How? Leica Glow

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I want to know how leica glow been engineered in to lens design. I read hundreds of pages of articles and I have no idea.. But I bet some digital camera users or new comers have no idea on leica glow.

 

It appeared at WW2 era and later magazine covers , portraits frequently.

 

In my humble opinion , Leica makes camera film works at its best. But how ? I have only one idea , leica lenses senses and transmits lines or grades as it is. Japanese lenses put high frequency information in to highest frequency room , whatever the line width differs. Thats why all nikon portraits makes tan man , white.

 

Mustafa Umut Sarac

Istanbul

[Advertisement]

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

[TomB_tx]

There are a lot of very old Leica lenses that have a lot of glow from internal haze. This largely disappears with a good internal cleaning. So I wonder how much of the "glow" reputation is just from haze accumulation.

[pico]

The so-called Leica Glow is an accident incidental with the development of lenses. Tom explained part of it. Thanks, Tom. Contributions - adequate center sharpness, spherical aberration, poor coating (or coating that  wiped away while cleaning.)

 

In my modest experience, MF Zeiss Super Ikonta cameras up to 1950 produce the same.

.

Edited September 11, 2017 by pico

[250swb]

You can get 'Leica glow' by using the 'Glamour Glow' filter in Nik Suites 'Color FX'. Saves ruining a good lens by removing the coating. In terms of being unique it isn't so, even today you can buy the CV 35mm Nokton in a single coated version to exaggerate 'glow', and plenty of older cameras do exhibit it.

[a.noctilux]

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/152705-old-thambar-f9-cm-122-found-cleaning/

 

Thambar 9cm has that "glow" from start.

That glow even can be adjusted .

 

May it started a myth ?

 

Just kidding of course.

For me it depend on many parameters to have or not that "Glow thing".

 

Look for more in Wiki Thambar : https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Thambar_f%3D_9_cm_1:2.2

Edited September 12, 2017 by a.noctilux

[SilentShutter]

Leica "Glow" is just a Myth or like Donald would say "Fake News"

others strongly belive it was Oskar Barnacks sweat drops that were

fallen into the melt pot when he heat the glass - who knows ?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any 'glow' - ie highlights spreading into adjacent shadow areas (since we first do need to define what we are on about) - can be due to a number of reasons including haze,coating (or lack of), lens design and more. 'Good' lenses today don't exhibit/suffer from 'glow' because they are better designed, coated and and built, but there are still those who believe in the industrial mythology of the past despite facts arguing against it.

Edited September 18, 2017 by pgk

[willeica]

Any 'glow' - ie highlights spreading into adjacent shadow areas (since we first do need to define what we are on about) - can be due to a number of reasons including haze,coating (or lack of), lens design and more. 'Good' lenses today don't exhibit/suffer from 'glow' because they are better designed, coated and and built, but there are still those who believe in the industrial mythology of the past despite facts arguing against it.

 

It's all about personal taste. I love the 'glow' from my Summars which I am sure are due to 'faults'. There is a preference today for the pure and clean look, of course. As to which is 'better', it is very much a matter of opinion.

 

William

[M9reno]

"...those who believe in the industrial mythology of the past..."

 

It may not be as clear-cut as that. The Thambar example mentioned above shows that the range of aesthetic and technological changes available at a given time may be considerable. In the 1930's, just using the Thambar, you could choose what degree of glow you wanted - wide open with spot filter, or stopped down without filter, at which point the lens begins to behave like its contemporary Elmar 90, a different lens offering different options.

 

Today your choice between 50's from an Apo Summicron and a Noctilux 0.95 might be similar: are you after definition and contrast, or do you want something else? Fortunately there is different glass for different needs. Especially given the power to change digital ISO settings to very high levels, shooting at full aperture today is more often just an aesthetic choice, not very different from putting the spot filter on that Thambar...

 

So I would say that there is an equally seductive industrial mythology of linear progress towards perfection. "Leica glow" can also be a short way of saying colour neutrality (as in the OP), or vividness, or "pop", or whatever... if you see it, it exists, and there are perfectly good reasons for liking it.

