The main problem of the "Leica look"

[P1505]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica have something special coming off the SD cards, but Canon lovers say the same of Canon cameras. We are here because we like it - or maybe, and this is true for me, I prefer using Leicas and can’t see a reason to buy another brand. Too many buttons.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest BlackBarn]

The only ‘Leica Look’ I’m familiar with is the expression on my face when a  price is announced.

[jdlaing]

I was t aware there was a problem.

[Chaemono]

It’s a combination of glow, sparkle, micro-contrast, depth, sharpness, and smoothness that’s created by lenses on M bodies wide open. It can be emulated in post.

[Herr Barnack]

If you want to see "the Leica look,"  here's what you do. 

Shoot a roll of Fuji Velvia 50 in a film M camera using a 50mm Summilux and a roll of Velvia in a Nikon film camera using a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor.  When you develop the film, dump both boxes of slides on a light box and mix then around well so that you don't know which is which. 

Now turn on the light box and look at the slides.  The ones that are so sharp and contrasty that they practically make your eyes bleed are the Leica slides.  The slides that look like you are viewing them through a thick sheet of clear plastic are the Nikon slides.

The above is from personal experience; it is why after 20+ years of shooting with Nikon glass, I traded it all in for Leica glass.

So, yes - in my experience, "the Leica look" is real.

Quote

I wonder whether the Leica look is our shared set of values...

@setuporg   Possibly.  It seems that the Leica ethos causes kindred spirits to congregate in places like this forum, Leica stores and Leica events.

Quote

...Is it something that helps us differentiate or narrows our view?

It seems to me that it refines our view. 

Emerson wrote that "The mind, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions."  I think the photographer's eye, once habituated to the Leica look, never returns to its original way of seeing images.

JMHOs.

Edited December 28, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[adan]

6 hours ago, Chaemono said:

Only untouched DNGs qualify for the Leica look IMO, ideally just opened in Preview or the Microsoft image viewer, with the stock profile, of course. 

So how - exactly - does that work for the 75 years of film-only Leica pictures?

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 3 Stunden schrieb adan:

So how - exactly - does that work for the 75 years of film-only Leica pictures?

Scanned and converted to DNGs, of course. The process confers an extra glow to the pictures. 😉

[250swb]

8 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

This is one of the best examples of the "Leica Look" on the internet. 

*"This image was taken with modern glass, the Leica Summilux 50 mm f/1.4 Asph, on the Leica M9"  by Ashwin Rao

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!

https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/10/11/the-leica-look-comments-thoughts-by-ashwin-rao/

It is the sort of photo taken with a Leica M that's for sure. And it is true that photographing what appears to be the back of somebody's head does happen when using a rangefinder. And 'people doing stuff', like walking around or making a pancake is typical of the genre, as is accepting a scene per se and not moving in to crop out the irritating highlights all around the woman. So perhaps it is typical of the 'Leica look', but the best example you could come up with, I hope not?

[P1505]

If you stick Leica glass on a Nikon film body do you still get this Leica look or is it muddled?

And does this Leica look matter? So many wonderful images shot on all sorts of cameras and lenses, nobody complained they were lacking micro contrast. I can’t imagine Don McCullin ever sat down to look at his contact sheets and worried himself about a lack of glow.

Surely the content, composition, and story mean more than technical whatever? Unless you’re shooting stock imagery, where lack of grain or anything remotely interesting are seen as mutual benefits.

 

Rant over.

[tom.w.bn]

Leica look? Does not exist. Good marketing though.

 

[andybarton]

45 minutes ago, P1505 said:

If you stick Leica glass on a Nikon film body do you still get this Leica look or is it muddled?

I put Leitax mounts on all my R lenses and used them for several years on a D700. You could tell the difference between the shots made with those lenses and those made with native Nikon lenses of similar vintage. 

The answer is therefore “probably”.

[Chaemono]

vor einer Stunde schrieb P1505:

If you stick Leica glass on a Nikon film body do you still get this Leica look or is it muddled?

Yep, Z7 with 75 Noctilux, for example.

vor 1 Stunde schrieb 250swb:

...So perhaps it is typical of the 'Leica look', but the best example you could come up with, I hope not?

Don’t forget the organic noise. 

[otto.f]

I don’t understand. People trying to debunk the concept of ‘the Leica look’, what are they doing here in LUF then? What have they bought Leica stuff for? Just because of ‘Me Too’, showing off, snobism? That’s an expensive trip then.
It is undeniable however, that since the digital age started (for me was that in 2008) the differences in brands have become smaller. And that the Karbe look is a totally different look as, and sometimes even opposed to, the Mandler look: compare the 75 Summicron with the 75 Summilux. 
It’s good for the survival of Leica that they diversify and that the brand appeals to different types of photographers. For the first time in its existence Leica starts to serve photographers that find it a minimal requirement to work with AUTO-everything camera’s, with a certain  credibility. Still far away from Canon but ok. It’s a pity though that Leica tends to loose his former clients, which is symbolized by Erwin Puts turning his back to Leica. I wonder how this works in the eyes and the head of Jonoslack, who was a man from the earlier generations too. I cannot see any credibility in his positive reviews of the Q, Q2 and the SL2 for instance. 

Edited December 28, 2020 by otto.f

[LBJ2]

3 hours ago, 250swb said:

It is the sort of photo taken with a Leica M that's for sure. And it is true that photographing what appears to be the back of somebody's head does happen when using a rangefinder. And 'people doing stuff', like walking around or making a pancake is typical of the genre, as is accepting a scene per se and not moving in to crop out the irritating highlights all around the woman. So perhaps it is typical of the 'Leica look', but the best example you could come up with, I hope not?

