Mike Johnston, lens connoiseur and former editor of Photo Techniques, has an interesting column this week on the Luminous Landscape board LUSENET, in which he discusses how to make prints "glow." Interestingly, he recommends some old lenses (e.g., Summirit, Noctilux) which he thinks produces better gradation than new sharp-harsh lenses. This is in line with what some people on this forum have often said about older Leica lenses. Now, that raises the question whether is Leica producing super-sharp new lenses that have lost the overall picture quality of the older lenses that Leica aficainodos liked so much. Leica used to claim (see Osterloh's book) that they did not design lenses to win lens contests but to produce a certain image quality. Now it seems that Leica lenses are designed to win lens contents. But has something been lost?

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 28, 2002

Answers

Sorry about the LUSENET above; let's try again: Mike Johnston column

-- Mitch Allland (mallan@mac.com), April 28, 2002.

Coming from Nikon, I hated my first Leica lens... the old 50mm f/1.5 Summarit. It was soft, flarey and just simply didn't make me say "Wow!" like I thought it would after reading all of the Leica hype prior to getting my first specimen. A Summicron soon followed and I saw the sharpness I wanted.

Now years after having sold off the Summarit, I look at some of the pictures I made with it, and there is definitely something there. My current Summicron is definitely a better lens in most every criteria that lenses are measure by, but that old Summarit had a look that I wish I could play with some more. It is fun to make a photograph that others can't create with ease, and in this world of mass produced, cookie cutter lenses, those older optics can allow some individuality.

I guess it is true, you don't know what you got until it is gone.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), April 28, 2002.

One of the aspects of photography that makes it endlessly fascinating for me is the intersection of the technology, science part of it with the aesthetic, craft as art side of it. And the variables in a single photograph, processed to the artifact of a print, are incredible. We have a long chain of choices: camera, lens, film, choice of aperture and shutter speed, framing, processing technique, choice of developer, printing equipment, enlarger, lens, paper, printing processing, and so on, down to mounting and display lighting. It's hard to hold all the variables but one, and make comparisons based on the actual comparison of the same shot, but with a different lens, or film stock, and so on. I was very impressed with prints from the 1930's at a recent Herbert List exhibition. They were better than 90% of what one sees today, despite our vaunted progress. Minor White, who could certainly make a print "glow," was fond of saying "All materials absolutely ordinary." Another favorite expression of mine is "a difference, in order to be a difference, has to make a difference." I can show you twenty prints, taken over twenty years, and you can't tell me what camera or film was used to make the image. You can say that craft was used in the process to produce a sharp image with a good tonal range. My point is that there is no "magic bullet," which will give you a particular look. It's not an "old lens vs. new lens" deal. It's a craft from start to finish, and I enjoyed Mike's review of the many steps involved.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), April 28, 2002.

don't know why my html won't take. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=273789>

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), April 28, 2002.

Dear Mitch and Everyone,

First many, many thanks to Mitch for turning us on to Mike Johnson's article. Now I understand everything. All is clear. Eureaka. Epiphany.

This is what I love about my Ultron 28/1.9. The glow. The same with my old 'lux 35/1.4 and Elmarit 28/2.8. The glow. I think my VC 35/2.5. I'll bet you the Ultron 35/1.7 has it!

My Summicron 35/2ASPH does not seem to have it--or as much of it. But man, what it does have is quite nice. Wide open in available light--wham. It's there.

My madcap lens collection is now justified. The same focal length lenses are in fact very different lenses in their signatures.

One of my favorite lenses is my clouded Canon 50/1.2. I never had it cleaned because of the effects. (I got another Canon 50/1.2--$100 would you believe!)

So thanks again. Very heart warming and very useful!

Best,

Alex

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), April 28, 2002.

Phil: You can't link to a posted image PAGE in the photonet database - you have to make the link to the actual jpeg file.

You do this by clicking AND HOLDING on the photonet image until you get a pop-down menu and then select "Open this image". You will get a picture-only version of the photo (no technical details or other database stuff visible.) A hint will be that the pixel size of the image appears in the window header. e.g. ([picture name or number]485x608)

E.g. here is the location you tried to link to:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=273789

Here is the real location of the actual jpeg image (note the additional words ".../image-display?..." in the URL):

http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=273789&size=md

..and here is the actual picture linked to that second address:

.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 28, 2002.

