The "Leica Look" is real!

[Dirk Mandeville]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

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).

I will readily concede that the O.P. used a provocative “click bait” style headline that invited challenge.  I imagine he never would have thought that posting such an excited and overzealous post on a forum dedicated to the brand would engender such critical responses and demands for proof. Such is life on the internet, I suppose. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Mark II]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

- 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.

FWIW, I use Leica today because I have/had nerve problems in my legs that meant carrying the weight of a Canon DSLR kit with 17/24/50/135 was no longer possible.

One of the reasons I switched was because I could effectively replicate what mattered to me about the Canon 50L look with a Leica and Zeiss C-Sonnar at half of the weight and despite the half-stop difference in maximum aperture. With modern post processing it is possible to match almost anything.

IMO, Leica has an advantage in that its lenses are unique for the combination of good image quality and size.  But aside from the hyper-fast 50mm lenses there is nothing in terms of image quality that can not be done - and usually better - with alternative systems. None of Leica's digital cameras are particularly notable for image quality other than for the thin sensor stack which optimises use of M-series lenses.

[Jeff S]

10 minutes ago, Dirk Mandeville said:

I will readily concede that the O.P. used a provocative “click bait” style headline that invited challenge.  I imagine he never would have thought that posting such an excited and overzealous post on a forum dedicated to the brand would engender such critical responses and demands for proof. Such is life on the internet, I suppose. 

Plenty of precedent, here and elsewhere; always prompts vigorous debate...

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/sunset-bar/61274-leica-look.html

Jeff

 

 

[pgk]

Take a look at http://us.leica-camera.com/Company/Our-Values/Our-Values

Even Leica themselves do not claim a Leica 'look' as such, but concentrate on quality and simplicity.

Over the next few years we will see increasing hardware/software integration with lenses (including by Leica with their L mount lenses). Image 'quality' is already astonishingly good. It will no doubt improve and probably more so at the lower end of the market. Leica cannot compete on a mythological basis. They make excellent equipment which deserves to be applauded on its actual rather than mythological merits.

Perhaps I should add that the fact that a lot of use use Leica despite cost should tell us something about the enjoyment of use. Its not about the absolute perfection (or otherwise) of their lenses. Its about the whole package and its ability to enable us to translate what we see into images with a minimum of fuss and in an enjoyable way that is important.

I prefer to use my Leicas to any other system despite giving away MPixels, 'features' and many other technical considerations. Surely that should tell us more than any mythological 'look'?

Edited January 31, 2019 by pgk

[earleygallery]

18 minutes ago, Dirk Mandeville said:

I will readily concede that the O.P. used a provocative “click bait” style headline that invited challenge.  I imagine he never would have thought that posting such an excited and overzealous post on a forum dedicated to the brand would engender such critical responses and demands for proof. Such is life on the internet, I suppose. 

Where has anyone been critical? I (and others) are just asking for evidence of this Leica look that the OP speaks about. His single photo of the Sydney Opera House tells us nothing.

Also please bear in mind the OP invited comments on the points in his blog. Then he seemingly got upset when people commented.

I'm certainly not being critical of Leica - I've used Leica's since I was in my teens and spent pretty much all my first earnings for several months to buy a lllf. I loved the look of the images I got from the Summar lens it came with (but didn't know anything about them at that stage). The soft almost pastel colour photos I took with that camera/lens were to me the 'Leica look' - but they're nothing at all like the results you will get now from a M10 and 50 APO Summicron.

See what I'm saying here? You get a look from a camera/lens/sensor or film and processing combination of ingredients. The range of variations is enormous.

I've read this term 'Leica look' many times over the years and have often questioned those that refer to it. Usually with the same responses above "if you can't see it you don't understand" or some such put down. NEVER any actual photos! And we are talking about photos after all.

[Chaemono]

Bud spoke from the heart when he formulated the title of this thread and it's his right to do so. No proof necessary for me.

Edit - if this thread goes on for much longer, I might put an order in for the Safari edition. Love that look.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Chaemono

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Its not about the absolute perfection (or otherwise) of their lenses.

Indeed, in fact for me it's the opposite. I prefer lenses with "imperfections". Perfection absolute or not, is boring IMHO.

