The Leica Look No More?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...I have two "R" lenses in my bag which I use on my 5D Mark II with wonderful results. But the fact remains that there is a noticeable difference to me. When it comes to flesh tones, Leica wins...

Reason why i've kept my 5D1. The 5D2 tends to give an oily or plasticky look to human skins. I seem to recall having drawn your attention on this some time ago but i may be wrong. Thanks to Chris, Jono and Ulrich, we do know that the M240 has not this problem already.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jerren]

Let me first say I don't buy into a "Leica Look" at all. But since the challenge has been made and I've yet to see a direct comparison, I'll toss these 2 images out there since no one else has yet. One shot with a Leica M8 and the other shot with a Canon 5DIII. I'm not sure if either of these possess any look to be honest but it is a side by side comparison like was requested. Of course these both would have been shot around f8. So if the "Leica Look" only exists when using big apertures, then these obviously won't illustrate that point.

 

 

 

Which do you prefer. Don't cheat, I'll tell which is which if/and after a few guesses/thoughts.

[JDFlood]

Fascinating discussion. I am very surprised not to have a lot of folks jump on to support Wilfredo. I don't know enough yet to take sides. I had just examined my X2 Jpegs which I take as backups and was shocked by the difference with Raw. I went so far as to get LeicaLook Lightroom Presets to give me a closer start point when I process Raw. One of the people I respect most is Ming Thein, who certainly has talked a lot about the Leica look and also commented on the M 240 samples as being very lifeless and un-Leica like... and he said but then they were not taken with the final firmware. He has a very close relationship to Leica...

 

I have had these kind of discussions many times with respect with audio cables, which I can attest can make huge differences in sound on high-end audio systems. But that the technophile who think they know it all (literally, because they think the parameters they know about are the only ones that control the universe, and if they don't know they can't exist). Anyway, I'm inclined to support Wilfredo here because, I hope it is true and I become a good enough photographer to categorically agree... otherwise I'm going to be keeping the $10K I had earmarked for the M 240 and a lens. JD

 

 

My guess is the second photo... but then as I said, I'm not qualified.

[pico]

Fascinating discussion. I am very surprised not to have a lot of folks jump on to support Wilfredo.

 

It seems that Wilfredo's impression of 'the look' comes from the film paradigm. There is a disconnect which cannot be evinced in speech and writing. Writing about such nuances is irrelevant literature. We have a lot of that here.

[earleygallery]

jono -- based on your blind test which i presume the results showed the olympus fared very well, what technical basis is there for owning a leica as opposed to another camera offering similar latitude in taking the picture? steve

 

As I said, I knew someone would ask this question. Please read my thoughts on the matter in my previous post.

[AlanJW]

Let me first say I don't buy into a "Leica Look" at all. But since the challenge has been made and I've yet to see a direct comparison, I'll toss these 2 images out there since no one else has yet. One shot with a Leica M8 and the other shot with a Canon 5DIII. I'm not sure if either of these possess any look to be honest but it is a side by side comparison like was requested. Of course these both would have been shot around f8. So if the "Leica Look" only exists when using big apertures, then these obviously won't illustrate that point.

 

 

 

Which do you prefer. Don't cheat, I'll tell which is which if/and after a few guesses/thoughts.

They're both very good. I don't prefer either on look because to me they look very close if not identical, but I prefer the second on composition. I'm going to guess the second is the M8, but that is really a guess, based on a "je ne sais quoi" approach like Wilfredo's (or maybe like mine), but unlike Wilfredo I don't think it matters that much.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Either image is so unremarkable in every respect that I would not make a comparison even if it were possible on a monitor, and of course it is not. Save us the bother. Don't post such again.

.

[AlanJW]

Either image is so unremarkable in every respect that I would not make a comparison even if it were possible on a monitor, and of course it is not. Save us the bother. Don't post such again.

.

 

Having a bad day Pico? That's pretty nasty. Your point was made in the first sentence and the last two sentences were unnecessary except to attack the poster. I happen to disagree about the artistic merit of the images. If you want to criticize, please say something constructive. Saying the images are "unremarkable" without more simply says you don't like them. You are entitled to express your opinion (as I was mine). But IMHO, shooing away the poster and commanding that he not post anything like this again is a strident and inappropriate personal attack. Were you appointed Forum Critic At Large and is this now a Juried Forum? If so, I must have missed it.

[Guest WPalank]

Jerren,

Excellent work on both the images. I won't venture a guess but I look forward to more.

[Guest malland]

...I recognize that I don't have the technical expertise that some on this forum have. My conclusions comes from an aesthetic perspective. I'm convinced that a CCD sensor comes closer to film than a CMOS sensor. It is more gritty, and seems more natural to me. I'm 100% happy with the results especially since I gave up shooting film.

 

Some have raised questions about PP. I can tweak CMOS images in PP to come close to what I get with my Leica gear, and althou—gh I am often very satisfied, I know in my gut that there is a certain "je ne sais quoi" that remains missing for me.

 

In the end, what I am saying is that the new CMOS sensor loses the Leica magic for me. Perhaps that will change in time, as the firmware is refined, who knows?...