It is also very quick to just "right mouse click" on the image from the web-site page, then "left mouse click" on "properties". The URL for the image only will be displayed and then you can highlight and copy it to your html template.

This is also good to do for simple "click to open" links, since it speeds up the loading... we only need to see the image, not the photo.net screen logo.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), April 28, 2002.

My first lens was a DR summicron late from the 60s'and I still have yet to see a Leica lens that can compete.This lens really puts an image on the paper...unreal!!! Just got a Noctilux and this lens has a great way of rendering too. I dont know how to explain it other than there is no harshness in the print and a real balance in the tonalities that are both seen and felt.A very well known Leica repair expert has said to me that Leica has gone way,way overboard with the coatings and that the older lenses can be much more satisfying in their rendition.

-- Emile de Leon (Knightpeople@msn.com), April 28, 2002.

Emile, A good DR is a thing of beauty all right. According to Arthur Kramer, who was the optics guru for _Modern Photography_ and started the ball rolling on the whole lens-testing business in the magazines, the "optical heads" on the Rigid and the DR were the same--it's just that the DR heads were selected for the highest tolerances. Technically the current 6-element Summicron is a little sharper than the DR near the edges, and I suppose some people will tell us that the modern lens will resolve a gnat's chest hairs better at 50 paces with Tech Pan and a surveyor's tripod. But I know exactly what you mean about the "look" of the DR--there's just something about it. I wouldn't like to think I could pick DR prints out of a lineup, especially if some of the other prints were made with a current Summicron or the Rigid-Mount, but the best prints I have from the DR are something special.

--Mike

-- Mike Johnston (michaeljohnston@ameritech.net), April 28, 2002.

This thread has been interesting, confirming that some of the older lenses have qualities that many people prefer. Now, I suppose that the smoother (and wider?) gradation that such lenses produce derive from their design which differs from the newer "sharp-harsh" lenses which, owing to their superior sharpness, have harsher transitions in tone. I wonder whether this is related also to the superior bokeh of some of the older lenses?

Also, we have been discussing glow in B&W photographs. How do these older lenses compare to the new sharp-harsh in color photography?

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 29, 2002.

Hi Mitch-- I think it does relate at least somewhat--the newer lenses tend to have overcorrected spherical aberration that I think relates to a better sense of sharpness in the in-focus areas and also to worse bokeh (in general). Also, newer lenses have different coatings. It's not always "better"--in some cases manufacturers have used advancing technology to make their products cheaper to manufacture. For instance, the classic Pentax Takumars were multicoated on every surface, but modern lenses are sometimes not coated to the same degree on all surfaces as a cost-cutting measure. The older lenses definitely render highlights differently--the old Takumars, Zeiss lenses (for instance for the Contarex), and older Leica lenses tend to flare just the highlights in a way that Leica photographers used to prize and that I personally find very appealing.

As for color, the best thing to do is just to look at examples. There are some examples in Eggleston's books of color pictures obviously taken wiith antique Leica lenses. I think the fun of lenses is just trying them to see what they do. A lens is a very complex device when you get down to splitting hairs--there are a large number of factors that influence image quality in various different picturetaking situations. There's nothing particularly sacrosanct about one brand or even in "good" vs. "bad" lenses--they all have their uses if we remain sensitive to what it is they do.

I know you've heard most of this from me before--sorry if I'm repeating myself.

-- Mike Johnston (michaeljohnston@ameritech.net), April 29, 2002.

I definatly love my DR Summicron equally for either B+W or color and the same for the Noctilux. My 35mm 1.4 asph is nice for color but I just can't as of yet get behind its B+W rendition.Sharpness has nothing to do with this...it's just the look.I wish I still had my 35mm 4th Summicron,although I tested it against an older chrome version 35mm f2 and the older one was much much smoother in it's tonalities.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), May 01, 2002.

