earleygallery Posted February 2, 2019 Share #161 Posted February 2, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. 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. The OP made a click bait post to drive us to his blog. He also invited comments, so why it’s seen as bullying to comment, yes and disagree, baffles me. i don’t usually bother with click bait posts but I did in this case to see what the OP had to justify his opinion of what the ‘Leica look’ is, but there was nothing apart from his written opinion. He’s entitled to believe what he wants of course. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 2, 2019 Posted February 2, 2019 Hi earleygallery, Take a look here The "Leica Look" is real!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ianman Posted February 2, 2019 Share #162 Posted February 2, 2019 43 minutes ago, pgk said: 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. Precisely !! I am only now beginning to understand the required conditions and subject matter that allow to get what I like from my Thambar... the Queen of flawed lenses! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted February 2, 2019 Share #163 Posted February 2, 2019 32 minutes ago, earleygallery said: The OP made a click bait post to drive us to his blog. He also invited comments, so why it’s seen as bullying to comment, yes and disagree, baffles me. It's also interesting to note that not one of the so-called bullies demanded proof. I suppose that I am a big bad bully and did have the gall to ask the OP and others who support his assertion to post comparison photos showing us what is meant by this unique "Leica look". Is requesting clarification and more explanations to support the claim the same as bullying and demanding? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 2, 2019 Share #164 Posted February 2, 2019 If bullying means dispelling misinformation and trying to show what is actually fact rather than fiction then so be it. I for one am fed up of being told things that are simply not true. There is too much of it about in too many areas of life to want it to impinge on photography too. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted February 2, 2019 Share #165 Posted February 2, 2019 And now, after a lifetime of believing that Leica was Leica and the others were just cameras and admiring the 3D look of my unique landscape photographs, I really get frustrated that all this nice world should now be fake? I think that I will stop my hobby and start playing football. Here you just can count the scores. Thats much easier. One other thing: Whenever I can compare photographs of the same scene taken with either my Leica or with my Canon then I conclude that Leica DNGs look (in many cases) much nicer than the Canon CR2 files. And this is a fact. Isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
evikne Posted February 2, 2019 Share #166 Posted February 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Alex U. said: One other thing: Whenever I can compare photographs of the same scene taken with either my Leica or with my Canon then I conclude that Leica DNGs look (in many cases) much nicer than the Canon CR2 files. And this is a fact. Isn't it? The first thing I noticed when I migrated from Canon to Leica, was that the Leica files looked much more "living", while Canon was more "digital", even with the best L glass. My first Leica was an M9, about the same age as my Canon 5D II. I don't think upgrading to M10 made a further improvement in that respect, except from less noise etc. So most of the "magic" must come from the Leica lenses. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 2, 2019 Share #167 Posted February 2, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 1 hour ago, Alex U. said: One other thing: Whenever I can compare photographs of the same scene taken with either my Leica or with my Canon then I conclude that Leica DNGs look (in many cases) much nicer than the Canon CR2 files. And this is a fact. Isn't it? Why would your landscapes be fake? Aren't they as good as they ever have been. Why should the debunking of a myth change them? There is no doubt that the Leica digital image can be rather different to those from other cameras (nicer is an opinion). This can be a problem when trying to create a coherent set of images from different cameras. I find Canon, Sony and Leica files look different (even using Leica lenses on the Sony). But why would this be a surprise as each manufacturer chooses the way that their cameras process the RAW files? There have been innumerable discussions about this on the forum. Personally I still find my M9 files to be very 'tolerant' - more so than those from other cameras at similar low ISOs. But that is not what this thread was about nor does it necessarily reflect the virtues of Leica lenses (of which there are many). Surely getting facts correct is worth doing? I've seen numerous comments about which manufacturer's lenses are 'best', perform better than others, have images with 'pop', 3Dness,, a 'look' and so on. The reality is that most lenses are more than fit for purpose today. And suggesting that Leica are somehow better than their competitors is doing Leica a disservice. The reality is that Leica are a small player competing at the highest level with often unique products. Their equipment remains 'different' although the digital revolution is continuing and will bring challenges which we can't conjecture about as yet. But Leica has to survive on more than myths. It has to be seen to worth of attention because of what it produces and not because of the mystical properties of its lenses. Eventually manufacturers will make lenses which, combined with software, will no doubt be able to produce extraordinarily good images even by todays lofty standards. Mythology can only take a company so far before it becomes obvious that technology has taken over from it. As can be seen from this thread, myths are a can of worms. