The "Leica Look" is real!

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Definitely, the Leica Magic applies to the CL and those terrific TL lenses, too, especially if one considers that no TL to CL adapter is needed.

[JazzyMac]

16 hours ago, Dirk Mandeville said:

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...

Pretty much nailed it!!

[wattsy]

On 1/29/2019 at 1:03 AM, budjames said:

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. 

Why not post your musings here or are you simply trying to drive traffic to your blog?

[steveclem]

^^^ Yep. 

[M11 for me]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb wattsy:

Why not post your musings here or are you simply trying to drive traffic to your blog?

You waist your time: He‘s gone. And we will never know if he was a dealer or not.

[ianman]

43 minutes ago, Alex U. said:

You waist your time: He‘s gone. And we will never know if he was a dealer or not.

Come on, don't criticize the person, question his assertion. What does it matter if he is a dealer or not? There is nothing he wrote here or I have seen on his site which even hints that he is a dealer. Apparently he's got 2 M10s ! So what?! On that basis I'm a collector 😀

 

Edited February 1, 2019 by ianman

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There have been just about as many "Leica Looks" as there have been types of American music: Sousa, gospel, Joplin, Dixieland jazz, Brubeck jazz, blues, rockabilly, C&W, Gershwin, Cohan, Ellington, Stravinsky, Tin-Pan Alley, Coltrane, Motown, Pearl Jam, Dylan, Guthrie, Glass, etc, etc.

What are the dots that connect the "look" of Leica imagery by: Alexander Rodchenko, H-CB (early), HC-B (late), Dr. Paul Wolff, Robert Capa, Robert Frank, Ralph Gibson, Mary Ellen Mark, Jeanloup Sieff, Larry Burrows, David Alan Harvey, Stuart Franklin, Sebastião Salgado, Alex Webb...?

(and I'm talking technical "look" - contrast, "3D", color rendition, etc.)

There was one "Leica Look" when it was the only 35mm "take anywhere, shoot anytime" camera in existence (1925-32). And introduced much wider DoF per "field of view" with its tiny little 50mm and 35mm lenses (compared to the 150 and 135 "equivalents" on 4x5s).

There was another "Leica Look" when "liberation" of Leicas from Germany in/after WW2 put them in the hands of a much wider group of American snapshooters.

There was yet another "Leica look" when documentary and/or art photographers started switching from 4x5 and 6x6 to 35mm in the 1950s. (Magnum, Frank).

If I show you three randomly-chosen pictures from around 1960, can anyone here accurately assign them to - Leica M3, Nikon SP, Canon P? Or any other particular camera?

There was one Leica Look (sort of) when Berek was designing the glass, and another when Mandler was designing the glass in Canada (my favorite), and another when Leitz/Wetzlar was designing the glass, and another when Kölsch was designing at Leica/Solms, and another when Karbe came along. Plus misc. other unsung designers along the way. Or when Schneider was designing the glass for Leica (Xenon/Summarit 50mm, Super-Angulons). Or Zeiss (15mm Hologon (I), 15mm Super-Elmar-R). Or even Hoya and Sigma and Minolta (all of the R zooms before 1994).

What "look" does a 1963 Leica 90mm Summicron share with a 1997 Leica APO-Summicron-ASPH 90mm? Really?

Edited February 1, 2019 by adan

[pgk]

7 minutes ago, adan said:

Schneider was designing the glass for Leica (Xenon/Summarit 50mm, Super-Angulons). Or Zeiss (15mm Hologon (I), 15mm Super-Elmar-R). Or even Hoya and Sigma and Minolta (all of the R zooms before 1994).

You missed Kyocera.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, adan said:

There have been just about as many "Leica Looks" as there have been types of American music: Sousa, gospel, Joplin, Dixieland jazz, Brubeck jazz, blues, rockabilly, C&W, Gershwin, Cohan, Ellington, Stravinsky, Tin-Pan Alley, Coltrane, Motown, Pearl Jam, Dylan, Guthrie, Glass, etc, etc.

What are the dots that connect the "look" of Leica imagery by: Alexander Rodchenko, H-CB (early), HC-B (late), Dr. Paul Wolff, Robert Capa, Robert Frank, Ralph Gibson, Mary Ellen Mark, Jeanloup Sieff, Larry Burrows, David Alan Harvey, Stuart Franklin, Sebastião Salgado, Alex Webb...?

(and I'm talking technical "look" - contrast, "3D", color rendition, etc.)