There are a number of factual errors in the discussion about the Glow. It is true that the Summicron Rigid and the DR share the same optical cell, not “head”. It is absolutely not true that the DR-cells were selected for highest tolerances. There seems to be a remarkable propensity to give the DR mythical properties. Any one may believe fairy tails, but the DR is not on a par with the modern Summicron and I can demonstrate that quite easily with a hand heldheld side by side comparison shooting with a ISO400 film. The DR has much higher level of flare, it resolves less detail, it has weaker separation of shadow details and ditto highlight separation. The whole notion that an older lens shows a longer tonal scale on the negative is somewhat questionable. A photographed stepwedge with a subsequent densitometer reading can give the evidence. A sharper lens is claimed to give harsher transition in tones. That is mixing up two different concepts. A sharp lens (one with good micro contrast and high MTF values) can separate small details more easily, and visually detectible. That is the edge contrast ( a sharp black-white transition) is high. A smooth gradation implies that between a black and white extreme there is an infinite number of gray values that progress in extremely small steps from white to black. A sharp lens can record small changes in density more accurately than a less sharp lens, so by implication a sharp lens can reproduce very fine differences in brightness betetr than a softer lens. If you need best reproduction of smoth gradation a sharp lens is the preferred choice. Older lense do flare and by definition degrade the fine tonal differences. The idea that newer lenses have overcorrected spherical aberration to generate more sharpness is not true either. For best sharpness no SA is the best option. In fact it is a reduction of the sum of the residual aberrations (mainly the oblique rays) that allow a lens to have a highr level of definition. The coating has nothing to do with the boke story. And the idea that nowadays coatings are simpified for cost cutting reasons is not substantiated by evidence. In fact coatings become more and more elaborate, way beyond he original MC technique. The whole classification in new-harsh and old-smooth lenses is missing the essence of tone reproduction. In there something as a Glow? Yes! But then we have to look at the classical Daguerrotypies. Or the old large plate negatives. These silver rich prints had a tonal scale and depth that is rarely encountered today. What we see as Glow nowadays is simply a low contrast, slightly unsharp print with a limited scale of grey values. The advice to produce a print with glow amounts to to picture a low contrast scene with a flarey lens and overexpose, underdevelop the film and use low grade printing paper. This does indeed give you a theoretical long range of mid grey tones, but so compressed that the changes in density are flattened and not detectible. As an aside: Plus-X is a thin emulsion film with very high acutance and thus sharpness. Many tests have shown that a diffusion enlarger and a condensor enlarger generate the same tonal range.

I am a strong advocate for the classical BW analogue technique, but my approach is that the best way to proceed is by solid fact finding and comparative measurements.

-- Erwin Puts (imxputs@ision.nl), May 02, 2002.

Uh...I don't know about all of that...I just know the prints look better with the DR summicron. I guess you could analize a Stradivarius violin and under the microscope of intellectual definition vote it out of existance as compared with the latest violin wonder instrument...but is it the sound/heart of the print/music that matters,or the molecular/mental construction?

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), May 02, 2002.

Errr, Erwin, I think you miss the whole point of Mike Johnston's article.

Glad to see you bringing your axe-grinding with Mike to this forum too. Are we going to witness a repeat of the LUG?

-- Erik Super... (supercalifragilisticpolymathicgenius@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

By the way, although it is not germane to this forum, in the right hands, in front of the right eyes, a toy Holga is a mighty fine instrument too. Hey, but let's not get into MTF, step wedges, et al. Boring! And totally irrelevant.

-- Erik (Supercalifragilisticpolymathicgenius@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

For those of you who may not know the history here, Erwin Puts has appointed himself as my Official Enemy, apparently because he took affront at things I said years ago when I was Editor-in-Chief of _Photo Techniques_ magazine. Everywhere I go, he pops up to insult me and point out "errors." I suppose now that I'm writing a weekly column, further contact with Mr. Puts is unavoidable. More's the pity.

Assuming that readers here don't have any particular interest in a clash of personalities, the only comment I'll make is that there are many, many, may different approaches to photography, aesthetic, conceptual, practical, and technical. Erwin Puts and I simply have different approaches. He states his own approach in a succinct sentence at the end of his message.

My approach is to look at photographs. As will clearly be reflected in my "Sunday Morning Photographer" column, I'm mostly interested in aesthetic and critical issues, and, to a lesser extent, procedural issues for people who are interested in practicing photography.

There is plenty of room in photography for people to have different approaches. For me, forced consensus through disputation is not a necessary condition of maintaining a will to live.

As for Mr. Puts, if he can't bring himself to stop harassing me, perhaps I'll retaliate by writing a "Profile" of him in an upcoming issue of my newsletter, _The 37th Frame_ (www.37thframe.com).

-- Mike Johnston (michaeljohnston@ameritech.net), May 03, 2002.

