Chaemono Posted February 3, 2019 Share #241 Posted February 3, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) vor 14 Minuten schrieb pico: What does organic mean in this case? It means circular irony or, better, what Jaap said. Quote 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!
pgk Posted February 3, 2019 Share #242 Posted February 3, 2019 46 minutes ago, Chaemono said: Organic colors is what defines the Leica Look. Its the octarine content obviously. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 3, 2019 Share #243 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dirk Mandeville said: 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. It concerns Irakly’s article. And it doesn’t take much longer to read than a couple of your posts here (especially if you’ve already bothered to read Irakly’s article, which is the topic and first post in the thread I linked). Incidentally, some of the participants in the discussion are also members here. Jeff Edited February 3, 2019 by Jeff S Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted February 3, 2019 Share #244 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) I didn't see the getdpi thread when it occurred, since it was posted in a bull-session section that I never notice. It had one valid comment (MaggieO: "humph, I can't stand to look at such horrible pictures, which objectify women), which was largely ignored. Other discussion was divided between those who were happy to see examples of the specific optical effects that are usually cited as parts of the "Look," and those who tend to rise in high dudgeon when other experts dare to crowd the stage. The thread quickly diverted away to discuss the Lancia Fulvia and ended in "navel-gazing hooey," Edited February 3, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 3, 2019 Share #245 Posted February 3, 2019 4 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said: Yes, it's always good to see someone prepared to back up their statements with examples and scientific rationale. 😉 So where's the link to where someone has actually done so? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 3, 2019 Share #246 Posted February 3, 2019 To be fair, even if there is no objectively definable "Leica Look", each and every participant in this thread has spent thousands or tens of thousands on Leica lenses. We cannot all be that gullible Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted February 3, 2019 Share #247 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) exactly. By the way: My photographs with the M10 still look much better than the ones with my Canon Pro gear. Why would I use Leica for well over 90% of my shots with the M10? Yes there are more than 1 reason. First the portability. . . Edited February 3, 2019 by Alex U. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted February 3, 2019 Share #248 Posted February 3, 2019 14 minutes ago, pgk said: So where's the link to where someone has actually done so? Irakly gave examples and a rationale. One can argue about whether he's done it well enough, but at least he is not saying 'this is real - but it's only my subjective opinion'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 3, 2019 Share #249 Posted February 3, 2019 8 minutes ago, jaapv said: To be fair, even if there is no objectively definable "Leica Look", each and every participant in this thread has spent thousands or tens of thousands on Leica lenses. If Leica had large red price tags on a string we could leave on to give a real Leica look. Like Minnie Perl. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 3, 2019 Share #250 Posted February 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said: Irakly gave examples and a rationale. One can argue about whether he's done it well enough, but at least he is not saying 'this is real - but it's only my subjective opinion'. Well, the same 'rationale' could be equally well applied to lenses from many other manufacturers. Illustrating that you get certain effects from specific lenses under certain lighting condition shows just that but proves absolutely nothing because there are no 'controls'. Many lenses share the same design parameters as Leica's - to 'prove' a Leica look you would have to show that it could not be made by any other lenses. I hardly class his assertions as 'scientific' and they show no 'proof', they merely illustrate what a number of lenses do in a certain set of circumstances. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 3, 2019 Share #251 Posted February 3, 2019 15 minutes ago, jaapv said: To be fair, even if there is no objectively definable "Leica Look", each and every participant in this thread has spent thousands or tens of thousands on Leica lenses. We cannot all be that gullible They ARE (or were when new) good lenses, that is not in any doubt. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 3, 2019 Share #252 Posted February 3, 2019 vor 24 Minuten schrieb Alex U.: My photographs with the M10 still look much better than the ones with my Canon Pro gear. Much better, indeed. vor 25 Minuten schrieb Alex U.: First the portability. . . Portability comes on top. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted February 3, 2019 Share #253 Posted February 3, 2019 vor 11 Minuten schrieb Chaemono: Portability comes on top. Otherwise I would have a Hasselblad Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted February 3, 2019 Share #254 Posted February 3, 2019 Sounds like a carefully considered and formed choice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 3, 2019 Share #255 Posted February 3, 2019 The Leica Look is... "Leica Glow" - except when it isn't "A kind of color rendering" - except when it isn't "A kind of contrast" - except when it isn't About the time I was messing with Contax-G's, prior to switching to Leica, another photographer who used both Nikon SLR and Leica M was considering some particular Nikon lens. And decided not to get it. "Not enough contrast?" I asked. "Oh, it has plenty of contrast," he replied. "It's just in all the wrong places!" 2 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 3, 2019 Share #256 Posted February 3, 2019 Bottom line is that Leica lenses are incredibly capable, can be used to extraordinarily good effect and current versions are exceptionally well corrected. So why does it matter whether they have a 'look' anyway? They enable photographers to take outstanding photos. Isn't that enough? 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidthefat Posted February 3, 2019 Share #257 Posted February 3, 2019 I know I'm responding to a thread in the M10 section of the forum, but the idea of a Leica look is prevalent throughout the years and mediums. Talking purely from a technical perspective, the rendering of images will differ between different film emulsions, being shot with the same lens. Will one be able to distinguish the Leica look between let's say a Leica and a Minolta both shot on Portra 400 or a Superia 400 with a 28mm f2.8? Or will that Leica look only manifest itself when shot on a Velvia 50 or Ektachrome? The MTF charts don't show other optical characteristics like aberrations, but it shows that the Leica look ought to have different interpretations for different mediums. If that's the case, is there really a "Leica look" Leica look on film won't translate to digital because on film, at the higher spacial frequencies, they tend to get muddled. And if the Leica look is the so called "micro contrast" seen in digital, it won't manifest itself as distinctively on film. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 3, 2019 Share #258 Posted February 3, 2019 8 minutes ago, pgk said: Bottom line is that Leica lenses are incredibly capable, can be used to extraordinarily good effect and current versions are exceptionally well corrected. So why does it matter whether they have a 'look' anyway? They enable photographers to take outstanding photos. Isn't that enough? I think 'the look' is another manifestation of 'the magic bullet syndrome', a common human fallacy. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted February 3, 2019 Share #259 Posted February 3, 2019 2 hours ago, jaapv said: To be fair, even if there is no objectively definable "Leica Look", each and every participant in this thread has spent thousands or tens of thousands on Leica lenses. We cannot all be that gullible To be fair, this has already been pointed out and answered. In my case it's not because I am asking for an example of "The Leica Look" that I don't find my Leica lenses fantastic. I don't get the correlation!? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 3, 2019 Share #260 Posted February 3, 2019 I am sorry I discarded hundreds of negatives during a low point, but here is a candid made on pushed Tri-x before they changed the emulsion. Leica 35mm Summilux V2. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.