The "Leica Look" is real!

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, earleygallery said:

I’m just asking those who claim to see an obvious ‘Leica look’ to show us what they mean by posting photos instead of words. 

Then they say it’s not something you’ll see if you don’t believe in it.

Sounds like it’s as real as goblins and fairies (but I remain open minded about them too).

 

This isn't bickering.  It's a friendly exchange of mantras, or mandalas, or something...  In some disciplines, the many different things we like would cause us all to split off their unique excellences and defend them from the others.  But in Leicaland, we are surrounded by unbelievers with torches and pitchforks forcing us to become lumpers, huddling together in the Leica swamp under a common banner, while the peasants ringing our domain shout "Veblen goods!!"

[pgk]

8 hours ago, Ray Vonn said:

Another theory I've heard is that "Leica Look" only applies to film.  If we're trying to achieve that with our digital models then we can forget it.  Apparently.......

Hmmmm. If you want an exposition of how film and digital can both record a 'look' then try Cooke's: https://cookeoptics.com/t/look.html

Cooke trade on the 'look' that their movie lenses produce across the range. They are colour matched and I suspect (can't find it stated) that they are all of similar design. I'd also suggest that they understand the parameters which their lenses have to deliver and design to ensure that these are met in a consistent manner. If you want a corollory, then Leica lenses of the same design should have a similar 'look'. So Summiluxes should give consistency and should Summicrons, Elmars, etc.. But its less likely that Elmars will give the same 'look' as Summiluxes. So a consistent Leica 'look' is fundamentally unlikely because of the use of varied designs, long term changes (coating, tolerances, aspheric elements and so on) and glass changes. Allied to this the fact that the 'goal' for photographic lenses has been individual lens merits rather than across the range consistency and it becomes obvious that a Leica 'look' is not possible.

All that said there are consistencies from digital Leicas that can make imagery have similarities. If Leica use a consistent goal to ensure similarity in output from their cameras this will help ensure a consistency. Using film 'look' to base output colouration on might help too. I still think that theM8 and M9 had a Kodachrome appearance at times Coincidence or design?I don't know.

What I do know is that Leica cameras are great fun to use, can deliver excellent imagery from both current and very early lenses and compete with anything else on the market. I just don't ascribe 'magical' qualities to them.

[evikne]

One thing I like with the Mandler lenses, is a kind of "porous" surface, almost like fine grain, even on digital images. What I love with Karbe lenses, is that the out of focus ares look like they are covered with "frosted glass". I won't call it "Leica look", but rather lens designer look. Am I the only one seeing this?

[otto.f]

22 hours ago, earleygallery said:

Why not? 

Because we have enough of comparisons in the first place and because everytime we stick our head out of our Leica M equipment barn we get confronted with an enormous load of functions packed in a few buttons which we don’t like, need and want and which stand in our way of seeing things. And because photography is much simpler than that we need all these intrusions in our way of making photographs

[pgk]

59 minutes ago, evikne said:

One thing I like with the Mandler lenses, is a kind of "porous" surface, almost like fine grain, even on digital images. What I love with Karbe lenses, is that the out of focus ares look like they are covered with "frosted glass". I won't call it "Leica look", but rather lens designer look. Am I the only one seeing this?

IMO the Mandler lenses show a slightly smoother 'roll-off' of edge detail than do the Karbe (aspheric). This is, I suspect due to slightly lower corrections which allow for sufficient aberrations to marginally 'soften' the edge detail - enough to 'smooth' it but not enough to make much, if any,  of it indistinct. Its nuance though and again, IMO only really visible on large prints (or by 'pixel peeping'). So the overall impression is marginally different betwee Mandler era and Karbe era lenses. Some complain the Karbe's designs are 'clinical' which is an impression caused by their precision and better correction. I have a few of both and they are used to best effect when subject and lighting both reinforce the lenses' characteristics. 

[PeterGA]

A lot of people in this thread are suggesting that they are paying huge premiums for lenses - that don't perform any better than alternative and far less expensive lenses .- I find this rather amusing. To add to the humour these same people are demanding some form of 'proof' from those who say that they do appreciate what their Leica lenses and cameras deliver and that this delivery is different to other cameras and lens makes.