...and the plot thickens...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

"I am a strong advocate for the classical BW analogue technique, but my approach is that the best way to proceed is by solid fact finding and comparative measurements.

-- Erwin Puts (imxputs@ision.nl), May 02, 2002."

I personally would love to see these comparative measurements along with your lens tests. Perhaps you could put them in a table format so we can compare the actual measured values with you commentary.

-- Marc bergman (shotput8@earthlink.net), May 03, 2002.

If a clash between the former Editor-in-Chief of Photo Techniques magazine (Mike) and a leading authority on lens optics (Erwin) is the worst this forum has to deal with, then IT AIN'T ALL THAT BAD, BY GOLLY!! :-) For the entire membership of the forum, I welcome the two of you! If there's a fight to be had, the better it is about lenses and photography than what we've had to deal with lately. I'm sure the forum knows what I'm referring to.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), May 03, 2002.

Erwin's dedication to the scientific method is legendary.

He used to insist that the Collapsible 5cm Summicron and the first rigid/Dual range models had the same optical formula. His reasoning? Something along the lines that Leitz had never shown different cross sections for the two and never had admitted that they were different. (When God tells you something it must be true, no need for investigation) It was only after several people pointed out to him that they were clearly physically different, and told him to LOOK at the lenses in question did he do so, and grudgingly admitted his error. Anyone interested can check the LUG archives from Late January/early February 1998.

-- Marco Grande (hektor73@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.

Tony wrote: "For the entire membership of the forum, I welcome the two of you! If there's a fight to be had...."

I wouldn't have responded here if I had known that Erwin Puts was lurking and that it would provoke more of his antagonism. I stopped participating in the Leica User Group because of his hostility. I don't WANT a fight.

He has interesting and valuable contributions to make--as I say, there is room for many different approaches in photography. I just wish he would present his contributions on their own merits, rather than as reactions to mine.

-- Mike Johnston (michaeljohnston@ameritech.net), May 03, 2002.

This controversy seem to stem from the two sides of photography that people seem to have a hard time separating; the artistic and the techinical.

While Mr. Puts makes technically sound observations regarding the merits of one lens over another, their optical characteristics performance under rigid circumstances, Mr. Johnson makes equally valid observations with regard to the artistic and creative use of lenses based on different, but equally valid observational data.

I suppose if I were concerned with taking photos of razor blades standing on end and required technically stringent tolerances, I might refer to Mr. Puts data to reproduce "technically perfect" photos.

However, artistically, I'm more interested in compsition, aesthetic values and generally subjective qualities of photography. For this, Mr. Puts information falls short, and Mr. Johnson's comments are more valuable.

Both have equally valid opinions and data (whether the data is emirical or qualified subjective, depends on what you're looking for) to substantiate their claims. Both have obviously dedicated a lot of time and effort to their understanding of photography. They merely took different approaches.

To put forth an anology, a chemist and a wine taster can both sample a bottle of fine wine and give an opinion on its characteristics and both can be equally valid. But depending on whether you want to know the exact measurement of acetic acid in the wine, or whether or not it will be a good match with steak, you may put more weight on one opinion over the other. But there is a place for both.

-- Bob (bobflores@attbi.com), May 03, 2002.

I would like to add a welcome to both MJ and EP. I value both approaches to photography (or any other art.)

A great painter will know the difference - maybe even the detailed chemical difference - between, say, a pthalocyanine blue-green and some other blue-green pigment - and be able to USE that difference in her paintings. The knowledge is important - but it's only what she DOES with the knowledge that makes her paintings great.

I use middle-age Leica lenses. I can see their flaws in some of my pictures (color fringing with the preAPO 90, coma with the preASPH 35, flare with the 90 Tele-Elmarit). But they also produce beautiful negatives that are noticeably easier to scan than (for example) negs from very good Zeiss and Nikon lenses that have a higher 'macro' contrast.

IN MY HUMBLE EXPERIENCE they produce tonalities that are more delicate than the newer Leica designs as well, at least on Velvia and Pan F and in strong high-contrast light. Shooting in shade/soft light or on color negative film I'm not sure but what the new designs wouldn't pull ahead.

The absolute quality of a lens gets filtered through so many other variables (film, lighting, processing, printing/scanning, personal technique) that one has to look at BOTH the 'original' or 'raw' quality of the lens AND the final results. AND then filter THAT judgement through one's artistic intentions.

