The Leica Look No More?

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Putting it all together this time, the factors I see in early Leica black and white work:

 

Lenses were not as well corrected

Lens coating was not as effective today

Film had little to no anti-halation backing

Film was slower and shooting at wide apertures was more common

Enlarging lenses were not as sharp and contrasty as today

 

Finally with digital we do not know for certain if in-camera processing includes some unsharp work.

 

Regarding enlarging lenses - I have the Focotar I lenses that came with the Focomat IIa and they cannot hold a candle to a later 6-element, 4-group lenses, however they do impart a certain soft look, but not the so-called Leica glow which sometimes occurs solely due to the taking lens, and some films.

 

Whether digital sensors can reclaim that so-called Leica look and glow remains to be seen. If it can come about, then it should show when I use the type-2 35mm Summilux and 50mm Summitar (late model with single coating and round aperture) on the M9. So far I haven't seen it.

 

But I have seen the look coming from Zeiss Super Ikonta 6x9 and 6x6.45 ! It is not just a Leica thing.

[iedei]

You disqualify yourself as a professional with this thread.

There is no "Leica Look" on a sensor, can you explain it physically or even proof it with examples? - No you don't because you have no clue about it!

 

The special/unique rendering is comming from the lense!

And that's what you are talking about.

The fact that you relay on the CCD vs. CMOD discussion is non-sense.

 

why so hostile? tone it down a notch....and unwind your knotted panties, kid.

[iedei]

i think the "Leica look" consists of a few distinct things:

 

1) older lenses, which create a peculiar focus and out of focus 'look'

2) photographers who use Leica have a certain way of looking at photography and/or focusing

 

i agree and disagree with the assertion that 'no such thing' exists. I agree in that i don't believe the cameras are responsible, and i disagree that there is no particular 'feel' or 'look' to photos taken with Leica cameras and lenses; because i think there is. However, to understand what is responsible for that, i think the answers lie in the photographers and the lenses.

[pico]

We could have a Leica Look contest.

[TomB_tx]

We could have a Leica Look contest.

How about a Leica Look Aleica contest?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[earleygallery]

i think the "Leica look" consists of a few distinct things:

 

1) older lenses, which create a peculiar focus and out of focus 'look'

2) photographers who use Leica have a certain way of looking at photography and/or focusing

 

i agree and disagree with the assertion that 'no such thing' exists. I agree in that i don't believe the cameras are responsible, and i disagree that there is no particular 'feel' or 'look' to photos taken with Leica cameras and lenses; because i think there is. However, to understand what is responsible for that, i think the answers lie in the photographers and the lenses.

 

I have to take issue with your comments.

 

Peculiar focus? What on earth does that mean?

 

How can a photographer have a certain way of focussing? Either the subject is in focus or it's not.

 

Those older lenses were remarkable in their day, and built the reputation that Leica enjoy to this day. The camera (Barnack LTM's) was also instrumental in defining what is being discussed as 'the Leica look' as it allowed photographers to be much more casual and spontaneous in their approach.

[iedei]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have to take issue with your comments.

 

Peculiar focus? What on earth does that mean?

 

How can a photographer have a certain way of focussing? Either the subject is in focus or it's not.

 

my comments about focusing are referring to rangefinder focusing. yes it has to do with getting something in focus, but it is a unique method----which i would believe does lead to different types of composition and/or qualities which occur while taking the photo. we are, in this discussion, in a world of opinions.....and this is just one of mine.

[wilfredo]

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.

 

Jerren,

 

Thank you for posting these. That took courage. To be honest with you I could not distinguish which was which. You have your technique well defined and you obviously get consistent results regardless of camera.

 

I saved both images on my screen and then looked at them more closely. Upon closer examination I preferred the M8 image for its flesh tones over the 5D Mark III image. I think both shots are very tastefully done BTW!

 

To the rest of the Clan:

 

I can see we will never reach a consensus on this issue, and I can live with that. There is nothing wrong with a healthy debate as long as it remains civilized. I am not attempting to win an argument here. We all have our preferences whether based on science, poetry, or a little mix of both.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[sfage]

This is an interesting discussion. I just said to a colleague this morning: "I am done with buying lenses". Quite frankly, if someone cannot distinguish between a Canon body (or lens) and a Leica, what is the point of paying the premium?

 

The point is... that there isn't one.

 

There are a lot of "fan boys" around here. I think they're hilarious. I have said this about ten times upon these forums. I have posted a number of photos here that were taken with the new Canon $178 40mm pancake. And then, someone will comment upon the lovely colours and contrast from Leica lenses.

 

..." so, you can't distinguish between a $178 lens and a $3,178 dollar lens? May I ask why you do this photography thing?"

 

It's comical.

[pico]

..." so, you can't distinguish between a $178 lens and a $3,178 dollar lens? May I ask why you do this photography thing?"

 

Many users do not live for mere monitor presentation.

[andybarton]

 

I have posted a number of photos here that were taken with the new Canon $178 40mm pancake.

 

 

Please don't.

[TomB_tx]

This is an interesting discussion. I just said to a colleague this morning: "I am done with buying lenses". Quite frankly, if someone cannot distinguish between a Canon body (or lens) and a Leica, what is the point of paying the premium?

..." so, you can't distinguish between a $178 lens and a $3,178 dollar lens? May I ask why you do this photography thing?"

The same reason that I still drive a 1973 VW Beetle: I enjoy the process of the journey more than in a modern car, and often I enjoy the journey more than the destination.

I'll never be accused of producing great photographs, but I've enjoyed the process and results of my "snapshooting" using Leica and other brands since the 1960s. I've had cameras that produced great results that I couldn't stand to use because of the "feel" or the configuration or noises they made.