These imperfections do create a look, but each lens has it's own character which can depend on the medium used to capture the image, and of course for digital, may be quite a bit dependant on the firmware and software used to "develop" the raw file. On film, as James mentioned, the choice of developer can change the final image quite substantially as, I believe, can the amount of agitation.

[ianman]

1 hour ago, earleygallery said:

His single photo of the Sydney Opera House tells us nothing.

I went on to look at his Australia and New Zealand galeries and I really couldn't see any consistent look that would make me say... "this photograph has Leica written all over it".

To be clear, so there can be no misunderstandings or question about my intentions: I'm not criticising the photography or the photographer or his equipment, just his assertion of the existence of a "Leica look".

[scott kirkpatrick]

I have some Olympus and Fuji gear as well as Leica.  The Olympus gear works reliably but seldom surprises.  I have a very few favorite pictures that I have captured with it.  The Fuji gear occasionally comes up with strong colors, has a few lenses that the Leica APS-C line still lacks, but is a pain to use. The lenses are a little soft in the corners, so I use them wide open only when the scene deserves it.  But it has also contributed some pictures that I am proud of.  When shooting with my Leica equipment, which is most of the time, there are several lenses which frequently sketch a scene with remarkable clarity, or render a portrait and its background with nice depths.  That's the "look" that I am looking for.  Some of them are classics, such as the M 24 Elmarit-asph and the R 80/1.4 (which I use only on an SL).  And most recently the SL 75 Summicron, on either the SL or CL.  The CL 35/1.4 also can produce images which are even better than I hoped for.  So I am in the camp that believes that any "look" comes from  certain lenses and is capable of producing little shocks of recognition rather than a consistent type of lighting or color scheme -- I think those are in the hands of the photographer.  Anyway I have posted examples with all of these lenses in other threads of this forum.

Incidentally, movies are where you see attention given to creating a "look." And it sinks in over the 2 hours period that you spend in the world created by a movie.  I was just watching "Buster Scruggs," by the Coen Bros, and they modulate their look from Roy Rogers to Ingemar Bergman smoothly and continuously over the course of the film.  That kind of sustained effort doesn't translate easily to stills, although there are a few frequent posters here that have distinctive styles, evident when you have seen enough of their work.  But that is them, and not the camera.

 

[pgk]

29 minutes ago, ianman said:

..... each lens has it's own character .....

That's it. And some are more characterful than others.

[pico]

36 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

Incidentally, movies are where you see attention given to creating a "look." And it sinks in over the 2 hours period that you spend in the world created by a movie. 

Cine pros are so far ahead of many of us that I'm deeply humbled, but then they don't do much street photography.

[PeterGA]

6 hours ago, ianman said:

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.

No need to yell and chest puff - the implication is right there in front of your nose. Of course every lens has its 'look' and if it is a Leica lens it has a Leica look, by definition  - pretty basic English and logic I would have thought. You show me a Leica lens shot which isn't a Leica look! 😀

[JDFlood]

On 1/30/2019 at 9:25 AM, earleygallery said:

I'm going to assume that you include me in your reference to 'jerks'.

The OP posted a link to his blog and invited comments. If he didn't really want comments then he should have said so, but then again the way a forum like this works is that people post a topic and others respond, creating a conversation.

I don't understand why he should throw a hissy fit when he could have backed up his claims with some photos to demonstrate his point. Unless of course he couldn't.........

It is really not that difficult to understand Buds point of view. Headlines "The LEICA LOOK IS REAL!". This is a very exuberant post. This is a very happy person. Read on, he has had the M10 for a year (not long). And he has a FujiX. So, he made a huge incremental investment in Leica equipment. He had to make a leap of faith that this 3x-4x cost was worth it. So, he shoots for a year...  yes it seems better... but he cannot put his finger on exactly what. Finally, enough evidence surfaces with all this shooting, he sees a consistent and real difference. There is something about the gestalt of the photos that is different and magical. So, at long last, he is able to let go and realize that his choice is justified and he is breathing a huge sigh of relief and elation. So he makes this post. He has not had time yet to dig down to the details of the specifics what constitutes that magical look. I am sure he was expecting responses that were affirming and welcoming. Like, "Yes, glad you see it. I think it is because of x, y or z". Or "Some people still debate what constitutes it". But instead of being welcomed, he is barraged with criticism of lack of rigor... etc. It is very unwelcoming. 

