picking on anyone, nor throwing cheap shots. I'm calling like I see it, and I call bullsh*t. To call more bullsh*t, do you really think you'd pick up one of those prints and go "Wow, that's dazzaling..."?

 

 

I didn't mean to pick on your demi-god, but if one goes to all that trouble to gather that quantifiable knowledge and post it, then they should go a step further and ask for assistance from a photographer that knows how to use the camera the negative and the print, as this Lacie monitor demonstrates that he does not

Eric - I take everything that EP says with a very large grain of salt.

 

I understand where he comes from, as to what I would call "the ultimate Leica Addict." I've been using Leicas since 1945, and I believe I can discern the difference between EP's polemics on photography as differetiated from his treatises on lens design and production. I've used Leica rangefinders for several reasons - - they are light, easy to use, they last and last and last, and the optics are excellent for their size and weight - - - and I get reasonably good 'chromes.

 

Agaion, I'd say that whatever you can discern on any computer display just cannot carry the impact of a real-life projectrion of a 'chrome. The laws of physics just can't be altered.

 

I can see the differences among the various photos that have been submitted over time on this forum - - and yes, they DO range from muddy and unfocused pictures to some rather good renditions.

 

Unfortunately, my standard is a projected 'chrome, or a large print that contains all the gradations of B&W or color.

Vic,

 

thanks for doing your best to save the thread.

I've had plenty of disagreements (fights, even) with Erwin, but to insult his work is a cheap

shot. He takes the kind of pictures he likes to take, and that's what we all do. It has

nothing to do with whether you find his optical expertise valuable or not, or agree with his

opinions. He makes his articles freely available to one and all; many people enjoy them;

and if you don't, then don't read them! Who's forcing you? But to gratuitously insult his

example pictures is churlish.

 

Just my 2 cents.