The "Leica Look" is real!

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I took some photos today with my Canon M and 22mm lens and a Leica with Summicron R.

The photos were great from both but the Canon images show much more depth and pop, everyone I showed them to said the Canon photos were 3D and like a real scene you could walk into, whereas the Leica photos where OK but nothing special.

[adan]

1 hour ago, Davidthefat said:

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.

You're welcome to post!

But I think high MTF and tight "point-spread" for higher spatial frequencies is actually more important on film than on digital. Shooting onto glorified Jell-O contaminated with silver-halide "sand" requires a crisper image in the first place (i.e. from the lens) to carve details into the medium that will hold up. And film's dynamic range can handle the extra global or macro-contrast of contrastier lenses.

MTF is additive (or perhaps multiplicative) - if you have a lower-MTF medium, the more you need to boost the MTF of the lens input. See first diagram here:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

Digital can always apply "unsharp masking" to improve the MTF and edge differentiation, at least at lower "noiseless" ISOs. (And so can film, of course - up to the point the grain is sharpened into gravel).

If I were still shooting 35mm film (especially neg film, and even more especially color neg film), I would really want the modern MTF-y Karbe APO-ASPH lenses, to "engrave" my pictures into the jelly surface. With digital I like the softer 1980s Mandler lenses, because I can always tighten up a little spherical-aberration blur with a mouse-click.

NB: Fuji slide fims, especially Velvia, are set up to produce edge enhancements in the processing chemically. Essentially a chemical "unsharp masking," rather as one can enhanced edges by developing with Rodinal at long times with dilute developer and minimal agitation. The relatively unused developer in shadows "leaks" into the edges of neighboring highlights, adding a subliminal halo of extra density and edge contrast.

It was always my opinion that Velvia was specifically designed to give that particular flavor of "Leica Look" with any lens, more or less.

[Advertisement]

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

[ianman]

18 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

I took some photos today with my Canon M and 22mm lens and a Leica with Summicron R.

The photos were great from both but the Canon images show much more depth and pop, everyone I showed them to said the Canon photos were 3D and like a real scene you could walk into, whereas the Leica photos where OK but nothing special.

You need to change your avatar mate ! 😂😂

[IkarusJohn]

Thanks for posting Irakly's article - an interesting read.  It puts things into perspective, while leaving the fundamental point unanswered - we know and like the Leica look, but it's hard to define and is really not reliant on any one thing.

I like this comment:

Quote

Micro-contrast capabilities (or how some people call it “plasticity”) of a lens can be effectively revealed with soft and contrasty side lighting while reducing internal lens reflections to a minimum. Micro-contrast has nothing to do with measurable sharpness (which is the same thing as resolving power). In a sense, lenses with high micro-contrast mimic human visual perception: we see the whole image, not tiny elements of it. We think of an image as being realistic when it  has the color harmony and visual depth. This is, by the way, the reason why Leica never leads the world in the number of megapixels in its camera sensors. It simply does not need to: Leica images are perceived as more realistic not due to showing every single detail, but because it renders tonal gradations the same way the human eye does.

 

[PeterGA]

7 hours ago, Jeff S said:

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

Oh apologies I missed your post anyway thanks for the heads up Jeff...

[JDFlood]

I couldn't resist thinking a bit more about the Leica Look:  What is "The Leica Look"? It is probably a set of characteristics deemed pleasing to the camera user... or that "magic" in a photograph. Which characteristics probably vary from person to person and depend largely on their aesthetic. For instance, I  took the photo with the dogs last week. I was interchanging my Nikon D800, Fuji X, and Leica M10 for about two weeks on the beach, I liked the output from all, but usually most from the M10. This photo popped onto my screen and I instantly said, "that's it". It is just a snapshot. But the mid and dark tones of the bushes/clouds also the character of the tall grass were really pleasing and very "Leica" to me. I find fur, tall grass and hair rendered amazing through Leica... no doubt the lenses. I realized, to someone else, they probably don't get the same thrill I get from it. Soooo, different aesthetic to different people. 