There was one "Leica Look" when it was the only 35mm "take anywhere, shoot anytime" camera in existence (1925-32). And introduced much wider DoF per "field of view" with its tiny little 50mm and 35mm lenses (compared to the 150 and 135 "equivalents" on 4x5s).

There was another "Leica Look" when "liberation" of Leicas from Germany in/after WW2 put them in the hands of a much wider group of American snapshooters.

There was yet another "Leica look" when documentary and/or art photographers started switching from 4x5 and 6x6 to 35mm in the 1950s. (Magnum, Frank).

If I show you three randomly-chosen pictures from around 1960, can anyone here accurately assign them to - Leica M3, Nikon SP, Canon P? Or any other particular camera?

There was one Leica Look (sort of) when Berek was designing the glass, and another when Mandler was designing the glass in Canada (my favorite), and another when Leitz/Wetzlar was designing the glass, and another when Kölsch was designing at Leica/Solms, and another when Karbe came along. Plus misc. other unsung designers along the way. Or when Schneider was designing the glass for Leica (Xenon/Summarit 50mm, Super-Angulons). Or Zeiss (15mm Hologon (I), 15mm Super-Elmar-R). Or even Hoya and Sigma and Minolta (all of the R zooms before 1994).

What "look" does a 1963 Leica 90mm Summicron share with a 1997 Leica APO-Summicron-ASPH 90mm? Really?

Sorry Andy, it was never the only 35 mm camera in existence. In fact, Leica wasn't even the first. (I know you were referring to Contax with the date of 1932 )

http://corsopolaris.net/supercameras/early/early_135.html

[Jeff S]

And when it comes to the final print ‘look’, all of those Leica gear differences over the years arguably have less impact than the myriad shooting and processing styles, techniques and materials used by each photographer and printer.  Thankfully.

Jeff

Edited February 2, 2019 by Jeff S

[jkcampbell2]

5 hours ago, Alex U. said:

You waist your time: He‘s gone. And we will never know if he was a dealer or not.

Why do you continue to perpetuate the stupid comment by Chaemono that Bud could a dealer just because he has 2 M10s?  If he is really gone it's a shame, wether you agree or disagree with his opinion, he is being treated very badly by a few of the schoolyard bullies. I feel it's a shame, especially for a forum that should be about sharing opinions and experiences not always trying to call someone out and imply it's their responsibility to provide empirical evidence to a subjective opinion.  Just MHO,  jc

[adan]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

Sorry Andy, it was never the only 35 mm camera in existence. In fact, Leica wasn't even the first. (I know you were referring to Contax with the date of 1932 )

http://corsopolaris.net/supercameras/early/early_135.html

If you are going to delve into minutiae, Jaap, at least give us the name of a known photographer who used any of those devices - except the Leicas. Especially since the point was ""take anywhere, shoot anytime" cameras.

[Chaemono]

“Take anywhere, shoot anytime” - I’ll do the same thing this weekend with the Monochrom M 246 and the M10 because someone in his M10-D review claimed the M10 uses the same sensor as the M 240. I think, he might be a dealer. 😁

Edited February 2, 2019 by Chaemono

[jaapv]

That is a strange conclusion.... Because he is wrong he is a dealer?

Edit:

If you spend three minutes in Google it is very easy to find out that Bud is anything but a dealer.

[jaapv]

32 minutes ago, adan said:

If you are going to delve into minutiae, Jaap, at least give us the name of a known photographer who used any of those devices - except the Leicas. Especially since the point was ""take anywhere, shoot anytime" cameras.

Sorry, Andy, I forgot to add " 😜 "...   Interesting that you mention Dr. Paul Wolff in this context, though. There is a strong rumour that he made his most iconic skiing action photographs using not his Leica but by pulling stills from a 16 mm film camera. Now that would have been impossible if there were a recognizable "Leica Look".

[Paulus]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb adan:

There have been just about as many "Leica Looks" as there have been types of American music: Sousa, gospel, Joplin, Dixieland jazz, Brubeck jazz, blues, rockabilly, C&W, Gershwin, Cohan, Ellington, Stravinsky, Tin-Pan Alley, Coltrane, Motown, Pearl Jam, Dylan, Guthrie, Glass, etc, etc.

What are the dots that connect the "look" of Leica imagery by: Alexander Rodchenko, H-CB (early), HC-B (late), Dr. Paul Wolff, Robert Capa, Robert Frank, Ralph Gibson, Mary Ellen Mark, Jeanloup Sieff, Larry Burrows, David Alan Harvey, Stuart Franklin, Sebastião Salgado, Alex Webb...?

