Can you see if a photo is made by a Leica camera and how?

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So it's the quality of the picture, not the art of making a picture? You must see it on paper?

Then you can see the difference?

 

The 'art' of making a photograph has little to do with the camera. Look to the great photos made through time. And yes, I'd need to see a print.

[Paulus]

A screen image makes it hard to tell. Even harder if you do not have a Nikon/Leica of the same scene side by side. If you do the test and do no sharpening or other PP, the Leica will prevail.

 

The secret is you need to saturate the colors more and sharpen a bit more, 50%, and they become close

 

Film printed images get a 3 D effect from German glass that is not there from Nikon.

 

Nikon glass is approaching Leica where as there was a bigger difference 4/5 decades ago. The gap is closing, but mind you they both are advancing.

 

With film, Leica still rules. Digital manipulation gives a leg up to Nikon, but is certainly does not surpass it.

 

The last consideration is Leica lenses can make people look bad because they are so sharp, have so much micro contrast. When I take a pic of my mother, I do not want to see every pore and wrinkle. On the other hand, I want every detail to show on a landscape.

 

The lens used in the picture is a 34 year old nikon lens. The leica lenses are from 1996 . In the print 30*40 you can see a difference.

[wildlightphoto]

The difference for me is the ones I throw away (or were not made in the first place), not the ones I show. A good ergonomic design will result in fewer missed opportunities, and good lenses mean fewer tossed due to flare, bad color or other technical deficiencies.

[spydrxx]

From my perspective the answer depends on whether or not you are comparing similar pictures from similarly designed lenses on the same film printed on the same paper etc.....in which case it might be possible at certain apertures. Otherwise, I'd say that anybody who thinks they can routinely tell the difference is full of hogwash. Creativity and controlling or making use of the other variables in shots is what distinguishes photographs from each other....the Leica lenses merely are more reliable and consistent in their renderings, especially at larger apertures....plus they really feel good in the hand.

[Xmas]

Hi

 

One of my LTM lenses (I use with an M adpoter) is a Nikkor HC f/2 5cm.

 

It s easy to tell, it is on a Leica M or Barnack or clone.

 

Noel

[Paulus]

The 'art' of making a photograph has little to do with the camera. Look to the great photos made through time. And yes, I'd need to see a print.

 

You're welcome to visit my home;)

[aesop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A while ago, I accidently put a photo of a Nikon Camera on the photo forum. To my surprise nobody saw that it was made by a NOT Leica camera.

 

Can anybody tell me if and how we can see de difference in photo between Leica and the other cameras, or is it just an illusion, that one can see it?

 

One of these thee photos is not a Leica photo. Can you tell me why.

 

...Paulus, the "Leica look" is one of our favourite topics on the forum. Some argue it exists, others that it doesn't. The rest appear not to care.

 

For an insight into the various arguments, grab a coffee (or your preferred beverage) and click on the following link - "About the Leica Look". Enjoy.

[Paulus]

...Paulus, the "Leica look" is one of our favourite topics on the forum. Some argue it exists, others that it doesn't. The rest appear not to care.

 

For an insight into the various arguments, grab a coffee (or your preferred beverage) and click on the following link - "About the Leica Look". Enjoy.

 

Thanks! I'll take a calvados and read on!

[250swb]

This is all total and utter garbage about supposedly being able to tell the difference between a Leica and a Nikon based on the individual image alone.

 

Throughout the history of recent photography all images have had some post processing, and that wipes out any ability to tell one from the other. A grade of paper difference in the darkroom, or a different developer, or a different RAW converter, they all tell more about the photographers preferences rather than the innate abilities of the camera. And if you aren't post processing in some way, why not!

 

But, over a period of time, and perhaps with some other clues like seeing a prefered focal range become apparent, it can be possible to guess if a photographer is using a Leica or a Nikon. That is what makes a Leica photograph, the situations the photographer gets into, without using a long telephoto, or perhaps the way the people in the photograph respond, or just the distance from the subject. But the idea of a 'Leica pop' to the image is nonsense. In may be true after reviewing a large range of images from one photographer, but its impossible from one image alone if any sort of consideration of all the variables is taken into account. Yes, Leica lenses are special, but only reviewable over a body of work, and yes the camera is special, but only reviewable over a body of work.

 

Steve

[aesop]

...and off we go again - gotta love the passion, though.

[250swb]

...and off we go again - gotta love the passion, though.

 

Well its always good to hear from people with an opinion rather than those sitting on the fence

 

Steve:D

[pgk]

Lens designs have a huge number of factors to take into account and some factors are weighted differently for different designs or applications. Bokeh for example is not purely produced by chance but is probably not all that often a desperately important part of a camera lens designer's brief when it comes to a new photographic lens design. At the current level of lens sophistication its hardly surprising that most 'decent' lenses are extremely good and, as I said in a previous post, are difficult to distinguish between at mid to small apertures.

 

There is no doubt though that individual lenses have different traits and that with education/experience, these traits can be recognised (not only in Leica lenses) by viewers of images produced by them - when that is, they have been used in ways that show these traits. I don't know what is so difficult to appreciate about this, except that it all too often gets extended to include areas where the traits cannot be seen - not all Leica lenses or Leica designed lenses will show signs of any distinctive traits at all apertures or focused distances or under all lighting conditions.

[doolittle]

A while ago, I accidently put a photo of a Nikon Camera on the photo forum. To my surprise nobody saw that it was made by a NOT Leica camera.

 

Can anybody tell me if and how we can see de difference in photo between Leica and the other cameras, or is it just an illusion, that one can see it?

 

One of these thee photos is not a Leica photo. Can you tell me why.

 

Presuming they were three photos from digital cameras, are you sure they weren't just using a browser plug-in which displayed the exif data?

[Paulus]

Presuming they were three photos from digital cameras, are you sure they weren't just using a browser plug-in which displayed the exif data?

 

The photos are neagatives agfapan 400/ Tmax develloped scanned in Nikon coolscan 50.

[efix]

Can anybody tell me if and how we can see de difference in photo between Leica and the other cameras, or is it just an illusion, that one can see it?

 

Yes, by looking at the EXIF-Data

[Paulus]

Yes, by looking at the EXIF-Data

 

Try reading the tread first:rolleyes:

[efix]

Try reading the tread first:rolleyes:

 

That was meant ironically, of course ... :-)