I followed a blogger... www.streetsihouettes.com, for a while and he shot extensively Leica in 2017. His aesthetic was to optimize the light to mid-tones some photos nearly devoid of dark tones. I enjoy his photographs, but his aesthetic is nothing like mine. So, the Leica look is probably different for him. Also, whatever unique characteristics that are pleasing to me do not come out on every photo. The subject and lighting seem to affect whether I get the magic. To me, low contrast conditions, with clouds, fog, grass, hair and fur seem to be ideal to bring out what I like in Leica. Although I had noticed that Bud's photos of the Sydnie Opera House brought out another... sharp shiny detail in bright lights, but that is not analytical looking like some equipment would produce. So, if the Leica Look is a constellation of characteristics brought out under various conditions. We get basically something that fits the bill. Some people see it (some don't) in the Gestalt of their photos (some or all). And different characteristics are appreciated by different people. So, probably the best a group of people could agree on (in an ideal world, not this Forum) is that these camera/lenses produce: a list, of positive characteristics that are unique and pleasing to folks. I have seen a number of characteristics throughout this thread, some I have seen and some not. Perhaps taken together that is "The Leica 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!

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 2 Stunden schrieb JDFlood:

For instance, I  took the photo with the dogs last week. I was interchanging my Nikon D800, Fuji X, and Leica M10 for about two weeks on the beach, I liked the output from all, but usually most from the M10. This photo popped onto my screen and I instantly said, "that's it". It is just a snapshot. But the mid and dark tones of the bushes/clouds also the character of the tall grass were really pleasing and very "Leica" to me. I find fur, tall grass and hair rendered amazing through Leica...

You put in words so well what others struggle to observe even if it’s present in a Leica photo. In your picture, the Leica Look requires thinking in five dimensions, mid and dark tones, bushes, clouds, tall grass, and fur. Not everyone is capable of this, heck, some people even struggle with four dimensions.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb JDFlood:

Some people see it (some don't) in the Gestalt of their photos (some or all).

That’s why some see it, some don’t (some or all).

vor 2 Stunden schrieb JDFlood:

I have seen a number of characteristics throughout this thread, some I have seen and some not. Perhaps taken together that is "The Leica Look”.

Well put. “The Leica Look” is what we see and what we don’t. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

8 hours ago, adan said:

.MTF is additive (or perhaps multiplicative) - if you have a lower-MTF medium, the more you need to boost the MTF of the lens input. See first diagram here:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

Digital can always apply "unsharp masking" to improve the MTF and edge differentiation, at least at lower "noiseless" ISOs. (And so can film, of course - up to the point the grain is sharpened into gravel).

Andy, Norm Koren (and his son Henry) now develop Imatest just up the road from you, in Boulder.  That all got started by Norm worrying about just these sorts of questions.  Worth a visit some day.

Edited February 4, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick

[IamTheDistance]

If you are bored, you can see the blind test I've just created. I started an 'one-post-only' blog just for this purpose. It's not my personal blog so it's not spam. This is the URL https://theleicalook.home.blog/2019/02/04/leica-look-is-real-or-not/ 

I shot some snaps today using three cameras (Leica M10, Canon 6D Mark II and Fujifilm x100f) and you have to spot what are the pictures with the Leica look. Do you want to play?😁I think it also provides the comparisons some of you were demanding. 
My finals thoughts are the same than some of the posts seen in this thread. The Leica look can't be only one look because of the vast of possibilities we have. Lenses + Film rolls or Lenses + sensors. But the Leica look is maybe something all those pictures have in common. So, the Leica look creator should be the lens. I said before that sometimes I can spot a picture shot with Leica when scrolling on Instagram or a portfolio. In my test (I tested with myself) I could spot it sometimes but this is more challenging than I thought at first. 

Disclaimer: Sorry for the bad pictures. They are just quick snaps as I wanted to shoot as fast as I can, so the time that passed between shots is 20 or 30 seconds. This is not a image quality test (high ISO, dynamic range and so on) but a way to see how those three cameras behave in the same situations with the same light conditions.

