Erwin is back on line

[Ben Z]

Someone posted a thread on the pnet Leica forum earlier today that Erwin is back on the net with new material. Looks like he's setting up a new website that's not finished yet. The pnet thread seems to have been deleted (I never could figure out the haphazard and selective way that forum is [un]moderated, one reason I don't post there anymore) but for those interested here's the link Erwin's new site

 

[bobofish]

The strangest things get deleted over there. Sometimes rubbish is left for days, and perfectly reasonable posts are haphazardly nixed. Seems capricious to say the least...not what I'd call moderating either.

Glad that Erwin's back online. I can't say that I'm in love with him or everything he writes, but a resource is a resource.

 

[jlw]

The photo-historical essay that constitutes the only content so far is interesting in that it seems to invert the usual relationship between history and accuracy.

Normally when we read history, we find that it is the distant past the accuracy of which we can be the least certain, and the certainty of accuracy becomes greater as the era discussed becomes more recent.

In Erwin's history, it's the oldest data that's the least debatable, and the most recent that's the most dubious!

 

[jaap]

ERWIN ERWIN ERWIN You always know the results of his tests that's so nice

 

[einolu]

I like his writing style.

 

[Frank Granovski]

I like his models.

 

[jaap]

Yeah, I like his models also that's the best thing in his pictures. Content and technique is very poor. Especially his poor technique is amazing.

 

[Huck Finn]

Interesting article, especially in regard to where the industry is headed & how Leica & the rangefinder in general fit into this picture. Not a predictable Erwin analysis. Also interesting is the fact that 2 companies receive a special heading at the top: Leica & Canon.

Agree with him or disagree, love him or hate him, Erwin provides a technical analysis for free that would cost hundreds or thousands to obtain otherwise. Photodo couldn't afford to continue to offer its service, but Erwin keeps chugging along. I appreciate all the hard work he puts into his testing, analysis, & writing. I'm glad he's there.

 

[bmattock]

I only recently began reading Erwin Puts, and I find that I quite enjoy his writing and agree with much of what he is saying. I cannot have an opinion on his previous writings, as I largely have not read them.

Some may find this interesting - I began reading his work because I kept hearing people screaming incoherently about him, babbling with rage and dripping venom about his latest pronouncements regarding Leica cameras. It was the fact that he seems to engender a strong love or hate reaction that made me want to read his work. So, Puts-haters, thank you. I would never have heard of him otherwise.

I note that those who dislike Puts are mostly incapable of defining what is wrong with his writing in any substantive way. Mostly, they complain that he is not objective, but without providing details (saying that he favors or panders to Leica is not proving his inobjectivity). They also like to make fun of his name (we had a long thread about that, I won't restart it here) and to make note that he is not a great photographer.

This also makes me laugh. Where is it written that a great writer about photography must also be a great photographer? Ansel Adams certainly wrote some of the most-referenced photography books of all time, but did he write columns for magazines? Did he provide industry analysis and evaluation of new models? It would seem that Adams was the exception and not the rule - most great writers about photography are NOT great photographers - in fact, many of them never show any of their work at all - one may presume why that is.

It would seem that one can be knowledgeable about photography and write well and intelligently on the subject without being a great photographer - that one can have a love of photography and lack the ability to compete with the greats on that playing field.

But it all seems to come down to one thing, 'sour grapes'. People dislike anyone who sticks a pin in the balloon of their faith, and if they cannot find a logical reason to dispute their assertations, they'll use whatever they can find.

As I mentioned once before, trying to tear down Puts' writing because he is a poor photographer is much like people who tried to attack Rush Limbaugh because he was fat. Neither attack had anything to do with what the two men said - it was just a way to express one's anger and contempt, without basis in any kind of logic at all. Frankly, it is unflattering to the intelligence of the person making the statement.

But for you Puts-haters; please go on with your holy work of destroying the evil Puts. Put your screeds on as many photography-related websites as possible. If the effect on others is similar to the effect your diatribes had on me, Puts will gain new appreciative readership. Thank you for hating him - I found someone new and interesting to read, and I otherwise might never have heard of him!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bobofish]

Bill,
Well and interestingly said. If I had written your words however, they would have been ever so slightly less curmudgeonly, and a touch more of the skeptical. 😀

In regards to your comments on Rush Limbaugh on the other hand, I would say that in this particular case there's nothing wrong with an ad hominem attack, as long as it is preceeded with an at least moderately logical argument of why he is who he is. To that I would add "and to top it all off, he's fat!" 😛

You're right that some people like to live in a bubble, no matter which bubble that is, a lens bubble or a religion bubble. I've learned enough over the years to leave people be in their bubbles, they're usually happier in them than I am outside of them.

People tend to expect "all that and the kitchen sink" when they read free material on the internet, without thinking that a guy like Puts may not present himself as an "objective observer" of the world of photography. He admits that he sucks as a photographer, and he admits that he likes Leica. Problem? No, unless you have a rabid desire for him to be objective. The solution would be to put him on your payroll to test all products objectively. The resulting reviews might be a surprise, and they might not.

Merry Christmas everybody!

 

[aad]

I like reading Mr. Puts' articles. His writing style is strongly influenced by his English-his grasp of the language far exceeds mine of any second language.

He makes no claim to be a great photographer. His analyses are quite clear, though.