Edited September 18, 2017 by M9reno

[sandro]

I agree with William. Of course the so-called glow of older Leitz lenses is a myth, but some of us like the way older lenses render specific scenes and situations. That has to do with the (lack of) coating), the way unsharpness is treated and sharpness in the center of the image, to name a few elements. And what we like or dislike is our personal taste. For specific images I sometimes like the older lenses like the Summar, Elmar 5 cm and the Summitar.

Lex

[pgk]

It may not be as clear-cut as that.

 

It would be nice if things really were as simplistic as we would like them to be . Thing is, lenses like the Thambar were, and remain, real niche products. They really are so well outside the mainstream as to be pretty well irrelevant but as I said things are quite as simple as I made out . Personal tastes of the cogniscenti  (I include myself as I own a few older lenses for their characteristics/faults) are as niche as Thambars I suspect. What I don't like is when flaws become imbued with mystique and drift into myth - improving technology shouldn't create myths out of poorer technology IMO.

[pico]

Don't forget how film (vs digital) can contribute to 'glow'.

 

Persons who have used only digital sensors probably have not experienced artifacts like those from films that had no anti-halation layer. Look for example at Kodak's 35mm High Speed Infrared (HIE). The aura, glow, was largely to do with halation. Photographers should notice the significant difference between HIE and digital infrared imaging.

 

I've forgotten what modern films intentionally omit the anti-halation layer. Anyone?

Edited September 18, 2017 by pico

[pico]

End of thread?

.

[250swb]

 

I've forgotten what modern films intentionally omit the anti-halation layer. Anyone?

CineStill

[wlaidlaw]

The Film Photography Project https://filmphotographyproject.com sell all sorts of odd film. Often rerolled cine film or special purpose films, only sold in bulk, which they then sell in 35mm cassettes. It is not infrequent for some of those to omit the anti-halation layer. Unless I was big into taking B&W shots of sunrises or sunsets (I am not), they would not be my choice.  The film I bought from them that overdid the glow thing, was Svema blue sensitive. A difficult film to use with an ISO of 6 but luckily my Weston Master V is one of the few light meters that goes down to 6 ISO without having to do mental calculations. That film would probably be great for shots of mountains, taken on a good heavy tripod, as long as you have a strong mule to carry the tripod up the mountains. 

 

Wilson

 

 

 

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!

[M9reno]

Just to add an example of "Leica Glow" from the Thambar (at f/4.4 with spot filter):  notice in the close-up that there is good definition, despite the highlights spreading into shadow areas.  The overall effect is, one might say, of an angelic halo, and certainly not to everyone's taste or appropriate to all situations...

 

Above all, it would be rather difficult to reproduce by spreading Vaseline over a lens, as some people sometimes joke!

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!

[Ko.Fe.]

Leica "Glow" is just a Myth or like Donald would say "Fake News"

others strongly belive it was Oskar Barnacks sweat drops that were

fallen into the melt pot when he heat the glass - who knows ?

 

It is not the myth or fake news. It is the flaw. 

I had clean Summarit 50 1.5 and wide open it was glowing. 

I had typical Summar 50 2 and prior to cleaning of gunk which accumulated for seventy years it was glowing. 

 

Some FSU SLR lenses has the glow. It is because of bad manufacturing.

Old Leitz lens might have similar glow as well. It is because of the optical elements fogging.

Which is due to mistakes in the glass formulation.

[willeica]

Summar Glow. Rigid Summar from 1932 on M240, wide open (or nearly)

 

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!

 

Nothing beats a Summar in my experience, no fancy filters or processing needed. These effects would be regarded as flaws nowadays, of course, in our pin sharp clean digital world.

 

William

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ko.Fe.]

So I was in double trouble here with Summar and Polypan F (thin anti-halation layer film). 

 

 

 

Thin ice, so to speak, with same lens and film:

 

[lct]

[...] Of course the so-called glow of older Leitz lenses is a myth [...]

 

Myth or reality?

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-kK26qbz/0/7c558ad2/X3/i-kK26qbz-X3.jpg

(Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph v2)