ianman Posted January 30, 2019 Share #41 Posted January 30, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 11 hours ago, stefanusj said: i used to have the similar opinions, but... around 3-4 years ago (i use sony a7ii+55zeiss), me and my friend (he use M240+lux50) are shooting at pasar pabean, and after we compare the results of our photos, i realize that i know what "leica looks" is. From my amateur eyes, it is a combination of unique color (which is red and orange) and depth that makes it differ from other brand. it have different mood, so my advice is: just experienced it yourself...and you will know what i mean. Did you try putting the Leica lens on the Sony? Would that have yielded a "Leica Look" photo? Certain lenses have well known characteristics, some combinations (film/lens or CCD/lens) result in a certain look, but without some sort of evidence, claims of a generalised "Leica look" just fuel the myth. 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 30, 2019 Posted January 30, 2019 Hi ianman, Take a look here The "Leica Look" is real!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
LBJ2 Posted January 30, 2019 Share #42 Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) From what I understand and see for myself what some of us call the Leica look comes from applying apertures wider than F4 on Full Frame. Lighting can also add or detract from this look too. Harsh light almost always destroys the look full stop, and of course composition is important too. Personally, I believe colors can also play an important role. I've come to appreciate the look, not only with my own eyes but from the responses I get from family and friends that have no idea which camera/lens I used to take the image. When I specifically use Leica kit at the above prescription it is not uncommon for me to hear the wows, "that's an excellent photo" and the " that's a really nice camera" ( even though they have no idea what camera I used). Try it for yourself. I also chase a similar what many call "3D Pop" look from some (not all) Zeiss lenses and I see the same type of responses in some Batis lenses on my Sony alphas. Getting harder and harder to stand out from the Zillions of over the top, eye popping images posted all over the internet and social media. To me I think I have proof in other people's blind reactions not my own after purchase glow/placebo emotions. Leica and Zeiss do add that little extra something dare I say "micro contrast" in hopes of not stirring the forum hornet's nest. Edited January 30, 2019 by LBJ2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_P Posted January 30, 2019 Share #43 Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) I believe he was purely saying he was rather pleased with the results from his M10 and 4 current gen lenses he took with him. "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." I buy into that as am sure most on this forum have...physically. Maybe the title invited some backchat but maybe he should be given a break. Edited January 30, 2019 by Phil_P 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted January 30, 2019 Share #44 Posted January 30, 2019 vor 1 Stunde schrieb Dirk Mandeville: He’s not thin-skinned. You were just being a jerk. I said I was sorry. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 30, 2019 Share #45 Posted January 30, 2019 OK I think I can summarise..... The Leica look is a sharp and contrasty image. The Leica look is images with a certain colour bias compared to some other marques (assuming no changes in PP). The Leica look is large open apertures and shallow depth of field, greatest when using a Noctilux The Leica look is '3D pop' (see above). The Leica look is the rendering of a CCD sensor. The Leica look is the rendering of a monochrome sensor. The Leica looks is the rendering of their CMOS sensors. The Leica look is the clinically neutral redering of an APO Summicron. The Leica look is a style of photography due in part to the rangefinder way of working (only applies to the rangefinder models). The Leica look is a 'glow' that you get from some lenses (spherical abberations). The Leica look is the softer less contrasty look of vintage Leica lens. The Leica looks is the finer detail from a medium format sensor in the S camera. Clearly not all of the above can apply to each photograph. So we can say that the 'Leica look' will be the result of one or more of the above ingredients in making the image. However, I would also say that many of the above points can also apply to other brands of cameras and lenses. So, whilst the result of using any combination of Leica camera/lens can result in a photo with the 'Leica look' I don't think it's something exclusive to just Leica. Does an M2 with a Skopar lens give a better 'Leica look' than a Canon DSLR fitted with an R lens? Does an SL fitted with a Nikon lens give a better 'Leica look' than a Sony with an M lens? Does a VLux give a better 'Leica look' than a Contax rangefinder with a Zeiss lens?...... 3 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted January 30, 2019 Share #46 Posted January 30, 2019 vor 11 Minuten schrieb earleygallery: The Leica look is large open apertures and shallow depth of field, greatest when using a Noctilux ... So we can say that the 'Leica look' will be the result of one or more of the above ingredients... The Noctilux wide open is definitely part of it, ideally shot in Australia or in New Zealand. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 30, 2019 Share #47 Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) 36 minutes ago, earleygallery said: OK I think I can summarise..... Some of the ingredients are in sharp contrast with each other 😁 Otherwise,... you've nailed it !! Edited January 30, 2019 by ianman 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDFlood Posted January 30, 2019 Share #48 Posted January 30, 2019 18 hours ago, budjames said: Now you can go back to hating on me as this is my final post here. So have a good time and congratulations on regretting that I started this post in the first place. Have a nice life. Bud 1 Yeh, I have made the mistake myself. If you are feeling good and want to share something personal... watch out, the knives come out and jerks twist your comments and opinions into insincerity and unfounded irrational speculation. After I got my M10 (I had been a forum member for quite a while as I owned an X2 for several years), I was ecstatic and really happy and made a similar post. I was just crucified. I think I read the first two responses and didn't come back to the forum for six months. I have never read the thread. Now, I am careful not to let any happiness or joy leak into a post,. It is a shame because most of us that are non-professional do this for fun. You would think a forum is to share the joy. But unfortunately, there are many jerks lurking to pray on that joy. Anyway, I appreciate your honesty, and as I said in my first post... I think you are right about the Leica look. I continue to question whether it is real or not. But what you showed seems to me to be it. Thanks for sharing, obviously don't do it again... or the same thing will happen. JD 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 30, 2019 Share #49 Posted January 30, 2019 6 minutes ago, JDFlood said: Yeh, I have made the mistake myself. If you are feeling good and want to share something personal... watch out, the knives come out and jerks twist your comments and opinions into insincerity and unfounded irrational speculation. I'm going to assume that you include me in your reference to 'jerks'. The OP posted a link to his blog and invited comments. If he didn't really want comments then he should have said so, but then again the way a forum like this works is that people post a topic and others respond, creating a conversation. I don't understand why he should throw a hissy fit when he could have backed up his claims with some photos to demonstrate his point. Unless of course he couldn't......... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted January 30, 2019 Share #50 Posted January 30, 2019 I’m glad Bud started this debate so we can get to the bottom of it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LBJ2 Posted January 30, 2019 Share #51 Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Chaemono said: I’m glad Bud started this debate so we can get to the bottom of it. My guess is there is no bottom. Hence the perfect topic for the never ending forum discussions on the same. After too many discussions and too many of my own home grown experiments I've concluded, some can perceive and some simply can't or don't want too. Some can learn to perceive distinguishable characteristics ( yours truly) and some don't or can't take the time. It's there and with enough consistent usage it can be identified to some degree. I guess it just depends on personal priorities. Edited January 30, 2019 by LBJ2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 30, 2019 Share #52 Posted January 30, 2019 31 minutes ago, JDFlood said: I think you are right about the Leica look. I continue to question whether it is real or not. Sorry, I understand your post about some of the comments but here you just contradict yourself... and you do what us "jerks" have been doing... questioning if the so called Leica look is a reality or a myth. Please, let believers show some evidence because so far all the arguments put forward to prove the existence of The Look make no sense at all. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 30, 2019 Share #53 Posted January 30, 2019 1 minute ago, LBJ2 said: Some can learn to perceive distinguishable characteristic ( yours truly) and some don't or can't take the time Please enlighten those of us who cannot see with your wisdom... just show us the evidence, it should be easy enough. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 30, 2019 Share #54 Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, ianman said: Please, let believers show some evidence because so far all the arguments put forward to prove the existence of The Look make no sense at all. The problem is that 'belief' relies on neither facts nor evidence. Its as if the 'look' is a Deity as opposed to a product of science and technology which operates under numerous variables. Hence the never ending discussions. Edited January 30, 2019 by pgk 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcg Posted January 30, 2019 Share #55 Posted January 30, 2019 45 minutes ago, LBJ2 said: My guess is there is no bottom. Hence the perfect topic for the never ending forum discussions on the same. After too many discussions and too many of my own home grown experiments I've concluded, some can perceive and some simply can't or don't want too. Some can learn to perceive distinguishable characteristics ( yours truly) and some don't or can't take the time. It's there and with enough consistent usage it can be identified to some degree. I guess it just depends on personal priorities. 41 minutes ago, ianman said: Please enlighten those of us who cannot see with your wisdom... just show us the evidence, it should be easy enough. 38 minutes ago, pgk said: The problem is that 'belief' relies on neither facts nor evidence. Its as if the 'look' is a Deity as opposed to a product of science and technology which operates under numerous variables. Hence the never ending discussions. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
evikne Posted January 30, 2019 Share #56 Posted January 30, 2019 I don't believe in any specific "Leica look". But with so many choices there should be something for every taste. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JazzyMac Posted January 30, 2019 Share #57 Posted January 30, 2019 5 hours ago, earleygallery said: Why not? This is a photo forum and we're discussing the 'Leica look' yet no direct comparisons from anyone (the dog photos are different lighting etc). Let's see the difference please. I posted photo comparisons and not one person has commented. Leads me to believe people are just complaining to complain. Oh well. We are blessed to afford thousands of dollars in equipment and yet still want something to gripe about. Not much anyone can do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Mandeville Posted January 30, 2019 Share #58 Posted January 30, 2019 Whether or not there is a “Leica look” is entirely subjective, and therefore cannot be proven. It will be different things to different people at different times. Leica’s cameras and lenses have evolved over time, as have the photographers using them. So what some would call the Leica look has also evolved, I’m sure. O.P. could post dozens of direct comparisons, and some would see the characteristics they believe make up the Leica look in some photos and others would not. It’s a fruitless endeavor to try to “prove” such a subjective concept. But seriously, why are all of us spending so much money on Leica cameras and lenses if we don’t feel they give us a special look and feel to our photographs? Why not just buy the Sony’s with their technically better sensor? Or a Fuji? Or so many others? Just for the rangefinder mechanism of the M series? The simplicity? The supposed reliability? The Red Dot? Sure, that all plays a part, but it obviously isn’t the whole story. Leica cameras and lenses are legendary for a reason. They claim premium prices for a reason. I simply can’t imagine why anyone would spend over $10,000 on a camera/lens setup if they didn’t feel it enabled them to produce truly special photographs that had a unique look. Personally, I think a browse through the Leica Q image thread, the vintage lenses image thread, and some others, provides ample examples of the “Leica look”, as well as plenty of examples of rather poor photography that could have been shot with any camera. But it’s all subjective. I could certainly not prove it, any more than I could prove that a particular wine is unique and delicious. Someone else will say it tastes like it came from a box. This debate reminds me of the debates on hifi audio forums about whether certain things make an audible difference in the quality of the sound. Some trust their ears about what they hear, while others require double blind testing to prove there is an audible difference. And the debates, and vitriolic arguments, fill the forums. In the end, nobody wins and nobody walks away feeling like they had an enjoyable discussion about their favorite hobby. Just food for thought. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveclem Posted January 30, 2019 Share #59 Posted January 30, 2019 Oh look mummy, a Leica ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 30, 2019 Share #60 Posted January 30, 2019 36 minutes ago, JazzyMac said: I posted photo comparisons and not one person has commented. You just quoted James's comment!!! To be honest, I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say by posting them. What are we supposed to see? What are they comparing? 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.