Jump to content

The "Leica Look" is real!

budjames

By budjames
in Leica M10

 Share

Recommended Posts

Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted

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
  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

earleygallery
earleygallery

No hating here! Sorry but I read these 'Leica look' posts from time to time, always just words, never photos. Whenever examples are asked for it's always the same kind of defensive response, not photo

Dirk Mandeville
Dirk Mandeville

He’s not thin-skinned. You were just being a jerk. As evidenced by multiple posts accusing him of being a dealer, demanding he provide specific testing conditions to “prove” his opinion, etc.  All of

Dirk Mandeville
Dirk Mandeville

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

Posted Images

Jeff S

Jeff S

Posted
Posted
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
Dirk Mandeville

Dirk Mandeville

Posted
Posted
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
Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted
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
Shlomo

Shlomo

Posted
Posted

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
ianman

ianman

Posted
Posted
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. 🙄

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaemono

Chaemono

Posted
Posted
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/

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff S

Jeff S

Posted
Posted
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
Dirk Mandeville

Dirk Mandeville

Posted
Posted
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
LocalHero1953

LocalHero1953

Posted
Posted
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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Shlomo

Shlomo

Posted
Posted (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 by Shlomo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...