Much of my career I designed and made high-tech tools, and I still hear from technicians who prefer to use the ones I designed even though the results with other makes may be better. They just prefer to use tools that feel right.

I have and enjoy using Canon - like the IVSB (LTM rangefinder) - but have no interest in today's plastic and automatic toys, even if they can make excellent images.

The M9 made no sense economically, but it was the only digital that I enjoy using.

Some of us are by nature engineers, not artists, and enjoy the practice of photography for itself.

[masjah]

This is an interesting discussion. I just said to a colleague this morning: "I am done with buying lenses". Quite frankly, if someone cannot distinguish between a Canon body (or lens) and a Leica, what is the point of paying the premium?

 

The point is... that there isn't one.

 

There are a lot of "fan boys" around here. I think they're hilarious. I have said this about ten times upon these forums. I have posted a number of photos here that were taken with the new Canon $178 40mm pancake. And then, someone will comment upon the lovely colours and contrast from Leica lenses.

 

..." so, you can't distinguish between a $178 lens and a $3,178 dollar lens? May I ask why you do this photography thing?"

 

It's comical.

 

In another thread ("Leica Hate and Like") you said that you put Leica R lenses on a Canon body. Why do you bother with Leica R glass, and having to mess arouind with adapters or Leitaxing with stop-down metering and manual focus? Why not just stick to Canon lenses?

[iedei]

I have said this about ten times upon these forums.

 

No, actually you have repetitively spilled the same superficial money-minded drivel over and over again more than ten times... and yet still nobody really cares.

[pico]

The same reason that I still drive a 1973 VW Beetle: I enjoy the process of the journey more than in a modern car

 

I still have this beautiful 1958.

 

http://www.digoliardi.net/58bug.jpg

 

I appreciate your comment about those who are natural engineers.

[earleygallery]

This is an interesting discussion. I just said to a colleague this morning: "I am done with buying lenses". Quite frankly, if someone cannot distinguish between a Canon body (or lens) and a Leica, what is the point of paying the premium?

 

The point is... that there isn't one.

 

There are a lot of "fan boys" around here. I think they're hilarious. I have said this about ten times upon these forums. I have posted a number of photos here that were taken with the new Canon $178 40mm pancake. And then, someone will comment upon the lovely colours and contrast from Leica lenses.

 

..." so, you can't distinguish between a $178 lens and a $3,178 dollar lens? May I ask why you do this photography thing?"

 

It's comical.

 

If you only use your images on Facebook or flickr or on here I'd agree with you, don't waste your money on Leica gear, an iPhone will serve you just as well.

 

It's comical.

[erl]

This is an interesting discussion. I just said to a colleague this morning: "I am done with buying lenses". Quite frankly, if someone cannot distinguish between a Canon body (or lens) and a Leica, what is the point of paying the premium?

 

The point is... that there isn't one.

 

There are a lot of "fan boys" around here. I think they're hilarious. I have said this about ten times upon these forums. I have posted a number of photos here that were taken with the new Canon $178 40mm pancake. And then, someone will comment upon the lovely colours and contrast from Leica lenses.

 

..." so, you can't distinguish between a $178 lens and a $3,178 dollar lens? May I ask why you do this photography thing?"

 

It's comical.

 

If you made the comparison and spent the money and can't tell the difference, you wasted your time and money.

 

There is more to it than the commercial value of the gear. There is also the the need of a skilled operator to exploit the virtues of fine equipment. Failure to produce fine work is not usually the fault of the gear.

 

In skilled hands, fine equipment does produce better work.

[Ivan Muller]

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.

 

Had a look, and really like the vw bug in the garden...

[Ivan Muller]

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.

 

 

Jerren, of course the first one is more preferable, because there are no 'blown out' highlights on either side of the model. This is most obvious and visible looking at my 22inch monitor at a greatly 'reduced for web' jpeg...

 

But I looked up your info and it says that you are an amateur. I have nothing against amateurs nor am I implying that your images are bad or anything like that, in fact these images are real nice!...but as a professional your images tell me nothing of the capabilities of either camera. In professional hands both images could be made to look exactly the same. It just means that each camera has its own processing and exposure and handling peculiarities and that its quite easy to compensate for that. Thats why we have LR and photoshop etc etc

 

I have tree different cameras from three different manufacturers in three different formats, aps-c, full frame 35mm and 36x48mm medium format. Each one behaves differently and captures a scene differently. It doesn't make one 'better' than the next, sure they all have different resolutions and contrast range etc and one cant be overexposed whilst another can, one has lens cast and another fall off etc etc. I don't prefer one over the other and each one has strengths and weaknesses...but I can get a full tone sharp image from them all...

 

The problem with most so called 'experts' here are that they have limited expertise and few have the pressures of shooting for a living...I am not saying I know more than anyone here, on the contrary, and decidedly less than most about Leica:) but I temper my comments with real world realities and situations and more than 30 years of shooting all sorts of stuff for money. I also have an A0 photo roll printer and can look at printed images anytime and believe me what looks ok enlarged 100% on a monitor doesn't always look that great printed large. Most if not all cameras today can turn out beautiful sharp well exposed images good enough for publication. There are lots of myths flying around the net and if one wants to believe them that's also fine...but most seasoned pros will just shake their heads at all the nonsense that's perpetuated here and turned into gospel...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

Ivan, as an aside, I saw the article on your site regarding b/w upside down. If you don't have it already, this book, now updated is a classic, often used in the art classes you cite.

 

As to your comments above, I agree about the internet myths and the common lack of appreciation for steps one can take after capture to maximize image quality, but I don't agree that one needs to be a pro to understand and make use of that. There are plenty of amateurs around who are just as dedicated to the craft, but most of them are busy printing and not posting pics on the web that might just as well have been shot with any camera.

 

Jeff