Wilfredo, this is a disappointing thread because an issue has been formulated — and I won't restate the issue once again — and you then come back come back with the above statement that, essentially, you don't know much about this but know in your gut that something remains missing from M240 pictures because of the CMOS sensor. While you could be right, there is no way of telling because, as stated previously ad nauseum we haven't seen the final firmware or the LR/ACR profile. But even if we had, it's not enough to state that you "feel" this, except as an exercise in jaw-flapping: we're dealing with a visual medium and we have to see rather than to read words about what you "feel". I hope this doesn't sound too harsh, as I'm not trying to do Pico here.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[250swb]

Whenever I have seen women in those poses they have had sick down their front and they want you to call them a taxi. Regarding which is made with a Leica I'd say the second because the left foot is out of focus.

 

Steve

[wattsy]

Save us the bother. Don't post such again.

.

 

Totally uncalled for. A pity you don't follow your own advice. (I dare say you'll PM me again telling me to "fuck off" or whatever charming phrase it was you wrote last time:rolleyes:.)

[Jerren]

The 1st is the M8, the 2nd is the 5DIII.

[Jerren]

Either image is so unremarkable in every respect that I would not make a comparison even if it were possible on a monitor, and of course it is not. Save us the bother. Don't post such again.

.

 

Whenever I have seen women in those poses they have had sick down their front and they want you to call them a taxi. Regarding which is made with a Leica I'd say the second because the left foot is out of focus.

 

Steve

 

I can feel the love here today.

 

Steve thanks for the feedback. You have great work posted on your Flickr. I hope to make photographs that great one day.

 

Pico, I've never seen you post a picture here before.

[earleygallery]

Either image is so unremarkable in every respect that I would not make a comparison even if it were possible on a monitor, and of course it is not. Save us the bother. Don't post such again.

.

 

Pico, such remarks can only lead a thread one way. This has been a good lively discussion, it would be a pity for it to turn into another thread of ill mannered 'personal attacks'.

 

Don't post such again!

[earleygallery]

Which do you prefer. Don't cheat, I'll tell which is which if/and after a few guesses/thoughts.

 

I prefer the first image - there appears to be a greater range of tones and the highlights are not blown.

[pico]

Pico, I've never seen you post a picture here before.

 

And now you know why. (see my album for even worse work)

 

Sorry for the bi-polar rant. There is no excuse. My day was rattled by an epic muck-up on my part with some large format work.

[microview]

There's an analogy here with digital downloads of serious music. Try different programs such as Audirvana, Amarra, Pure Music and ask which is the most truthful to the digital material you are playing (given a first-rate DAC such as the Chord QuteHD). It's like using three different moving-coils to play an LP! (Hope this isn't seen as too 'off topic'.)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest WPalank]

I think Wilfredo is putting the cart before the horse in two ways.

 

If we assume the M8 established a 'Leica look' what did those first photographers using an M8 think they had? It won't have matched their film Leica's so they can't possibly have thought they had found a 'Leica look'. A 'Leica look' can only have developed through familiarity (where enough pictures look the same), because people start to gravitate towards the same lenses, and shoot similar subjects. Each encourages the other towards a conformity that could be called a 'Leica look'. But this will be the same with the M. It is uncharted ground and a new 'Leica look' will develop where threads begin 'what lens are you using with your M?', and 'best RAW processor for M?'.

 

So I don't think Wilfredo is talking about photographers with a unique vision in using a Leica, but rather a lumpen mass who follow convention. No photographer who we now associate with an archetypal Leica image, such as Robert Frank, Bresson, Ralph Gibson, set out to use a 'Leica look', they had the look they wanted in their minds eye, and didn't buy their style from a shop.

 

And while it is a natural thing to follow a master and adopt a style in order to learn, as any student of art will understand, it is the ultimate responsibility of that student to break the bonds and evolve their own style. So if there is such a thing as a 'Leica look' (and in Wilfredo's context there is) it is something to be fought against because the only consequence that come from it is mundanity, a Leica Proletariate where photographs are actively criticised for lacking 'the look'.

 

Steve

 

Well done. Interesting that this was posted in the Leica Blog the day before. Along the same line, me thinks. Coincidence or fate?:

Claire Yaffa: Thoughts of Photographers for Poets and Dreamers, Chapter 13

 

Then throw this into the mix and it's time for a group hug:

 

The original narrated by Steve Jobs. The one that went to air was narrated by Richard Dreyfuss. I like the one I posted better (it IS Steve's Birthday week).

[gjames9142]

The origin of the Leica look was probably based on the radically different characteristics of a 35 mm camera vs the standard press cameras of the day -- Speed Graphic etc. The Leica could encourage a more informal, fluid style, but I was looking at Don McCullin's early work, which I thought was done with Leica, but in fact was Nikon, There is no question that Leica lenses are still superb, but then, so are Zeiss lenses. I use a M9s, and the files are wonderful, although I couldn't swear that another system wouldn't be equally satisfactory. What does seem to have a unique look is the MM, which is quite special in its characteristics. There is nothing quite like it, and in many ways, according to Sean Reid, it outperforms the 240. But in general, I would fall back on the old adage le style, c'est l'homme. It is the person that has the style.