Take  a Zeiss lens and a Leica lens and shoot the same subject wide open and the difference is fairly obvious - one lens manufacturer delivers a higher contrast treatment from the other , one lens manufacturer delivers a cooler colour treatment than the other. Nikon/Canon lenses aren't in the same league as Zeiss - let alone Leica. I have to go to MF lenses to get the type of roll off from sharp to OOF that Leica lenses deliver. Leaving colour treatment and consistency of same aside - I see the greatest difference in rendering in fast lenses used as they were designed to be used by Leica- wide open.

 

[TG14]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, Dirk Mandeville said:

In the end, nobody wins and nobody walks away feeling like they had an enjoyable discussion about their favorite hobby

Haha. Just one of those those things.

[alan.y]

I don't think this recurrent topic should ever be about "proving" that a Leica look exists. It's more like a philosophical question, like the meaning of life or what art is--the point is to generate discussion and reflection. Ultimately each Leica-loving and -committed photographer has to come up with his or her definition, because nobody else can do so on your behalf.

For me it's always been about colors.

Just because a criterion is subjective and without definitive proof doesn't mean it's pointless to discuss it. It's even more urgent these days, when photography discussions are dominated by objective and quantitative metrics, when considerations of taste and style are narrowly focused on... bokeh.

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by alan.y

[earleygallery]

45 minutes ago, PeterGA said:

A lot of people in this thread are suggesting that they are paying huge premiums for lenses - that don't perform any better than alternative and far less expensive lenses .- I find this rather amusing.

Price isn't a good measure of performance.

Leica are a tiny company in comparison to say Nikon or Canon. Economies of scale apply as well as a whole host of other factors that go into the melting pot to come out with an end product and price.

That said I wouldn't doubt the quality of any Leica lens. It's what they're famous for after all. But to say that there's a unique and obvious 'look' to any photo taken with a Leica camera or lens is something I don't accept but for those who insist on it, there is a simple way to settle the matter. Post the photos to show us!

Let me try and put my point another way with a couple of statements;

1) I like the look of the images I can produce with my 35mm Summicron R lens, they have a unique signature to them that I don't seem to get from other 35mm lenses.

2) Any Leica lens is better than any other lens make and photos with Leica lenses are immediately recognisable as 'Leica' photos in a superior way.

[Mark II]

30 minutes ago, PeterGA said:

Nikon/Canon lenses aren't in the same league as Zeiss - let alone Leica.

I am not sure that is true any more. For example, the latest 50mm f1.2 RF (mirrorless) lens from Canon and even the budget priced Sigma Art range is surprisingly close or even superior to Leica in terms of image quality (eg the latest Sigma 28mm f1.4). The limitations today are more in the photographer's technique and post-processing skills than the cameras or glass. Where Leica has a huge advantage over Canikon et al is in the size of their lenses - unsurprisingly because that is a design priority for Leica, whereas physical lens size is not such an issue for other systems.

Back to the original question: if you look on Flickr et al or run through (say) Magnum Contact Sheets, you can find common image elements that might define many very different "Leica Looks". To me, the most obvious are saturated colour images with shallow DOF and strong vignetting (think M9 or Ektachrome shot with a fast 50mm wide open) and deep DOF B&W street images (zone-focussed) - but you can argue for many many more.

Providing that you start with a clean modern image, you can approximate any given look to some degree with post-processing today (save for differences in DOF). For example, when I need to match images taken with the Ricoh GR to (say) an M9, I crush the blacks to increase contrast and saturation and add some vignetting. Obviously it will not replicate the feel of a specific lens exactly, but it gets the overall character close enough that I am comfortable mixing-and-matching images taken with different systems.

[Dirk Mandeville]

33 minutes ago, alan.y said:

Just because a criterion is subjective and without definitive proof doesn't mean it's pointless to discuss it. 