(and I'm talking technical "look" - contrast, "3D", color rendition, etc.)

There was one "Leica Look" when it was the only 35mm "take anywhere, shoot anytime" camera in existence (1925-32). And introduced much wider DoF per "field of view" with its tiny little 50mm and 35mm lenses (compared to the 150 and 135 "equivalents" on 4x5s).

There was another "Leica Look" when "liberation" of Leicas from Germany in/after WW2 put them in the hands of a much wider group of American snapshooters.

There was yet another "Leica look" when documentary and/or art photographers started switching from 4x5 and 6x6 to 35mm in the 1950s. (Magnum, Frank).

If I show you three randomly-chosen pictures from around 1960, can anyone here accurately assign them to - Leica M3, Nikon SP, Canon P? Or any other particular camera?

There was one Leica Look (sort of) when Berek was designing the glass, and another when Mandler was designing the glass in Canada (my favorite), and another when Leitz/Wetzlar was designing the glass, and another when Kölsch was designing at Leica/Solms, and another when Karbe came along. Plus misc. other unsung designers along the way. Or when Schneider was designing the glass for Leica (Xenon/Summarit 50mm, Super-Angulons). Or Zeiss (15mm Hologon (I), 15mm Super-Elmar-R). Or even Hoya and Sigma and Minolta (all of the R zooms before 1994).

What "look" does a 1963 Leica 90mm Summicron share with a 1997 Leica APO-Summicron-ASPH 90mm? Really?

The nice thing about this forum , is that it changes my look all the time. I never had thought that Stravinsky, Russian original, maybe offspring of Rimsky Korsakow and Moussorgsky, part of the Group des Six; so French music,  but you are right, he was in the States also and certainly composed there,  was seen as American Music???

Of course in a way, why not? It's in a way "strange" to see Gershwin as an America composer, just because he started his from his youth, but you are right. It's juist the way you look.

Thomas Mann, was an American writer in a way of thinking too. So must be Schönberg be an American composer too?  Both German by birth.....America by look...Leica look? Just the way you want to see it? 

[M11 for me]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb jkcampbell2:

Why do you continue to perpetuate the stupid comment by Chaemono that Bud could a dealer just because he has 2 M10s?  If he is really gone it's a shame, wether you agree or disagree with his opinion, he is being treated very badly by a few of the schoolyard bullies. I feel it's a shame, especially for a forum that should be about sharing opinions and experiences not always trying to call someone out and imply it's their responsibility to provide empirical evidence to a subjective opinion.  Just MHO,  jc

This is actually exactly my feeling. I never had the impression that he was a dealer and I dislike the fact that he went out of the forum. My post was actually meant as a reminder that for a very silly reasons a nice and friendly member of that forum was pushed out. I would then be very happy to see him coming back. The question about the „real look“ seems to me very valid by the way. His initial question was a good question that is worth to be discussed.

[M11 for me]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb ianman:

Come on, don't criticize the person, question his assertion. What does it matter if he is a dealer or not? There is nothing he wrote here or I have seen on his site which even hints that he is a dealer. Apparently he's got 2 M10s ! So what?! On that basis I'm a collector 😀

 

I fully agree with you. I hope he‘s coming back to that forum. I am very sorry that I created a wrong impression ba an unclear post.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Alex U.

[adan]

Having argued the opposite side, I will say that there is one thing I have tended to notice across several otherwise widely-different Leica lenses and 45 years of experience (and 60+ years of Leica's actual production and design), that might qualify as something of a Leica Look. My examples would be the 50 f/3.5 Elmar and the 135 APO-Telyt f/3.4 (Maybe it has to do with f/3.4 )

And that is tight control of the "edge-spread function." Which put simply (and thus imprecisely) is the retention of sharp contrast across edges between black and white. Minimizing the "spray" of light into a bell-curve of grays between black and white along an edge, even when the image is fuzzy, due to other lens limitations, camera movement or misfocus. It allows certain details to "burn though" the grain or blur.

I know Leica actually touted tight control of the edge-spread function in describing their creation of their own computerized lens design software, somewhere in my reading over decades.

