The main problem of the "Leica look"

[LBJ2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, P1505 said:

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.

This topic comes up all the time, year after year in many forums. From my own brief tenure with Leica, there are many on this forum and other forums who matter of factly will state there is no such thing a the Leica look and will even tease, mock the same. They have already posted on this thread and for sure more to come. I noted one previously unbeliever known from previous Leica Look threads now in this thread interesting enough seems to have become a Leica Look believer...that's interesting. 

Emotions, culture, experience, training, bias and biology all contribute to how each of us experience life and the arts/technology differently. Hard to tell anyone they are right or wrong if they perceive or don't perceive. It is what it is but IMO always makes for a very interesting thread topic.

Edited December 28, 2020 by LBJ2

[Advertisement]

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

[P1505]

I guess we need to split things up. Digital vs film Leica. With film the body is just a light tight box, so the only factor is the lens and the film and Leica don’t make film. And I’d think that of course Leica lenses render in a unique Leica way.

With digital you have to throw in the sensor, all the micro lenses and other layers of filters and glass and stuff. And then the in camera software. Of course, 100% that will result in a different look. Can’t argue that at all.

So all there is to argue is which one is better, which is an argument only the foolish would engage in unless in jest. As it’s personal.

Once it hits Lightroom, all bets are off. All I know is my Sony gear was sold because everything looks cold and clinical and the Leica stuff feels warm and alive. To me. Not to everyone.

[LBJ2]

IMO the look is due mainly to the optical design and how the lens is made which are all repeatable processes regardless if the lens is made for film or digital. 

Yes, film in particular and the dark room can have a great effect on the aesthetics of an image just as post processing. Several different sensor related technologies and in-camera colour processing also. But the lens signature and even colour can still present a "look" unique to a specific optical formula and production process even when used on different film, sensors etc. I have noted harsh light, natural or artificial can destroy the unique "look" film or digital and heavy editing can of course erase the same.

[LBJ2]

2 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

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

An image I took with a Zeiss Batis 135 ( Sonnar) from a Sony sensor with one of thickest sensor stacks on the market, even post processed, is able to present what I think display characteristics associated with the Zeiss 3D Pop. * If you don't see the pop, step back from your monitor 1 to 2 M.

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

[adan]

7 hours ago, Chaemono said:

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

The phrase "the Leica look" and "the Leica glow" long, long predate the existence of scanners and .DNGs. One can find it in magazines such as Popular/Modern Photography from the 1950s. Sometimes it was expanded into comparing "German Flint Glass" with "Japanese Rare-Earth Glass," although frankly I doubt that was the real difference.

Therefore, the idea that "Only untouched DNGs qualify for the Leica look IMO" is nonsense, or at best grossly incomplete and unobservant.

Whatever "the Leica look" may be (or whether it exists at all), it was obviously distinguishable to many using film and paper alone, with no electronic intervention.

__________________________

Here is my sample of one of the possible distinctive looks I associate with Leitz/Leica lenses. It is with the 135mm APO-Telyt on an M9. I show a crop and the whole image because the key lies in the interaction of the micro-contrasts of small details with the macro-contrast of the whole scene.

But the funny thing is, the first time this look jumped up and slapped me in the face was with a similar portrait composition, and a 50mm Elmar f/3.5 on a IIIc (and Tri-X) in 1973 or thereabouts. When I saw this image pop up on the computer screen, it was "deja vue all over again." So it is something consistent in the DNA of Leica lens design.

(However, I would not be surprised if someone can get something similar with this or that Sony/Zeiss/Nikkor/Canon/Voigtlander - it might just take more work. And not every Leica lens behaves exactly the same way).

I would classify this as falling in the area of "a kind of contrast." Strong microcontrasts and control of the point-spread function (i.e. even the smallest edges well-defined by tonal separation), without resorting to strong macro-contrast (the overall laydown of tones from black to white). Or in other words, Leica doesn't quit worrying about MTF at 40 lpmm just because that is where the charts end*. They still appreciate raw resolution. But they would prefer to not blitz the highlights or block the shadows with overall contrast (what my friend meant when he claimed Nikkors has "contrast in all the wrong places").

