Chaemono Posted February 3, 2019 Share #221 Posted February 3, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) Irakly is spot on. Take two reference lenses, Zeiss 55 Otus vs. 50 Summilux-SL, for example. The 35 Summicron-M has it, all the SL Summicrons, of course, the 50 Noctilux stopped down a bit, sure, the 75 Summicron-M and the 75 Noctilux wide open, you bet, the Apo 50 Summicron and the 28 Summilux, need to check but stopped down a bit they better. I’m not sure about the TL lenses. I’d say the Fuji XF 35/1.4 has it. Need to check. 😁 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 Hi Chaemono, Take a look here The "Leica Look" is real!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted February 3, 2019 Share #222 Posted February 3, 2019 12 hours ago, PeterGA said: the first link that popped up when I typed in "The Leica Look" on duck duck go I think the writer of this article might actually be a poster in this forum - for those who wish to see examples illustrating the 'Leica look' which support his take on the question - this might be a good place to start. Pete I already linked this article (post 123). It generated the typically vigorous debate at GetDPI two years ago... https://www.getdpi.com/forum/sunset-bar/61274-leica-look.html Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 3, 2019 Share #223 Posted February 3, 2019 1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said: Yes, it's always good to see someone prepared to back up their statements with examples and scientific rationale.😉 Absolutely! Of course, many posters on forums such as this may lack the technical expertise, command of language, or simply the time to write such an in depth explanation of a complex topic. Doesn’t mean their subjective impressions have no validity. And I would note that according to the standards some laid down in this thread, all of Irakly’s examples are meaningless because they weren’t side by side comparisons of same subject in identical posing, lighting, etc. I find it interesting that Bud’s conclusion about the Leica look in his blog isn’t all that different from Irakly’s in his article: Quote 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. vs. Quote Leica images look different in part because of unique properties of lenses and because they are taken differently. The Leica look is a synthesis of vibrant colors, subtle inter-tonal transitions and the visual story, which makes the image emotionally engaging in addition to its appeal of perceived visual realism. Yet, Bud’s opinion is immediately dismissed absent specific comparison images “proving” it, while so far no one has seriously challenged Irakly’s conclusions, even without side-by-side comparisons. (Of course, it’s early so that may change). I guess you have to write a multi-page in-depth article explaining all the technical details and reasoning underlying your thoughts in order to be taken seriously. Most people aren’t going to do that on an Internet forum, though. Personally, I think some people just get off on the power trip of destroying an “internet myth” instead of just relaxing and accepting that someone else’s subjective impressions may vary from their own, and that a zealous fanboy type of post can be taken for what it is without demanding scientific proof of a hyperbolic statement. But what do I know? I’m just a random internet poster. Let me clarify this, though: I don’t really have a problem with earleygallery’s original request for examples. Nothing wrong with asking. But after post #10 where Bud clearly stated these were his subjective opinions and he had no time or desire to provide examples sufficient to meet other people’s standards, I feel the continuing demands for proof and dissing of Bud because he wouldn’t provide them were uncalled for and crossed a line. Likewise, when I clearly stated I had no desire or intention to provide any such examples, I continued to get harassed for it. This type of behavior is insidious and makes the forum feel like a less-friendly place to hang out. Despite all of this, though, I think this thread has generated some great discussion and debate. Of course, all of this is just my subjective opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shlomo Posted February 3, 2019 Share #224 Posted February 3, 2019 Could anyone please post the most leicaliciously looking picture she / he is aware of? - I myself could contribute some, IMHO. Cheers, Shlomo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 3, 2019 Share #225 Posted February 3, 2019 vor 10 Minuten schrieb Dirk Mandeville: I find it interesting that Bud’s conclusion about the Leica look in his blog isn’t all that different from Irakly’s in his article: vs. Yet, Bud’s opinion is immediately dismissed absent specific comparison images “proving” it, while so far no one has seriously challenged Irakly’s conclusions, even without side-by-side comparisons. (Of course, it’s early so that may change). Bud argues from the heart and based on observation. He’s a hobbyist. He sees no need to provide proof for something he feels strongly about. Irakly argues from the mind and based on experience. He’s a professional, makes a living with photography, and knows “when subject and lighting both reinforce the lenses’ characteristics.” He also uses Zeiss glas and sees no need to engage in this conversation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 3, 2019 Share #226 Posted February 3, 2019 vor 12 Minuten schrieb Shlomo: Could anyone please post the most leicaliciously looking picture she / he is aware of? - I myself could contribute some, IMHO. Cheers, Shlomo Look no further than your post #2881 here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268528-m10-the-image-thread/?page=145 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shlomo Posted February 3, 2019 Share #227 Posted February 3, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 7 minutes ago, Chaemono said: Look no further than your post #2881 here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268528-m10-the-image-thread/?page=145 Ahhhhhh - You are right! Do You have any to show? - I am curious to know how different photographers classify their own work expressing the Leica - Look. Greetings, Shlomo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 3, 2019 Share #228 Posted February 3, 2019 10 minutes ago, Chaemono said: Look no further than your post #2881 here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268528-m10-the-image-thread/?page=145 Or post #2892 on the same thread. God, I love the 50 APO. Anyone got a spare one to give away?😉 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted February 3, 2019 Share #229 Posted February 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Dirk Mandeville said: He dispels the all-or-nothing notion propounded by some in this thread that the look must be seen in every camera/lens combination... This is exactly what "some in this thread" have been saying all along. 