 

 

 

I agree with you, actually. Not sure if you are referring to my comments, but I don’t think I ever said it was pointless to discuss it.  I said it was pointless to expend my own effort trying to satisfy the demands of people requiring proof of a subjective concept, one that is not objectively provable in the first place. Although I did mention that it has been my experience that these types of discussions on forums such as this are rarely productive or satisfying. The majority of comments on this thread seem to bear that out. 

 

[pgk]

1 hour ago, PeterGA said:

Nikon/Canon lenses aren't in the same league as Zeiss - let alone Leica.

Seriously? Come on, both make fabulous lenses. I have Leica and Canon 35/1.4s and they are all extremely good lenses indeed. I suggest that you try the Canon wide open then the none aspheric Summilux-M. Which is 'better' or perhaps more pertinently, which is better corrected?

[alan.y]

1 minute ago, Dirk Mandeville said:

I agree with you, actually. Not sure if you are referring to my comments, but I don’t think I ever said it was pointless to discuss it.  I said it was pointless to expend my own effort trying to satisfy the demands of people requiring proof of a subjective concept, one that is not objectively provable in the first place. Although I did mention that it has been my experience that these types of discussions on forums such as this are rarely productive or satisfying. The majority of comments on this thread seem to bear that out. 

I wasn't referring to your comments specifically. I think we're in agreement entirely. More or less pointless in practice (unfortunately), but the opposite of pointless if we want to change this practice.

[M11 for me]

My story:

- My wife with her iPhone admires me (I mean that she admires my pictures taken with the M10)

- Then I compare my pics taken with my M10 with pics from Canon FF and I think that even after a lot of testing I can not really say that there is a significant difference. I just have to treat my RAWs a little bit different in Lightroom. No significant difference.

- When talking to my friend with his APS-C, we come to the conclusion that between his APS-C and the FF Canon there is barely any difference. Even after extensive testing.

- My friend then happy with the performance of his APS-C meats a colleague who has an Olympus and he is so proud of its IQ. They sit down in front of their computer and try to compare images. And it is absolutely amasing that the Olympus with its M4T sensor renders so sharp and colorful images with such a lot of micro contrast.

- The Olympus owner goes home and tells his wife what an excellent camera he has and that his friend paid so much more money and has no better image quality.

- Then this Olympus owner goes to an exhibition where he meets a hobby photographer with stunning photographs. He asks him what gear he uses and the photographer replies that he just got the latest Canon Powershot with a 1 inch sensor (latest technology) which renders so wonderfully. And he shows the Olympus man more stunning images that were taken with the Powershot.

- The Olympus man being a bit frustrated trades his Olypus in for the Powershot and he is so happy now. The camera is so small and so light. And the Image Quality is stunning.  

- Then he meets the iPhone woman (that we know from the beginning of the story) who still is so thrilled with the size and weight of her new iPhone X.

- The man decides after all to keep his Powershot as he believes that an iPhone looks very silly. But after all it makes him mad to see all the lovely pictures that the iPhone woman post everywhere and she gets so many likes.

- The Powershot man is now persuaded that he managed to optimise all photographic variables and owning the optimal product with is beautiful „Real Powershot Look“.

- Until our friend meets  a rich man with a fat tummy and suddenly he detects in front of that fat thummy a red dot.

This is the end of the story.

 

[ianman]

2 hours ago, PeterGA said:

A lot of people in this thread are suggesting that they are paying huge premiums for lenses - that don't perform any better than alternative and far less expensive lenses

Not a single person has written that. Not "a lot", not one.

Your whole post is total nonsense in relation to what has been discussed here. Did you actually read anything before posting?

In a nutshell, some people here are questioning that there is some kind of "Leica look" that is produced by all and only Leica lenses. Nobody has given any indication that they consider Leica lenses are not good or better than alternative or less expensive lenses.

Edited January 31, 2019 by ianman

[Dirk Mandeville]

1 hour ago, earleygallery said:

But to say that there's a unique and obvious 'look' to any photo taken with a Leica camera or lens is something I don't accept...

...

