The "Leica Look" is real!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, lincoln_m said:

Avebury avenue in dull January 2019 weather. M10 35summiluxFLE @F1.4 only a slight crop. Until I got the 35FLE I didn't think landscapes would work at F1.4 but its even better than the sum micron at F2. Another plus is that I don't need to do any PP in Aperture  just import the RAW DNG. Any PP just ends up flattening the image.

 

Really? 20 seconds only in ACR....

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!

[lincoln_m]

For me the Leica Look has to be from the lens character especially with the new flat sensors in m digital cameras that collect the light as is through the lens. With my film Ms the non-flat film, the film also reduces the resolution and then the scanner also looses something too but the film adds its own character that holds for any 35 mm camera. Film naturally compresses highlights and shadows but M10 seems to be linear so if there are bright highlights the shadows and mid tones are darker to preserve the highlights, as in my 6000 year old stone row above. If I’d exposed for the grass the distant bright overcast sky would have blown out and the grass and stones mid tones would have been expanded and accidental flattened in the process. I did try brightening the image by sliding the exposure up in Aperture but then I had to darken the mid and shadow tones in curves to unflattern the image again. It’s just seems better to leave as it comes out of the box.

with the M10 I feel I’m able to see the true quality of the lens character that was slightly hidden by the film, the processing and the scanning before.

The 35FLE also allows me to use wider apertures f1.4, f2.8 that I wouldn’t have considered with 35f2Asph even and really direct the viewer while being sharp at any aperture , seemingly defying the DoF hyper-focal. The stones in the far background, the walker and leafless trees are softer but defined with no aberrations. The M10 sensor allows us to reveal the Leica lens character and “look” that in the past may have been partly altered due to the choice of film stock.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Any lens will produce the Leica glow. Just put a nice greasy thumbprint on the front element...

[lincoln_m]

Sorry Jaapv our posts crossed over.

ACR? What did you change?

In Aperture i usually proof as Adobe 1998 colour space but when converting to jpeg use sRGB for the web, which is a little dull in comparison.

But yes it was a dark image as captured by M10 sensor without blowing out the highlights in the background sky.

[IkarusJohn]

Just raise the shadows and up the contrast a little ...

[jaapv]

Pull down the highlights, raise the shadows, increase clarity and dehaze, add a bit of vibrance, increase exposure to remove shadow clipping,  add a bit of contrast and export to Photoshop CC, sharpen  18, 50, 2 to bring out structure.

There is a lot more one could do to enhance the image, but for routine quick and dirty, it does make a difference.

 

For instance, in Curves, pulling up the midtones and adding a reverse curve to the highlights plus tweaking the midtones in levels will make the image even more pronounced, but doing so on a web JPG will start to break it up.

 

 

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!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After that, in LAB, steepening the curves in the A and B channel and adding a medium contrast curve in the L channel will make it even more dramatic. And remember, I am working on a small web JPG here, a DNG will avoid the artifacts and deterioration.

 

Now what is the "Leica Look"? In digital, it really doesn't exist any more, we can create any look we like.

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!

[jaapv]

If I had to show a recent image with a "Leica Look" I would choose this one: look at the fine structure  and tonality of the trees in the background, the transparency and presence of the house, the lovely veil of snowflakes:

(I know, everybody thinks his own baby is the prettiest ) CL, 18-56

 

 

 

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!

[jaapv]

Yet, it came out of the camera like this. In a snowshower, light is as dull as it can be. Nothing new here. Study Ansel Adams and learn that a photograph is taken in the camera and produced in the darkroom. The two must fit precisely and match the subject. The same in digital. Without postprocessing you get only half the image.

 

 

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!

[Guest Nowhereman]

jaap - You're spot on, mate. (The "mate" is for the folksy touch, for, with the lincoln_m example, we're dealing with something that is hardly worth discussing — I'm with IkarusJohn on this).

Not sure it's the "Leica look" that I'm looking for,  but it's certainly a good example of the need for post-processing. Indeed, your SOOC image of the chalet, can be processed with various ways: "wie es eigentlich war" can turn out to be quite different for different people, like historiography after Ranke. A good example of the latter idea is a masterpiece by historian Pieter Geyl, Napoleon: For and Against, a book worth reading if you want to get a feeling what history is all about — Geyl's book, published in 1949, discusses the attitudes of historians to Napoleon: completely different interpretations of the same facts.

 licoln_m's example, to me, is certainly not an example of the Leica look — rather it's an example of when not to use f/1.4 for landscapes with the Summilux-35 FLE, although it certainly can be used for landscapes in other types of images. And his assertion that the M10 sensor allows the Leica look from the lens to come through that film eradicates is, to me, mumbo jumbo. 