Example (no actual picture samples, buried in 50 years of negs): My first ever Leica lens was a 50 Elmar of indeterminate age on a IIIc in college (ca. 1973). Almost immediately I noticed the difference in "definition" of edges compared to my Canon SLR's 50 f/1.8. Of course, there were other factors - the f/3.5 aperture meant I was often push-processing Tri-X to 800 or higher ISOs in any light other than stark sunlight, and/or digging out the Grade 4 to print thin, underexposed negs. Both of which also add contrast. The picture that sticks in my mind to this day was approximately like the portrait below, actually shot with the much more modern 135 APO. But same rim-lighting against a light background, profile view, and such.

Add a ton of 50mm "perspective" and pushed Tri-X grain to this image (a tight crop from full frame), and you get the idea. Every pore and hair and edge  "defined" and popping out. Maybe "3D."

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!

Here's another example from the APO-Telyt, this time posing as itself. Massive contrast and clarity of edges and forms even with some shake (1/60th sec) and narrow DoF. Doesn't do much for dynamic range, though - M9 image. It's also a tight crop, BTW.

You can see also some of that same "clarity" in the tight portraits David Douglas Duncan made at the 1968 U.S. political conventions with the new Leitz 400mm Telyt f/6.8 - a lens with only two elements out at the end of a 400mm tube. (Duncan said that lens "handed him the Conventions on a platter").

https://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/web/ddd/gallery/conventions/176.html

Is there a theme there? Notably, slowish lenses (f/3.4-f/6.8) with a minimum number of elements (4, 5, 2 - which itself can keep edge-contrast high) and push-processed B&W (digital or chemical - also adds contrast). One might add Duncan's 21mm f/3.4 (Schneider) Super-Angulon Convention shots (available to see in that same gallery - scroll < or >).

I don't think it applies to all Leitz/Leica lenses, by a long shot. I think it shows up with many Zeiss 35-format lenses, not just "Leica," and even many Canons and Nikkors. Probably Schneider, too, although I've only used the 21 SA significantly. It can get lost in the processing and photographer's creative choices, as Jeff S says. It's a "feature" in the work of Salgado, Sieff and Gibson - less so in Erwitt's or Lyon's or H-CB's pictures (except maybe (top picture): http://www.josephnoble.com/inspiration/cartier-bresson-perfect-exposure/ )

But it's certainly something Leica has "focused on" pursuing over their history (even to the extent of developing their ASPH and APO lenses), and I have noticed it as one of the many "Leica Looks."

Edited February 2, 2019 by adan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

OK here goes. Nearly 40 years ago I completed my undergraduate project which was a comparison of Leica and Minolta 50mm lenses by MTF and visual assessments. My conclusions, backed up by experimental data, confirmed that nobody could see any difference between the two. The MTF data supported this - the spatial frequencies which were relevant for medium speed film were insignificantly different. Visual check (by photographic students and other visually aware viewers) also showed no discernible differences. The problem with the OP was trying to dress up an erroneous opinion as fact, and the Leica 'look' is neither fact nor actually existent and certainly not due to Leica's lenses, as should be very evident from adan's post - it can't be because there is far too widespread a variance in Leica's lens line up from many designers and sources.

Adan then goes to point out that there are characteristics which he thinks 'typify' some Leica lenses, and yes, some lenses do have specific characteristics. But then again so do lenses from many other manufacturers and I'm sure someone with sufficient experience and interest in using them could tell us what these are and where they show up best. Remember though, we are talking about either flaws (!) or details (!) which can often only be seen using the best technique, together with both subject matter and lighting which show these up. And again there will be similar characteristics for other manufacturer's lenses under specific conditions. [As an aside I remember Nikon producing a poster of watch internals with their 60mm macro lens which was shot on technical pan film (as fine grain as it got) which was extraordinarily detailed - rumour was that it was shot using fairly high speed flash illumination to ensure that even subject motion (vibration) was negated. Most of us would not go to such lengths]. And if my memory serves me right, Nikon and Canon first came to prominence during the Korean War when photojournalists actually preferred the lenses on their rangefinder due to their higher contrast. Lenses are a complex story all ways around. Their early history is littered with ideas, claims and counterclaims. Some of the most valuable (today) early lenses never progressed and were effectively a dead end.

We live in a world where facts are becoming harder to come by with innumerable spins being put on all sorts of things. As a photographer I really don't want to see yet more myths perpetuated. Why we can't enjoy our Leicas for what they are rather than for what we imagine they might be baffles me. So yes, I was hard on the OP and will be so in the future if anyone comes up with another fairy tale about Leica lenses. Leica lenses are fabulous tools but they really aren't made with a pinch of fairy dust.