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 2, 2019 Share #168 Posted February 2, 2019 This is really a debate between objectivism and subjectivism. Objectivists require scientific proof to a mathematical certainty of anything stated in a factual manner, and will accept nothing short of that. This is one reason we always struck the engineers from our juries when I was a prosecutor. In general, they were unable to comprehend the concept of circumstantial evidence and the distinction that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” did not equate to “proof to a mathematical certainty.” They also tended to get hung up on irrelevant details to the point they couldn’t see the forest for all the trees. (For clarification, I live in a county with a disproportionate number of engineers and this was a big problem with obtaining guilty verdicts on otherwise cut-and-dried cases). Subjectivists, on the other hand, trust their own perceptions and judgments and are likely to rely more on their own gut feelings than on mtf charts, blind testing, and the like. I wonder if this debate would be as vociferous had O.P. stated something more along the lines of “the Leica look is real to me” thereby noting a subjective assessment rather than presenting it in a way that appeared to be asserting a universal fact. There seems to be a lot of “he stated something false as a fact, perpetuating a myth, and I have to refute that.” The sad part is that what gets lost in all this meaningless debate is the whole reason most of us are here on this forum — enjoyment of the hobby. It seems for some, the urgent need to quell salacious myths is more important than supporting a fellow hobbyist’s enthusiasm for the brand. There are ways to disagree with a statement or to challenge an assertion without being confrontational. And yes, I consider immediate demands of proof, and further demands of side by side comparison photos taken in exacting identical conditions, to be confrontational in this context. This is a hobby (for most of us). We are all here for fun (I assume). We aren’t all scientists and engineers. Sometimes, in our enthusiasm, we even hyperbolize. 🤭 O.P. was simply expressing his enthusiasm for Leica cameras to a community of (supposedly) like-minded folk, and yes, perhaps trying to garner interest in his own photography and blog (so what?). He left feeling disillusioned and angry, simply because he overstated a subjective opinion as factual in his zeal to write about a brand he has become enamored with, and was immediately and vociferously challenged on that assertion, not to mention being branded a dealer (the horror!) for the mere transgression of owning two Leica M10 cameras (I mean, really, what hobbiest would own not one, but TWO Leica M10’s? Must be a dealer perpetuating myths for personal economic gains. Right? 🙄). In my mind, this speaks very poorly of this forum. There are ways to challenge assumptions while still being welcoming and without being confrontational. That didn’t happen here, and I think it is a poor reflection on the community that makes up this forum. [Legal disclaimer: all of the above is solely the opinion of the author, and should not be construed as asserting any facts, nor should it be relied upon by the reader for any purposes other than, perhaps, you know, maybe spurring a bit of self-reflection on how we treat others in a polite society and promote the love and respect for the Leica brand by fellow enthusiasts.] 1 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted February 2, 2019 Share #169 Posted February 2, 2019 I'm all in favour of "salacious myths". The more the better. With photos. 😉 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 2, 2019 Share #170 Posted February 2, 2019 18 minutes ago, Dirk Mandeville said: This is really a debate between objectivism and subjectivism. With all due respect but it isn't. Lens design is a technical process. There is no fairy dust which alters this and most certainly not when the lenses in question come from a variety of eras, designers, and manufacturers even (despite having Leica or Leitz written on them). The subjectivism that you refer to could quite easily, and more likely, come from processing the files ...... I would suggest that getting a jury to decide which of two files was from a Leica lens and which was not would be very difficult, if not impossible, to determine 'beyond reasonable doubt'. As a prosecutor isn't the truth and accuracy something worth championing? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted February 2, 2019 Share #171 Posted February 2, 2019 12 minutes ago, Dirk Mandeville said: O.P. was simply expressing his enthusiasm for Leica cameras And, to be honest, was the first to express any sort of agressive behaviour with his "Whatever." in response to a perfectly reasonable argument which dared to not even question his assertion, but simply stated that photos suggested for comparison where taken under different lighting conditions. See post #14 M'lud. When asked to share more photos showing what he had found he took the decision not to... making it rather difficult for others to understand his point of view. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 2, 2019 Share #172 Posted February 2, 2019 vor 2 Stunden schrieb Alex U.: ..., after a lifetime of believing that Leica was Leica and the others were just cameras and admiring the 3D look of my unique landscape photographs,... 3D landscape photographs is why I got into Leica in the first place. vor 2 Stunden schrieb Alex U.: ..., I really get frustrated that all this nice world should now be fake? It’s not fake. Just close your eyes and click your heels together three times. vor 1 Stunde schrieb evikne: The first thing I noticed..., was that the Leica files looked much more "living", “living”, organic, you nailed it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 2, 2019 Share #173 Posted February 2, 2019 12 minutes ago, pgk said: With all due respect but it isn't. Lens design is a technical process. There is no fairy dust which alters this and most certainly not when the lenses in question come from a variety of eras, designers, and manufacturers even (despite having Leica or Leitz written on them). The subjectivism that you refer to could quite easily, and more likely, come from processing the files ...... I would suggest that getting a jury to decide which of two files was from a Leica lens and which was not would be very difficult, if not impossible, to determine 'beyond reasonable doubt'. As a prosecutor isn't the truth and accuracy something worth championing? Thank you for proving my point. 😉 hint: the subjectivism (and objectivism) comes not from the objects, photos, and concepts being discussed, but from the brains of the individuals doing the discussing and how those brains interpret and process such things. You just provided a good example of objectivist thinking. Subjectivists will never be swayed by such logical analysis. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 2, 2019 Share #174 Posted February 2, 2019 32 minutes ago, ianman said: And, to be honest, was the first to express any sort of agressive behaviour with his "Whatever." in response to a perfectly reasonable argument which dared to not even question his assertion, but simply stated that photos suggested for comparison where taken under different lighting conditions. See post #14 M'lud. Really? You mean the “whatever” that O.P. stated in direct response to Chaemomo’s “perfectly reasonable argument” that ended with ”Maybe you’re one of those forum ‘dealers’ who’s trying to push Leica FF over Fuji APS-C here“ and after O.P. had already stated “It's my opinion and everything is subjective. Sorry, but I'm not going to carry two camera systems to exotic locations to shoot side-by-side images and then that not be acceptable by someone else's "standards".” Yes, O.P. was clearly the aggressor here. 🙄 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 2, 2019 Share #175 Posted February 2, 2019 The ‘Leica Look’ is all about psychology now, and philosophy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveclem Posted February 2, 2019 Share #176 Posted February 2, 2019 Has it come to pass that we are getting lawyers involved to twist words around.? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 2, 2019 Share #177 Posted February 2, 2019 52 minutes ago, steveclem said: Has it come to pass that we are getting lawyers involved to twist words around.? Next thing you know, someone will be quoting Shakespeare. 😂 (for those that don’t get the reference, the quote is: “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.”) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 2, 2019 Share #178 Posted February 2, 2019 2 hours ago, Dirk Mandeville said: Thank you for proving my point. 😉 hint: the subjectivism (and objectivism) comes not from the objects, photos, and concepts being discussed, but from the brains of the individuals doing the discussing and how those brains interpret and process such things. You just provided a good example of objectivist thinking. Subjectivists will never be swayed by such logical analysis. Fair enough. So is there are point in reasoned debate? Or are we all just wasting our time? FWIW the three most important aspects of photography are subject, lighting and composition. They are probably the least discussed aspects of photography and certainly in the minority when it comes to books published about photography which tend to major on gear and technique. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted February 2, 2019 Share #179 Posted February 2, 2019 Lets summarise: Objectivisme: Leica look is a bare myth Subjectivism: Because of the Leica look I bought the M10. Conclusion: Both parties are right. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDFlood Posted February 2, 2019 Share #180 Posted February 2, 2019 On 1/31/2019 at 2:59 PM, Paulus said: 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! Ok thanks... now that is funny Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now