[earleygallery]

10 minutes ago, IamTheDistance said:

If you are bored, you can see the blind test I've just created. I started an 'one-post-only' blog just for this purpose. It's not my personal blog so it's not spam. This is the URL https://theleicalook.home.blog/2019/02/04/leica-look-is-real-or-not/ 

I shot some snaps today using three cameras (Leica M10, Canon 6D Mark II and Fujifilm x100f) and you have to spot what are the pictures with the Leica look. Do you want to play?😁I think it also provides the comparisons some of you were demanding. 
My finals thoughts are the same than some of the posts seen in this thread. The Leica look can't be only one look because of the vast of possibilities we have. Lenses + Film rolls or Lenses + sensors. But the Leica look is maybe something all those pictures have in common. So, the Leica look creator should be the lens. I said before that sometimes I can spot a picture shot with Leica when scrolling on Instagram or a portfolio. In my test (I tested with myself) I could spot it sometimes but this is more challenging than I thought at first. 

Disclaimer: Sorry for the bad pictures. They are just quick snaps as I wanted to shoot as fast as I can, so the time that passed between shots is 20 or 30 seconds. This is not a image quality test (high ISO, dynamic range and so on) but a way to see how those three cameras behave in the same situations with the same light conditions.

I was about to post here when I spotted the answers.

I was going to say the middle shot was the Leica. My choice was based on how the images were exposed and knowing how the M10's metering is much more centre weighted than the others (assuming you were using them on average metering mode).

Correctly adjusted for exposure I doubt I'd have come to the same conclusion but being underexposed (compared to the others) has resulted in more saturated colours which was one of the 'Leica looks' mentioned in this thread.

[Chaemono]

IamTheDistance, I’m in the distance so I can’t tell anything by your photos. Dedicate your work to Bud who started this thread and see posts #217 by Dirk, #250 by Paul, #255 by Andy, and #264 by John. No need for blind tests. They are meaningless. 

[IamTheDistance]

15 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

I was about to post here when I spotted the answers.

I was going to say the middle shot was the Leica. My choice was based on how the images were exposed and knowing how the M10's metering is much more centre weighted than the others (assuming you were using them on average metering mode).

Correctly adjusted for exposure I doubt I'd have come to the same conclusion but being underexposed (compared to the others) has resulted in more saturated colours which was one of the 'Leica looks' mentioned in this thread.

Good catch!!

[earleygallery]

21 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

IamTheDistance, I’m in the distance so I can’t tell anything by your photos. Dedicate your work to Bud who started this thread and see posts #217 by Dirk, #250 by Paul, #255 by Andy, and #264 by John. No need for blind tests. They are meaningless. 

Hilarious! Photos to represent a discussion about the 'Leica look' v other cameras/lenses are meaningless.

Love it.

[evikne]

18 hours ago, adan said:

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

Maybe I'm not a true Leica man, because I hate the "Leica glow". I just see it as an annoying weakness. On the other side, when it comes to the newest ASPH lenses – and even though I admire their perfection and beauty – I mostly find them boring.

But I've find what I love in many of the Mandler lenses from the 1960s to 1980s (when they are not "glowing"). They are not too old and not too new. I can't actually put my finger on it, but there is something with the contrasts and rendering. And it is definitely more than just imagination.

[Ko.Fe.]

16 hours ago, earleygallery said:

I took some photos today with my Canon M and 22mm lens and a Leica with Summicron R.

The photos were great from both but the Canon images show much more depth and pop, everyone I showed them to said the Canon photos were 3D and like a real scene you could walk into, whereas the Leica photos where OK but nothing special.

You are comparing old film era SLR lens and modern mirrorless lens on digital. While even on film, my 16-35 2.8 II L beats old Leica glass. For 3D and pop.  .  But I still want SA f4. For images it gives and for its size and built. Not CV 35 f2.5, not SE, but this old SA.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Ko.Fe.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, evikne said:

But I've find what I love in many of the Mandler lenses from the 1960s to 1980s (when they are not "glowing"). They are not too old and not too new. I can't actually put my finger on it, but there is something with the contrasts and rendering. And it is definitely more than just imagination.

