The "Leica Look" is real!

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

BTW, Bud’s back. I doubt he’ll post here though. 😁

Edit - he’s a fourth degree blackbelt. He may. 

Edited February 2, 2019 by Chaemono

[Advertisement]

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

[JDFlood]

3 hours ago, Dirk Mandeville said:

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.]

 

3 hours ago, Dirk Mandeville said:

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.]

Thank you! Someone else that can see the forest through the trees. I completely agree. BTW, I also have spent a lot of exasperating time with engineers :-). Love your disclaimed, mind if I use it on my posts? Maybe it can disarm some of the trolls. JD

[M11 for me]

vor 18 Minuten schrieb JDFlood:

 

Thank you! Someone else that can see the forest through the trees. I completely agree. BTW, I also have spent a lot of exasperating time with engineers :-). Love your disclaimed, mind if I use it on my posts? Maybe it can disarm some of the trolls. JD

And now you add the trolls. Great news. 

Lets go back tothe threme: THE LEICA LOOK.

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by Alex U.

[Chaemono]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb 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."

I’m debating which of your posts to choose as the most technical ever with real life applications. The “edge-spread function” is among my favorites so far.

[Dirk Mandeville]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

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.

I don’t really have an answer to your question. But it’s awfully hard to have a reasonable debate about certain topics on the internet without it turning acrimonious, that’s for sure. 

As to your second paragraph, on that point you and I are in complete agreement. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I would think that lighting and composition are in service to subject and the story you want to tell, or message that you have to present.  Somehow, I never even notice books on gear*.  I would suggest that the best books on photography are books of photographs with something to say.  

*Of course, I do have Ansel Adams' three slim volumes and a dog-eared David Vestal .

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick

[Trivette]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am a retiree on a fixed income. If I didn't get photographic results that please me more than that of other brands, I would not be using Leica equipment. 

[adan]

I've "thanked" both pgk and Dirk for their most recent long and detailed essays. I thank them again here.

I come from an "engineering" family - father and three uncles, all engineers (chemical, mining, structural, and steel fabrication). Some of it rubbed off. I pursued a career in a different (purportedly) evidence-based field - journalism. With a side-dish of subjective design and photography.

And, yeah, Dirk is right; I'm a bitch on a jury. Simply saying I was a journalist got me excused most of the time. But I did get selected for one civil and one criminal trial each. In the civil case, we found for the plaintiff, and when other jurors wondered about what "preponderance of the evidence" really meant, I just said - "Given the evidence provided in court, if you had to bet $20 on which "story" was true, which way would you bet?" and that clarified things immediately. In the criminal case (whether someone actually assaulted someone else, or just bumped into them, in an argumentative in-law situation), the State's case was all subjective impressions from witnesses, or previous events, also decribed in subjective witness impressions. We decided (with significant input from me) that 1) the extended family had obvious issues, and 2) the evidence for the specific crime was too subjective to remove reasonable doubt. Not Guilty.

("Prosecutors should be presumed guilty until proven innocent." Sorry, Dirk!)

As my own two previous posts show (I hope), I can be lawyerly and try to see both sides of a question. A lawyer is at a disadvantage if (s)he can't make the case for the opposing party just as effectively as his/her own, if only to figure out which issues to address. Equally, a good engineer always questions his/her own assumptions, over and over - otherwise things tend to fall down (or produce fuzzy images - see: Hubble Space Telescope, speaking of "point-spread function").

Not to dispute pgk's research effort, but I question whether comparing one focal length each from Leitz and Minolta, in the era when both had just spent a decade working closely together on the original CL and R lenses, and no doubt exchanging information and technology, is definitive, one way or the other. Noteworthy, however. And certainly backs up Zeiss's research on the importance of "MTF at 40 lppm."

To conclude - If you (generic "you") were accused of being a photographer, would there be enough evidence to convict?

[pgk]

3 minutes ago, adan said:

Not to dispute pgk's research effort, but I question whether comparing one focal length each from Leitz and Minolta, in the era when both had just spent a decade working closely together on the original CL and R lenses, and no doubt exchanging information and technology, is definitive, one way or the other. Noteworthy, however. And certainly backs up Zeiss's research on the importance of "MTF at 40 lppm."

You are right, but that said, I've seen little to convince me of a coherent look across Leica's lenses in the intervening years. Not that that is to belittle Leica's lenses, which have always been of extremely high quality when produced, even if some went on to go through multiple upgrades as the designers were able to better them. As it happens I use the 21mm Super-Elmar which in my opinion is the finest 20/21mm lens that I have used, and from full aperture. I also use the 75mm Summilux and the pre-aspheric 35mm Summilux. These two are softer wide open than many modern lenses, and the 35 especially can be an acquired taste at full aperture. My point? Neither have much in common with the 21mm Super-Elmar other than they are native Leica M lenses. Obviously I am not going to convince those who are 'subjective' in their appreciation of images, however to me this means that, good as the Summiluxes were when they were launched, neither has a 'look' which can be compared to the Super-Elmar.