It might also qualify as "3-Dness" in that the microcontrasts emphasize the pits and wrinkles and hairs and flesh with a certain stark chiaroscuro,** while the brighter grays of the nose tip and the background still separate. That chiaroscuro might also qualify as a kind of "glow" - although I tend to reserve that term for the pre-1985 Summiluxes' spherical-aberration halos.

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!

___________

* I believe Peter Karbe said, regarding the SL lenses, that Leica might have to start charting MTF all the way down to 60 lpmm.

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiaroscuro

 

[LBJ2]

A Noctilux 50 f0,95 image taken with the M10 + B+W XS-Pro Kaesemann Polarizer screwed to the front which introduces an additional foreign element to the Noctilux optical design. This image is SOOC RAW other than I use the slider to eliminate the filter induced vignette. 

A crazy image ( probably why I like it) but even with the CPL on the front of the lens, I still see the signature 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 40 Minuten schrieb LBJ2:

An image I took with a Zeiss Batis 135 ( Sonnar) from a Sony sensor with one of thickest sensor stacks on the market, even post processed, is able to present what I think display characteristics associated with the Zeiss 3D Pop. * If you don't see the pop, step back from your monitor 1 to 2 M.

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!

Zeiss 3D Pop is often confused with the Leica look but is ≠ Leica look. Zeiss lens characteristic wide open is sharp object against an equally blurred background. The 55 Otus exemplifies this. With Leica lenses there is often less Pop but more depth due to gradual roll-off. Last but one here Otus 55, last 50 Summilux-SL, for example, shows this: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-GGCRrg/ The woman kneeling in the church also shows the difference clearly between 3D Pop and depth rendering. 

[LBJ2]

1 minute ago, Chaemono said:

Zeiss 3D Pop is often confused with the Leica look but is ≠ Leica look. Zeiss lens characteristic wide open is sharp object against an equally blurred background. The 55 Otus exemplifies this. With Leica lenses there is often less Pop but more depth due to gradual roll-off. Last but one here Otus 55, last 50 Summilux-SL, for example, shows this: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-GGCRrg/ The woman kneeling in the church also shows the difference clearly between 3D Pop and depth rendering. 

I agree. Zeiss/Leica = two different looks. Some of the native Sony FE lenses deliver fantastic pop/depth/micro contrast but not the Zeiss or Leica look.

Edited December 28, 2020 by LBJ2

[Chaemono]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb adan:

The phrase "the Leica look" and "the Leica glow" long, long predate the existence of scanners and .DNGs. One can find it in magazines such as Popular/Modern Photography from the 1950s. Sometimes it was expanded into comparing "German Flint Glass" with "Japanese Rare-Earth Glass," although frankly I doubt that was the real difference.

Therefore, the idea that "Only untouched DNGs qualify for the Leica look IMO" is nonsense, or at best grossly incomplete and unobservant.

Whatever "the Leica look" may be (or whether it exists at all), it was obviously distinguishable to many using film and paper alone, with no electronic intervention.

__________________________

Here is my sample of one of the possible distinctive looks I associate with Leitz/Leica lenses. It is with the 135mm APO-Telyt on an M9. I show a crop and the whole image because the key lies in the interaction of the micro-contrasts of small details with the macro-contrast of the whole scene.

But the funny thing is, the first time this look jumped up and slapped me in the face was with a similar portrait composition, and a 50mm Elmar f/3.5 on a IIIc (and Tri-X) in 1973 or thereabouts. When I saw this image pop up on the computer screen, it was "deja vue all over again." So it is something consistent in the DNA of Leica lens design.

(However, I would not be surprised if someone can get something similar with this or that Sony/Zeiss/Nikkor/Canon/Voigtlander - it might just take more work. And not every Leica lens behaves exactly the same way).