Below is an image with the M10 and the Summilux-35 FLE also at f/1.4 as well, followed by the SOOC version. While I like the rendering of the lens here, it might be not be the Leica look for someone else — and I'm sure I could get something quite similar with another camera.

M10 | Summilux 35-FLE | ISO 800 | f/1.4 | 1/90 sec

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!

 

Edited February 9, 2019 by Nowhereman

[Chaemono]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

a photograph is taken in the camera and produced in the darkroom.

...so true, but rich colors and smooth tonal transitions are best in ‘out-of-the-box’ DNGs. Whenever I can I don’t touch them which is very rarely, of course. But I have a few. I believe Irakly prefers JPEGs from untouched DNGs.

 

[jaapv]

I would disagree there. Of course the basis is the DNG, no argument, But using proper post-processing techniques in a colour-managed workflow will improve any photograph. The trick is to separate the contrast and colour. That is why I like to use LAB.

Look back at my Gingerbread house. The tonal transitions in the trees on the hill are so much better on the trees in the background and there is nowhere where the colour spills over in the structure and microcontrast. This is the reason that I prefer Photoshop over Lightroom. It is more precise and preserves the transitions.

[Guest Nowhereman]

Maybe, Jaap - but I could never take to the process by the numbers approach of Margolis, as I'd rather do it visually. I recall that the late Bruce Fraser, years ago, told me of his argument with Margolis on this.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Actually, the sharp white outlines of the gingerbread dangling from Jaap's little mountain house hurt my eyes.  

When the cues are upside down and the balls are flying fast and free, it's time to leave the poolroom...

 

[jaapv]

2 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Maybe, Jaap - but I could never take to the process by the numbers approach of Margolis, as I'd rather do it visually. I recall that the late Bruce Fraser, years ago, told me of his argument with Margolis on this.

I must admit to picking and choosing from his techniques. I also also think his PPW software overprocesses some images.

[jaapv]

1 minute ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

Actually, the sharp white outlines of the gingerbread dangling from Jaap's little mountain house hurt my eyes.  

When the cues are upside down and the balls are flying fast and free, it's time to leave the poolroom...

 

I'll tell the house painter

[Chaemono]

vor einer Stunde schrieb jaapv:

I would disagree there. Of course the basis is the DNG, no argument, But using proper post-processing techniques in a colour-managed workflow will improve any photograph. The trick is to separate the contrast and colour. That is why I like to use LAB.

Look back at my Gingerbread house. The tonal transitions in the trees on the hill are so much better on the trees in the background and there is nowhere where the colour spills over in the structure and microcontrast. This is the reason that I prefer Photoshop over Lightroom. It is more precise and preserves the transitions.

I don’t understand. LR and Photoshop use the same Camera RAW converter. 

https://www.slrlounge.com/adobe-camera-raw-vs-lightroom/

[jaapv]

Yes, but the advanced workflow for postprocessing is lacking in Lightroom. Basically LR is an enhanced ACR with a different UI. It is also possible to use LR as the raw converter for Photoshop.

My remark was not about the raw conversion as such, but what happens afterwards.

BTW, your link confirms this. It addresses ACR, not Photoshop.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, Nowhereman said:

.....I could never take to the process by the numbers approach of Margolis, as I'd rather do it visually. 

Photography IS a visual process, even in these digital days when numbers are everywhere. This just adds another point though, that there are more variables involved with image creation than ever before. Starting with a 'good' lens and a camera which provides a well thought out RAW file (not all RAW files are equal) and its possible to produce very fine (technically speaking) images. Isolating the contribution of the lens, whilst possible, is often difficult .....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

 

Look back at my Gingerbread house. The tonal transitions in the trees on the hill are so much better on the trees in the background and there is nowhere where the colour spills over in the structure and microcontrast. This is the reason that I prefer Photoshop over Lightroom. It is more precise and preserves the transitions.

Lightroom now provides several ways to make local adjustments to various color and contrast parameters.  I now rarely use Photoshop.  All individual preference, of course.

Jeff