Adan points out the importance of research into improving lens designs. Any 'look' has to be a constraint if it is of more importance than the elimination of aberrations and distortion. Does this mean that Leica should no longer strive to improve its lenses and to ensure merely that they have an undefinable 'look'?

[Trivette]

I do not necessarily believe that a "Leica look" is inherent in the equipment. If there is such a thing,  it may result from a synergy between the photographer and the equipment.

[pico]

49 minutes ago, adan said:

I come from an "engineering" family - father and three uncles, all engineers (chemical, mining, structural, and steel fabrication).

My Mother's side of the large family, all from Quebec, were intimidatingly bright and innovative 'makers', however there were none that were engineers. Whether due to genetics which is unlikely, or familial influences we are practically innumerate (but literate). One uncle in particular built physical models of everything he thought was promising, and his work endures to this day. The literate side was my first-generation Irish father's where even ditch diggers knew James Joyce, and a great deal of literature.

I know no engineers that are so blinkered that they cannot fathom preponderance of evidence. None.

 

[LocalHero1953]

Odd. Most engineers and scientists I know are good at understanding the difference between evidence and prejudice/opinion, and well understand the difference between 'absolute proof', 'beyond all reasonable doubt' and 'balance of probability'. And as a scientist (geologist) who has given evidence in or helped work up both civil and criminal cases, I find lawyers and technical experts have a good mutual understanding: they both recognise the importance of evidence in reaching a decision. I think I would find a system that selected juries who are less likely to value evidence-based decision making rather scary.

[pico]

I was disturbed by the assertion that "Objectivists require scientific proof to a mathematical certainty of anything stated in a factual manner, and will accept nothing short of that" except in colloquial terms. Scientific proof does not exist unless an assertion can be replicated. Mathematical proofs are iron-clad and build steadily upon pillars of other proofs. Two different things.

Of course finding a citizen or lawyer who understands the difference is unlikely.

Edited February 2, 2019 by pico

[scott kirkpatrick]

I was called for jury duty a few times in White Plains NY when I worked there.  If the case looked interesting, I knew never to say that I was a scientist or an engineer, but to identify my job as "manager."  That sounded squishy enough for the voir dire to continue.  Then the attorneys for each side would say "If the facts are A, B, and C, you will of course find my client innocent, right?" or or "If the facts are A, B, and C, you will find the accused guilty, right?"  (same facts).  If you gave a puzzled acquiescence to both, you got selected.

We don't use juries in Israel.

[evikne]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

FWIW the three most important aspects of photography are subject, lighting and composition.

To me, there is a fourth aspect with equal importance, and that is "rendering". I buy my lenses based on how they render, and I can enjoy an image just by watching its nice rendering (in both in-focus and out-of-focus areas). I'm not looking for perfection; "appealing" is a better word. But that's of course very subjective.

[Chaemono]

The Fuji XF 35/1.4 renders nicely. It’s a lens I keep next to Leica lenses because I think it deserves it.

[pico]

16 minutes ago, evikne said:

To me, there is a fourth aspect with equal importance, and that is "rendering".

What is rendering but another undefinable term?

[pgk]

20 minutes ago, pico said:

What is rendering but another undefinable term?

Whilst it is undefinable in that its highly variable (as a result of numerous interacting variables), at one end of the scale perhaps, are lenses such as Petzvals which show their clear identity in images. Maybe are some of Karbe's creations are at the other end, with their clinically accurate rendering. I can accept varied renderings and indeed use lenses because of their characteristics, but I don't accept a consistent 'look' across a variety of lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pico]

16 minutes ago, pgk said:

Whilst it is undefinable in that its highly variable (as a result of numerous interacting variables), at one end of the scale perhaps, are lenses such as Petzvals which show their clear identity in images. Maybe are some of Karbe's creations are at the other end, with their clinically accurate rendering. [...]

The typical 'swirl' and  variable DOF of Petzvals are easily classified largely to their singular design. Karbe's complex products are not. And WTF does 'clinical' mean especially if you include his 75mm Noctilux (a masterpiece, IMHO)?

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by pico

[pgk]

Obviously it means accurate, precise, etc.. If you really want it spelt out some (I did say some - not all) of Karbe's lenses produce high contrast, finely detailed images with minimal aberrations and distortion. Some refer to this as clinical because of the lack of imperfections. You have been here long enough to know this.