2) Any Leica lens is better than any other lens make and photos with Leica lenses are immediately recognisable as 'Leica' photos in a superior way.

Geez, it must be exhausting to battle against straw men all day. I don’t believe anyone in this thread has stated anything remotely as definitive and all-encompassing as this. Even the O.P., in his blog post explaining his love of Leica gear (for which he was excoriated for the mere suggestion of a “Leica look”), described it thus:

 “Leica images have rich color, detail, sharpness and micro-contrast that seem to give the images a 3D "pop" whether viewed on screen or in print.”  

That is what the “Leica look” means to him. To others, it will mean something different. To you, it doesn’t exist. All of these views are subjective, and all of them are correct. 

[Dirk Mandeville]

In post #24 of this thread, JazzyMac posted two photos of his dog, one taken with Canon gear and one taken with Leica gear. I stated later that I could tell as soon as he posted which photo was taken with which camera. It was obvious. Allow me to explain why....

If you look at the first photo, the subject is disinterested, refusing to even deign to look in the direction of the camera. You can almost see a palpable sense of disdain on his face. This is the pose of a model disgusted by the photographer’s choice of equipment, in this case obviously the cheap plastic Canon camera. But look at the second photo. The subject is looking right at the camera, completely focused on it, with, dare I say, a look of longing in his eyes. As if the photographer were holding not a camera, but a filet mignon. This is the face of a subject being photographed by a Leica camera!  Look at the face of that pup, and therein you will truly see what is the “Leica look.”  😉

Just thought this thread could use an interjection of humor. I’ll see myself out now...

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, Dirk Mandeville said:

Geez, it must be exhausting to battle against straw men all day. I don’t believe anyone in this thread has stated anything remotely as definitive and all-encompassing as this. Even the O.P., in his blog post explaining his love of Leica gear (for which he was excoriated for the mere suggestion of a “Leica look”), described it thus:

 “Leica images have rich color, detail, sharpness and micro-contrast that seem to give the images a 3D "pop" whether viewed on screen or in print.”  

That is what the “Leica look” means to him. To others, it will mean something different. To you, it doesn’t exist. All of these views are subjective, and all of them are correct. 

The OP gave this thread the title "The Leica look is real". I don't see 'real' and 'subjective' as compatible in this context, though I suppose feelings and opinions are, strictly, real. At the very least it was a provocative statement that inevitably got the response 'Prove it!' from those who don't see a generic Leica look. (and yes, I agree that one of the responses was offensive).

My subjective opinions?
- I don't see a Leica look; I suspect if I spent a lot of money on Sony/Nikon/Canon/Zeiss kit I could take photos that most people would not recognise as inferior (though perhaps different) to Leica images of the same scene taken under the same lighting conditions.
- I use Leica kit because it produces fabulous images (as do other brands), and I find it gets out of the way of me taking photos, unlike any other kit I have tried.
- My wife likes my photos, but she does me the compliment of acknowledging the contribution of the photographer. 
- FWIW I thought the first dog was the Leica image, but perhaps that's because I thought it was the better photo. Mind you, anyone who can take a photo of a moving dog with a rangefinder and lens wide open deserves some credit!

In summary: Leica is my entry ticket to the arena where it is mainly my ability as a photographer that determines whether the photos are good or not. Leica does that through a technical excellence (like some other brand offerings) and usability (unlike most others).

Edited January 31, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[Chaemono]

Bud, if you’re still reading, you can be very proud of yourself. You did well to start this thread. It may turn out to be one of the longest in the history of LUF. 

Edited January 31, 2019 by Chaemono

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Cyril Jayant]

The Leica Look is " LEICACHROME "  it is unique. 

I got to know this Leica Look using many more camera systems spending money and changing from one to another as many more cameras gave me the unsatisfactory quality I  wanted to see from my photography. But until one day I found this small curious old fashioned M6 and decided to buy it. My photography has got into a different dimension and now  I own only a few cameras and few lenses. To my experience, my photography level has changed to a higher level in look and quality. It is due to "this Leica look thing" of course.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Cyril Jayant