I agree that labeling a breeder reputable is very subjective. Orginally I only considered a breeder reputable if he or she was breeding to obtain the optimum in health and conformation to show the dog, but I have realized over time there are people that may not breed for the AKC standard but breed for a particular look that they like and breed for health as well. I don't see them as not being reputable just because they aren't making a dog look like what an organization says it should look like.
Remy, you said that you didn't understand why people need to follow club's rules like the DPCA and AKC. Why breeders just can't breed for what traits they like, be it color or size or look in general.
The standard is there for a reason. It keeps Doberman looking like Dobermans. If you have one breeder breeding solid Dobes,and oversized Dobes, eventually they won't look like Dobermans anymore, they will end up looking like mutts (nothing wrong with mutts though). Purebred dogs have specific looks and temperaments, it's what sets them apart from other breeds.
This is a good example, www.GarretsDobermans.com
They claim to breed family pets for temperament, not for conformation. On their homepage, look at Ella. Sure she looks like a Doberman, but not an exceptional one. Odd color eyes, bad facial and chest markings. But still a Doberman.
But if you keep breeding away from the standard, this is what you could end up with: http://http://www.garrettsdobermans.com/amb1_FM_OG.html
According to Garrets, it's a solid Fawn Doberman, with others like it in the litter. Sold by a breeder as a purebred Dobe, and I'm assuming registered as one. Can you honestly tell me that looks like a Doberman? I'm hoping it was sired by a mutt, but it's at least half Doberman, and looks nothing like one.
Without parent clubs setting a standard that breeders can follow, you will end up like dogs that look nothing like the purebred breeds we recognize.
I can't comment on the Albino issue, since I don't know much about it from a scientific viewpoint.