You are of course encouraged to post examples of the "Leica look" 

[Chaemono]

Here's mine (I stole the idea from someone else). Opened in Preview from DNG and not touched. Sparkle, glow, micro-contrast, smoothness, sharpness (but not too much), reds to die for (good job, Apple), M10-P ISO 640 noise (it adds an extra touch to the glow) and depth.

Less compressed JPEG here:   https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-232Tmz/

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 December 28, 2020 by Chaemono

[LBJ2]

According to Peter Karbe, part of the Leica look is of course in the design, treatment of the elements e.g., fine polishing and the lens manufacturing process. As described in the Youtube video titled "Leica M Lens System with Peter Karbe" September 15, 2020. Technically, all repeatable processes, which is why we see the look across years of lens redesigns, film and digital cameras. From my understanding, almost all ( but not all new) lenses start with basically the same base optical design and in there lies the optical formula that can be replicated even when adding more elements to accommodate AF/OSS or more specialized elements and technique we see in modern lenses to perfect the light path.

I listened to an interview with the modern day owner of Cooke Optics and he said "the Cooke look is the easiest thing to design in their modern optics" That's how they are able to maintain the Cooke look all these years. Many of us know the Cooke look as Cooke lenses have been used for years in the many movies, classics, and TV shows we all have seen and see. https://www.cookeoptics.com/t/filmed-with-cooke.html

The well known brands that have been with us for decades Leica, Cooke, Zeiss for instance all come with their known "look" we have all seen over and over again. I believe awareness of  the "Look" comes about by repetitive viewing. We've all seen the various time-honored "looks" intentionally or unintentionally over the years and there are those that make it their business/speciality to recognize the various optical looks and apply that look as part of the process to create their content to help portray a story/meaning/message. 

Through my own experience harsh light will destroy the look and I see the look more frequently with certain lenses over others. Among the Leica optics I own, I see the most pronounced Leica look most frequently with the Summilux 50 ASPH and the Noctilix 50 f0,95. Its not an ever day affair that I achieve the look in my own work, so always a nice surprise when I recognize. Or as the OP points out sometimes I become blind to the look and other non-photographers will respond when they see that something special in my images.

Below is an image I have posted before and believe is a good example of the Leica Look in my own work. M10 + Noctilux 50 f0,95

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 December 28, 2020 by LBJ2

[andybarton]

This is one of the first photographs I took, with my first Leica, an M2 with a 1973 50 Summicron. It was probably taken on Astia, or another Fuji E6 film. It was definitely the first Leica shot I had printed.

I was amazed by the 3D-ness of it. My dealer in Manchester was right. He said, on seeing the print, that you could almost put your fingers behind the ship.

 

Sadly, this view is no longer with us.

 

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!

[LBJ2]

I would also like to add after using Sony FF mirrorless extensively since the start of the Sony FF mirrorless roll-out and have edited tens of thousands of Sony images, I do not see any identifiable "Look" among Sony native optics. You can however, achieve very nice pop/3D/depth/separation, but not something I would call a recognizable "look" and Sony have some incredible glass. But and IMO each new Sony lens produced comes with a different look and in particular a different color output. I do however see a recognizable pattern/look and color when I use Zeiss Batis Lenses on the Sony system. Most believe Zeiss Batis lenses were manufactured by Tamron. However Zeiss designed the Batis optics and of course each Zeiss Batis lens starts with a basic time honored Zeiss design formula : Zeiss Distagon ( Batis 18, 25, 40) and  Zeiss Sonnar (Batis 85,135)

https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-products/us/home/website/photography/zeiss-batis-lenses.html

Edited December 28, 2020 by LBJ2

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[masjah]

2 minutes ago, andybarton said:

This is one of the first photographs I took, with my first Leica, an M2 with a 1973 50 Summicron. It was probably taken on Astia, or another Fuji E6 film. It was definitely the first Leica shot I had printed.

I was amazed by the 3D-ness of it. My dealer in Manchester was right. He said, on seeing the print, that you could almost put your fingers behind the ship.

 

Sadly, this view is no longer with us.

 

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!

The illusion of 3D is certainly a significant factor IMHO. (I say "illusion" because an image on paper or on a screen is of course a 2D one in actuality.) My first Leica was a Minilux, bought for me as a present. The lens was (is) a classic double Gauss design by Leica (Kölsch I think). My younger son, who has no knowledge of, nor interest in photography whatsoever, on looking at the prints from my first film, remarked  (completely unsolicited by me or anyone else btw,) that they had a 3D quality that he did not usually see in photographs. So it wasn't simply me seeing what I wanted to see. That was essentially what set me off on this absurdly expensive trail.

[P1505]

I don’t think anyone is saying there is no leica look. I think people are saying yes of course there is, but then there is a Sony look and a Canon look etc. I think the argument is that the look is no better or worse than any other, it’s subjective.

I would argue that it does not improve your photography at all beyond the subjective aspects. Would Steve McCurry’s back catalogue of images be THAT MUCH better had he used Leica gear over Nikon? Doubt it. Happy to be wrong.

I shoot Leica because of how they feel in my hand. The look is a bonus.

We could all choose our favourite 50 images of all time, see how many were shot entirely on Leica gear, and get an answer from the data. I know for a fact that I prefer the “Kodachrome shot on any old camera” look.