Mandler's designs were extremely good but.... in simplistic terms (because nothing is ever as simple as we would like it to be) I think that he eliminated enough spherical aberration to get rid of the 'glow' but insufficient to achieve the extreme high levels of correction that today's aspheric designs do. My take on the consequence of this, which I have found most distinctly shown with the two 75mm lenses, is as follows. At say f/8, the 75mm Summicron is stunningly good with fine edge detail crisply defined and edge contrasts actually very distinct and even, to some, perhaps potentially harsh (that word 'clinical' has been used. The 75mm Summilux on the other hand has plenty of fine detail but the edge is taken off this to a sufficient degree to remove the 'harshness'. The problem is that there are inevitably other factors at play, but this is a repeatable effect so the two lenses do show a difference - in suitable lighting conditions and with an appropriate subject - as you might expect from different designs from different people many years apart. The Summilux shows least correction wide open and is slightly soft, but by f/2 it is far better but is never as 'good' optically as the Summicron - if, that is, your yardstick is technical perfection. I've kept the Summilux having owned both. Each to their own of course.

[earleygallery]

2 hours ago, evikne said:

Maybe I'm not a true Leica man, because I hate the "Leica glow". I just see it as an annoying weakness. On the other side, when it comes to the newest ASPH lenses – and even though I admire their perfection and beauty – I mostly find them boring.

But I've find what I love in many of the Mandler lenses from the 1960s to 1980s (when they are not "glowing"). They are not too old and not too new. I can't actually put my finger on it, but there is something with the contrasts and rendering. And it is definitely more than just imagination.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned somewhere in this thread that my Mandler 35 Summicron R is one of my favourite lenses and gives a certain look to the images.

Mandler look or Leica look, I don't know!

[Reciprocity]

On 2/2/2019 at 12:58 PM, Trivette said:

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.

I'm in that camp, I see a definite look of balanced color, etc when I pull it all together in a single image. But the so called Leica Look has a lot of competition these days and that can be adjusted in post or with a lot of the newer glass other companies are coming out with.

For example, I am well into using my Nikon Z camera and lenses on lots of jobs and in all kinds of light. The camera is it's own discussion ( mostly good ) but Holy Mother of Otherworldly is the S glass good!!! I mean almost good enough for me to relegate Leica back to film-only. I say almost because the total working to result environs of Leica will always keep me in the brand, at least with the M. 

Since we all seem to be a bit self indulgent and chest-beaty, I will say what combos of Leica Look I love the most, my M10 and 35mm FLE and my M3, 50 Summicron Rigid on Tmax 400. Those combinations say Leica to me, maybe it is in my head though and that is ok because it is the heart and head in which the attachment to a working toolset is made.

As for the original post? I have no idea what to think, I saw one image that while decent did not really say "Leica Look" to me, sorry Bud!

 

[Guest Nowhereman]

My name is Nowhereman and I'm a Leicaholic:  That's what I was thinking as I finished reading Irakly's excellent article. I was struck by the last sentence of the following Irakly statement (italics and boldface mine): 

Quote

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. With an existing computer technology it is entirely possible to emulate the Leica look in post-production, yet, getting it in-camera takes no time, while the alternative requires serious Photoshop skills, sizable amounts of time and, in the first place, knowing what you are trying to emulate.

The same goes for emulating film in digital: you really have to know, for example, how Tri-X looks (and it looks so different in some many different light conditions). Better to process for the look you like — and if if ends up having the Leica look, or the film look, so be it.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Nowhereman Instagram

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[evikne]

6 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

The same goes for emulating film in digital: you really have to know, for example, how Tri-X looks (and it looks so different in some many different light conditions). Better to process for the look you like — and if if ends up having the Leica look, or the film look, so be it.

I have tried out different VSCO film emulation presets in LR, but when they discontinued the support and development for desktop, I "dissected" them to find out how I could make my own. For example I like the matte look, when the darkest blacks are cut off, and I like the bluish green tones (very nice on grass) from some of the presets. So combined with the authentic look from my old Leica lenses, I've made my very own look, inspired from film.

Edited February 5, 2019 by evikne