🙄 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 3, 2019 Share #230 Posted February 3, 2019 vor 3 Minuten schrieb Shlomo: Ahhhhhh - You are right! Do You have any to show? - I am curious to know how different photographers classify their own work expressing the Leica - Look. Greetings, Shlomo The first one in the gallery below. It was openen from a DNG in Preview and exported as a JPEG. It was not touched whatsoever. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-232Tmz/ 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shlomo Posted February 3, 2019 Share #231 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Chaemono said: The first one in the gallery below. It was openen from a DNG in Preview and exported as a JPEG. It was not touched whatsoever. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-232Tmz/ All of them have almost organic colours, great shots as well! Edited February 3, 2019 by Shlomo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 3, 2019 Share #232 Posted February 3, 2019 46 minutes ago, Dirk Mandeville said: ...while so far no one has seriously challenged Irakly’s conclusions, even without side-by-side comparisons. (Of course, it’s early so that may change). I guess you didn’t read the GetDPI debate that I linked (twice). Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 3, 2019 Share #233 Posted February 3, 2019 Yes, by three blind men with no elephant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 3, 2019 Share #234 Posted February 3, 2019 10 minutes ago, ianman said: This is exactly what "some in this thread" have been saying all along. 🙄 Not exactly, no. People have been saying there is no such thing as a Leica look because of differences in cameras/lenses over time make that impossible. Which was pretty much using a straw man argument to dismiss the notion of any sort of Leica Look. Not sure I’ve seen anyone seriously argue in this thread that it is a consistent definable look that can be seen in every photograph taken with any Leica camera or lens. But that is the straw man people have used to dismiss the notion. Irakly does a good job of teasing out the finer points of the things that create and influence the Leica look, even across eras and changes in technology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted February 3, 2019 Share #235 Posted February 3, 2019 9 minutes ago, Jeff S said: I guess you didn’t read the GetDPI debate that I linked (twice). Jeff No, Jeff, sorry I didn’t. The debate in this thread is enough for me. I may get to that one when I have the time or desire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 3, 2019 Share #236 Posted February 3, 2019 vor 34 Minuten schrieb Shlomo: All of them have almost organic colours, great shots as well! Organic colors is what defines the Leica Look. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted February 3, 2019 Share #237 Posted February 3, 2019 1 hour ago, Dirk Mandeville said: Absolutely! Of course, many posters on forums such as this may lack the technical expertise, command of language, or simply the time to write such an in depth explanation of a complex topic. Doesn’t mean their subjective impressions have no validity. And I would note that according to the standards some laid down in this thread, all of Irakly’s examples are meaningless because they weren’t side by side comparisons of same subject in identical posing, lighting, etc. I find it interesting that Bud’s conclusion about the Leica look in his blog isn’t all that different from Irakly’s in his article: ...................... Yet, Bud’s opinion is immediately dismissed absent specific comparison images “proving” it, while so far no one has seriously challenged Irakly’s conclusions, even without side-by-side comparisons. (Of course, it’s early so that may change). I guess you have to write a multi-page in-depth article explaining all the technical details and reasoning underlying your thoughts in order to be taken seriously. Most people aren’t going to do that on an Internet forum, though. Personally, I think some people just get off on the power trip of destroying an “internet myth” instead of just relaxing and accepting that someone else’s subjective impressions may vary from their own, and that a zealous fanboy type of post can be taken for what it is without demanding scientific proof of a hyperbolic statement. But what do I know? I’m just a random internet poster. Let me clarify this, though: I don’t really have a problem with earleygallery’s original request for examples. Nothing wrong with asking. But after post #10 where Bud clearly stated these were his subjective opinions and he had no time or desire to provide examples sufficient to meet other people’s standards, I feel the continuing demands for proof and dissing of Bud because he wouldn’t provide them were uncalled for and crossed a line. Likewise, when I clearly stated I had no desire or intention to provide any such examples, I continued to get harassed for it. This type of behavior is insidious and makes the forum feel like a less-friendly place to hang out. Despite all of this, though, I think this thread has generated some great discussion and debate. Of course, all of this is just my subjective opinion. I was actually disagreeing with you. The OP expressed a subjective opinion* that he was unwilling to support with evidence - that's his right, but others equally have the right to ask for evidence and a rationale for his statement - side by side comparisons are one reasonable approach. The OP could have offered another approach to support his argument. Irakly has done that, providing evidence and reasoned argument - it's an attempt at an objective approach - from your other posts, you seem to deprecate such objectivity. I prefer Irakly's approach and willingness to support his position, even while I think a capable brand supporter for Nikon or Canon would take strong issue with it. * The use of the word 'real' in a statement of subjective opinion is always provocative! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 3, 2019 Share #238 Posted February 3, 2019 26 minutes ago, Chaemono said: Organic colors is what defines the Leica Look. What does organic mean in this case? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shlomo Posted February 3, 2019 Share #239 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, pico said: What does organic mean in this case? Well, if You do not mind, I could show You some pictures I shot myself I'd consider good enough to brand them with the Leica Look 😊 - maybe it's a kind of oversaturated imperfection. Edited February 3, 2019 by Shlomo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 3, 2019 Share #240 Posted February 3, 2019 7 minutes ago, pico said: What does organic mean in this case? That both the grass that is grazed by the bull and the sh!t it is transformed into are rendered in the correct RGB values. 2 3 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