Which we ALL should do...

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 03, 2002.

Let me try to make a few things clear. The scientific approach has two virtues and some drawbacks of course. To concentrate on the virtues: (one) conclusions are drawn on the basis of established facts, mostly by measurements and (two) there is a clear distinction between content and person or message and messenger. The first is easy: you change or adapt your view based on ongoing research and new fact finding.You are also allowed to make mistakes as this is inevitable. But it is much better to accept that you were mistaken than to cling to wrong beliefs. (yes I was mistaken at first about the Summicron collapsible and DR, based on what I knew as fact. When subsequent research revealed facts that both were indeed different, I did say so and the correct story is in my book). You learn by mistakes, not by closing your eyes to new facts. The second is more difficult. I make a careful distinction between the person and the statement. I never say: person X said “ABC”, which is wrong and therefore person X is suspect, an idiot or whatever ad hominem remark you may insert here. Look at the Lug archives or in this list too for examples. I always say: the statement “ABC” is not true and the correct statement is “DEF”. And I also never extend my remarks to include comments about any person. I know it is common practice here and elsewhere to equate the message with the messenger, but widespread or not, this is naive to the extreme. I find Mike Johnston a very interesting person with comments and analyses that are worthwhile and very readable. That does not make him immune to making errors or does make him stand above or beyond criticism. The remark that the optical cells of the DR are selected by very tight tolerances is plain nonsense and who ever makes such a statement, can expect to be corrected. So is the remark that sharp lenses produce poor gradation. That is nonsense too and even if the Pope would state this, I feel that such a remark needs to be corrected, as it gives completely wrong facts about modern optics. This has nothing to do with MJ or others as a person: they happen to make the statement and I feel that the statement needs to be corrected. I carefully refrain myself from extending my comments beyond the content. I do not think I ever made an unfavourable comment about MJ as a person. Or ever questioned his credibility or knowledge or background. I think Tony is right when he remarks that is nice to have different viewpoints and philosophies about picture taking in one forum. It enlightens the readers and should give them food for thought. The approach to produce a print that glows (MJ) is as valid as an approach to prodcue a print that sparkles (EP). It would be best if the discussion would be an exposition of Glow versus Sparkle with both sides explaining with facts what it is and how to get it. But stay to facts and not introduce all kinds of mythical properties of lenses or methodology. I do not wish this discussion to be a clash between MJ and EP with votes who is right or wrong. If Mike feels he is personally harrassed by me, he should carefully read my comments. If I am wrong in my statements about DR and sharp lenses/ harsh tonality and suspects I am doing this to discredit him, he is correct in his assumption. He should also reflect that I have made these comments in other newsgroups and even in my book and did so independently of any person. I would find it a pity if MJ would draw this discussion about Glow and Sparkle into a personal clash and confrontation. No one will profit from this and I think participants in this discussion would find it more interesting to read about the differences in technique and approach than to hear about what MJ thinks of EP. To my knowledge what is being proposed as a method to produce glow in a picture is an extreme compression of overall contrast and theefore tonal range, which is contrary to the effect of producing a print with luminosity and rich tonality. I follow the method to work at the limit of overall contrast (Dmax 2.5) that the print can handle and get a gradation of 2 to 3 and even 3.5 to expand the tonal range and create deep blacks with subtle tonal changes in the shadows and fine gradation in the specular highlights. Here modern lenses excel as they are more flarefree as the predecessors and so hold subtle tonal diferences better than older lenses. I always print to 30x40cm and not one observer of my pictures has ever complained about harsh tonality but always was amazed at the large range of grey values in the print, the deep glowing blacks with fine differences in the shadows and sparkling high lights with again tonal differences to the whitest base of the paper.

-- Erwin Puts (imxputs@ision.nl), May 05, 2002.

"The Glow"
M4, 50/2 Summicron '69-'79 version. Film: Kodak T400CN
Standard drugstore processing and printing on 10x15cm Kodak color paper.
Scanned on Agfa Snapscan.

While the photograph above is suitable for illustrating the initial subject of this thread "The Glow", I couldn't quite find something in my archives to illustrate clash between MT & EP, a phenomenon also known a "The Spark"
Instead I'll give you a photograph which exhibits neither glow nor spark; "the sink":

"The Sink"
Technical details; Like the image above, except Film: Fuji Superia 200
Please do not mistake the glow in this photograph with "The Glow", it is merely a reflection.
More sink and washbasin photography can be found here.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), May 05, 2002.