 

[bmattock]

Bill,
Well and interestingly said. If I had written your words however, they would have been ever so slightly less curmudgeonly, and a touch more of the skeptical. 😀

I fear that "curmudgeonly" is my own style, as I appear to engender that response quite often, without intending to. I had once said that my goal in life was to become an old coot. However, it would appear that I've decided to head that direction immediately, and avoid the rush.

In regards to your comments on Rush Limbaugh on the other hand, I would say that in this particular case there's nothing wrong with an ad hominem attack, as long as it is preceeded with an at least moderately logical argument of why he is who he is. To that I would add "and to top it all off, he's fat!" 😛

I am actually no longer a fan or listener of Rush Limbaugh, for those who may suppose otherwise. I merely use him as an example I had observed - I often got the reaction I refer to as "sputtering hatred" from those whom I told I listened to the man's radio show - and their usual main reason was that "he's fat!" If that's your whole reason, friend...

You're right that some people like to live in a bubble, no matter which bubble that is, a lens bubble or a religion bubble. I've learned enough over the years to leave people be in their bubbles, they're usually happier in them than I am outside of them.

I would agree, and if they would be content to live there themselves, it might be nice. However, the usual diatribes I read about Puts are not threads that begin with a comment on how well he writes and then counter-attacked by Puts haters. Usually, the thread begins with with something like "Can you believe what that idiot Puts has gone and said this time?"

And if you Google, you often find that the same person has cut-n-pasted the same screed on every photography-related website in webdom.

People tend to expect "all that and the kitchen sink" when they read free material on the internet, without thinking that a guy like Puts may not present himself as an "objective observer" of the world of photography. He admits that he sucks as a photographer, and he admits that he likes Leica. Problem? No, unless you have a rabid desire for him to be objective. The solution would be to put him on your payroll to test all products objectively. The resulting reviews might be a surprise, and they might not.

Merry Christmas everybody!

Nobody like to have their sacred cow gored, and I can count myself among those who live in a bubble, as you say. Perhaps we all do, with regard to one thing or another. It would be good for me if I could take a lesson from the Puts-haters. If I am as rabid about my sacred cows as they are about theirs, perhaps I need to give that some thought and consider revising my worldview.

Your point is well-taken!

Merry Christmas,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Frank Granovski]

Puts is difficult reading. He should just get to the meat---'er, the point---'er, well you know. That's why I usually focus on his long-leg'd models. 😎

 

[Alec]

Interesting that During the Korean war it [the M3] was the main camera to record the events. Must have been prototypes, as IIRC the official product launch was in 1954, whereas the ceasefire was signed on 27 July 1953.

From a macro-point of view, the article makes good reading, though.

 

[jaap]

This also makes me laugh. Where is it written that a great writer about photography must also be a great photographer? Ansel Adams certainly wrote some of the most-referenced photography books of all time, but did he write columns for magazines? Did he provide industry analysis and evaluation of new models? It would seem that Adams was the exception and not the rule - most great writers about photography are NOT great photographers - in fact, many of them never show any of their work at all - one may presume why that is.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Stronger before an new model entered the market Ansel Adams was asked more than once to try out the new models (Hasselblad) You can take Erwin Puts seriously when he is writing about technical issues without having the lowest technical skills to make a moderate picture. Maybe you should have read more books from the master A.A. and you would have understand more more that Erwin is judging his own money spending.
By the way I certanly don't hate the man !!

 

[bmattock]

Puts is difficult reading. He should just get to the meat---'er, the point---'er, well you know. That's why I usually focus on his long-leg'd models. 😎

Yes, he is obviously incorrect in his conclusions because he is too long-winded. Attention spans not being what they once were and all. Novels? Who needs 'em? Just give me a nice short Cliff's Notes version and I'm fine.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[summilux]

I think he meant Vietnam war, not Korean war, or is he referrring to the III series, not the M series?

I like his Lens Compendium book, and on technical level, I think most of what he writes are quite accurate.

 

[bmattock]

Interesting that During the Korean war it [the M3] was the main camera to record the events. Must have been prototypes, as IIRC the official product launch was in 1954, whereas the ceasefire was signed on 27 July 1953.

From a macro-point of view, the article makes good reading, though.

The Korean War never ended, as you note - just a 'cease fire' that has held since then, more or less. Still, your point is correct; I doubt the M3 was in Korea in large numbers in the hands of war photographers during the active hostilities.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Stronger before an new model entered the market Ansel Adams was asked more than once to try out the new models (Hasselblad) You can take Erwin Puts seriously when he is writing about technical issues without having the lowest technical skills to make a moderate picture. Maybe you should have read more books from the master A.A. and you would have understand more more that Erwin is judging his own money spending.

Are movie critics great directors? Are sports commentators all great athletes? Do political commentators frequently hold high office? Food critics - are they all wonderful chefs? Oh yes, and the Times book reviewers - they all have written top ten-selling novels, right?

Didn't think so.

Expertise in a field is not relegated to technical proficiency only. One can understand correct exposure without always practicing it, and 'art' is certainly subjective enough.

By the way I certanly don't hate the man !!

Well, that's good. I'd hate to see how you'd react if you hated him.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Trius]

I find him a bit difficult to read at times. He needs a good copy editor. This is not a huge issue for me, as I chalk it up mostly to English being his second language.

What I find more difficult is that I think he is a bit long winded at times. I don't mind long articles, but at times he can be repititious.

I read him because he often has ideas or insights or findings that are interesting to me. Other times, not so much, but I'm not always interesting myself.

Earl