[ianman]

7 minutes ago, PeterGA said:

No need to yell and chest puff - the implication is right there in front of your nose.

Sigh....  nobody yelled, nobody puffed, nobody implied. Please stop trying to stir things up or create arguments that were never there.

 

[PeterGA]

2 hours ago, pico said:

Cine pros are so far ahead of many of us that I'm deeply humbled, but then they don't do much street photography.

Really ? You don't think any cinematographers do much street shooting ? Or are you saying they don't do much stills street shooting?

 

Baco to topic: 

Cinematographers that I know fuss over the 'look' of their lenses MORE than hobbyists on this forum may be aware - they are VERY careful to match lens choices with intent. Why does Leica even bother making cine lenses  if there wasn't a demand for a  Leica look?

This thread is another one of those hilariously uninformed contests of words. The OP was merely expressing his appreciation and enjoyment regarding his Leica lenses - and then proceeds to get Spanish "Inquisitioned" by a bunch of yahoos demanding some sort of proof about perception delivered at 72DPI for goodness sake!!!

 

 

[PeterGA]

1 minute ago, ianman said:

Sigh....  nobody yelled, nobody puffed, nobody implied. Please stop trying to stir things up or create arguments that were never there.

 

Whatever dude.

[JDFlood]

On 1/30/2019 at 9:52 AM, ianman said:

Sorry, I understand your post about some of the comments but here you just contradict yourself... and you do what us "jerks" have been doing... questioning if the so called Leica look is a reality or a myth.

Please, let believers show some evidence because so far all the arguments put forward to prove the existence of The Look make no sense at all.

The evidence in my mind adds up to the fact that the Leica Look is real, most of the time. It is seen in the gestalt of photographs. Breaking it down into exact specifics is hard. One of my careers was science, and one of the many things I have learned is that we can only effectively analyze a few variables in a given situation. When you are talking about something like average output on hundreds of thousands of photographs with different people and different copies of the same camera, or audio reproduction, applying science and isolating a few variables to account for the results is just plain impossible. So, you really have to look for statistical consistency of a constellation of characteristics that make for something unique. What I think I see is that the Leica M10 and to some extent some of the other Leica, seems to have more granularity (shades) in the mid to dark tones, allowing finer presentation (more shades) in the shadows, also more pronounced brown, amber in the shadows. This can give the photographs a more rich and artsy look. I also think, the Leica lenses help by their good IQ, but more importantly the quality of the way they go out of focus. But is any of this really provable? you can measure IQ and other parameters, but there are hundreds. Also,  photographic appreciation is ultimately in the eyes of the beholder (everyone has different eyes and optical processing). So, while I have had the epiphany that Bud did (a relief and elation that it does exist and that I didn't throw away a bunch of money on a myth), once I realize it, it takes a lot of additional analysis to identify what is seems to be root cause. Even if you get to that it is going to be pretty qualitative. I have also seen some folks here allude to some characteristics that may account for the look. So, I think you can have good discussions about it. But Buds post was really stating how happy he was that he saw itJ D

[Paulus]

Am 29.1.2019 um 02:03 schrieb budjames:

I just posted new portfolios from my recent travels to Australia and New Zealand on my website. On my website blog, I posted my musings that the "Leica Look" is real! Click HERE to check it out. 

Your comments are very welcome.

Regards,

Bud James

Please check out my fine art and travel photography at www.budjames.photography or on Instagram at www.instagram.com/budjamesphoto.

For me , the Leica look is real ,........ when I dropped my MP :

 

I think everybody who has dropped his Leica has had this special look.😉

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!

Edited January 31, 2019 by Paulus

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Chaemono]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb JDFlood:

Read on, he has had the M10 for a year

Two M10s, mind you.

vor 4 Stunden schrieb JDFlood:

There is something about the gestalt of the photos that is different and magical.

He could have titled it ‘The Leica Magic is real!’ then no one here would have asked for proof. Because as we all know, “magic is just science that we don't understand yet” and “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”   - Arthur C. Clarke. The latter applies particularly to the SL Summicrons, the Apo 50 Summicron-M, and the 75 Noctilux, I’d say. 

[PeterGA]

see 4.35 from a non Leica person (Nikon) talking about her thoughts on Leica 'look'..