"The remark that the optical cells of the DR are selected by very tight tolerances is plain nonsense and who ever makes such a statement, can expect to be corrected."

What I said was that this was the belief of Arthur Kramer, who wrote about optics for _Modern Photography_ and was in large part responsible for the trend toward "objective" (measured) quantification of lens performance in the popular press. Since a) Arthur was around and reviewing lenses when the DR was new, b) knew people at Leitz at that time, and c) has never had any special or exclusive connection or relationship to Leica the company or to Leica products (and thus, no axe to grind), I consider him the more reliable source. So I'll stand by what I wrote. Since it's impossible to _prove_ that it was or wasn't so, it's a judgement call.

"So is the remark that sharp lenses produce poor gradation."

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that different lenses handle tonality differently and that if you want a demonstration of this, you can photograph side-by-side with a 1970s 50/1.4 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar and an AF-Nikkor 50/1.8 and you will notice differences in the way that those two lenses render tones, especially highlights. Again, I stand by this, but only because I tried it and that's what I saw. But if you want to try it and then deny it, fine with me. Maybe your results will be different than mine. I also think that prints made with a Summarit don't look identical to prints made with a modern Summicron. How can I say such a thing? Only because I've seen lots of prints made with a Summarit and lots of prints made with a Summicron, and have leapt intemperately to a conclusion.

"What we see as Glow nowadays is simply a low contrast, slightly unsharp print with a limited scale of grey values."

Really? I don't think so. Indisputable fact: nobody but me really knows _exactly_ what visual effect I'm talking about when I speak about anything so general as "the glow." The best I can do is indicate an effect vaguely in words and suggest a trial that others can carry out to see if THEY find anything useful in the technique. Maybe they won't; maybe they will but won't like it; maybe they will get the D-76 mixed up with the Dektol and conclude that my suggestions result in a hopelessly contrasty and dense negative. How should I know? But please, don't tell me what I'm talking about.

In any event, as I tried to suggest in my column, it's just a "recipe." There's nothing sacrosanct about any part of it. Any good cook can modify a recipe for their personal use or for their own palate.

"the DR is not on a par with the modern Summicron and I can demonstrate that quite easily"

Okay, fine, but here's another indisputable fact: I liked both of the DRs that I've owned better than both of the modern Summicrons I've owned. And, somehow, I managed to take very nice pictures with my DRs. Are they REALLY "very nice pictures"? That I can't prove. Do *I* think they're nice pictures? Ah, back on firm ground! Yes, I do think so! And I can state that I think so! And it is a fact!

"Many tests have shown that a diffusion enlarger and a condensor enlarger generate the same tonal range."

And all audio amplifiers sound the same, as many tests have also proven (another famous piss-up-a-rope dispute between objectivists and subjectivists that never ends). Again, what I said was that if you take the same Tri-X negative and print it with a Leitz Focomat II and a Saunders 4550, the prints will look different. Hey, if you care to deny or dispute this, knock yourself out. I don't have any vested interest in _making_ anybody believe anything. I'm just saying what I believe.

My friend Phil Davis proved--to my satisfaction and to his--that he can make absolutely identical negatives using D-76 and pyro. So, maybe you can make identical prints from the same negative using a Focomat II and a Saunders 4550. I don't believe you can, but that's only a tentative conclusion based on my own trials. If somebody manages to do it, well, then I guess I'll believe it.

The feature called "The Rant" in issue #4 of my little newsletter, which should be along in another month or so, will continue this discussion from my end. But it will not be _ad hominem_.

"I find Mike Johnston a very interesting person with comments and analyses that are worthwhile and very readable."

Thank you kindly. For my part I am looking forward to seeing your book; I've heard many good things about it from Leicaphiles and I'm sure that it adds substantively to the literature.

-- Mike Johnston (michaeljohnston@ameritech.net), May 05, 2002.

This thread goes to show that not everything in this world can be explained, and nothing can be thoroughly "explained away." It's sort of like Darwinism vs. Christianity. The two will never meet somewhere in the middle, where in a perfect world they might. This is an imperfect world, and even more imperfect because we are all limited to written text communications. I think everyone knows exactly where both MJ and EP are individually coming from. I know I do.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), May 05, 2002.