I would classify this as falling in the area of "a kind of contrast." Strong microcontrasts and control of the point-spread function (i.e. even the smallest edges well-defined by tonal separation), without resorting to strong macro-contrast (the overall laydown of tones from black to white). Or in other words, Leica doesn't quit worrying about MTF at 40 lpmm just because that is where the charts end*. They still appreciate raw resolution. But they would prefer to not blitz the highlights or block the shadows with overall contrast (what my friend meant when he claimed Nikkors has "contrast in all the wrong places").

It might also qualify as "3-Dness" in that the microcontrasts emphasize the pits and wrinkles and hairs and flesh with a certain stark chiaroscuro,** while the brighter grays of the nose tip and the background still separate. That chiaroscuro might also qualify as a kind of "glow" - although I tend to reserve that term for the pre-1985 Summiluxes' spherical-aberration halos.

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!

___________

* I believe Peter Karbe said, regarding the SL lenses, that Leica might have to start charting MTF all the way down to 60 lpmm.

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiaroscuro

 

Perfect example. Got it. You have a much better trained eye than I do, including looking at prints.

[LBJ2]

15 minutes ago, Steven said:

I see the pop. Do you still use your sony ? If not, why? Was it the look? 

I am hard-core Sony and now specifically, Leica M photog. Two very different systems I know. I learned photography on Sony FF mirrorless and have adapted some of the great/lengendary optics to Sony cameras over the years and that is when I started to notice these unique but consistent looks from Zeiss, Contax G, Leica etc. Once I started to see and appreciate the various "looks" I was seeing, I had to try Leica M and eventually buy my first Leica camera the M10. 

Edited December 28, 2020 by LBJ2

[Guest BlackBarn]

15 minutes ago, adan said:

Whatever "the Leica look" may be

Regardless.....great photo!

[tom.w.bn]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb 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.
 

Leica has cameras and lenses. I'm interested in their cameras, you seem to be more interested in their lenses.

[LBJ2]

11 minutes ago, Steven said:

Interesting. 

Do you manage to get very similar photos on the Sony (which sony btw) and the M10 when using the same lens on each camera ? 

I know the lens choice is a huge part. I am wondering how the sensor affects photography, in your experience and opinion. 

For me, I managed to get an extremely similar image with my Sony and my Leica is daily, outdoor. The big difference was indoor, at night, were Leica produces nice colours and skin tones while the Sony lost its mind. 

" ...while the Sony lost its mind" LMAO

Lens colour can and does have a big colour impact--oddly often ignored when people debate "colour science" on the various forums. 

Sony continues to receive colour criticism across the internet. But I can tell you, what once was Sony colour is no longer Sony colour. Sony seem to tweak colour processing with each new camera model ( which probably means in-camera WB changes too). I think I read Leica tweaks colors in their new cameras too but I only know the Leica M10. 

Personally I don't have any issues with skin tones and Sony cameras. But I would have to know more details about your workflow and settings to be of much help/advise with your scenario. Feel free to PM if you like. 

FWIW, when creating deliverables, I never mix and match cameras and lenses unless some unforeseen circumstances because it causes me too much editing time and even then it can be very difficult given all the parameters, even with a very controlled workflow. For instance, to this day, I still can't match all blue sky colours as perfectly as I would like to match a series in LR If someone has a recipe for rock solid blue sky matching in LR please send a PM ! 🙏

BTW, I think BSI sensor tech can create some significant differences too. Sony has used BSI for some time now and Leica SL photogs are about to see what I mean with the new SL2-S w/ BSI sensor. M10 is not BSI and I think the Sony camera you are using is BSI. 

 

[Dennis]

 I can bet that with a Nikon D700 (to mention one) and a specific Nikon ED lens, plus Capture One, I can create whatever look you want. I understand the character, rendering, 3d-pop... But the Leica look, I think it doesn't exist. Like the Cron King of Bokeh... They are urban legends, keen to tell in our stories, but they are not based on anything.
and by the way, whatever the Leica-look looks like, I like it very much. 🙌

Good vibes

[Chaemono]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Dennis:

 I can bet that with a Nikon D700 (to mention one) and a specific Nikon ED lens, plus Capture One, I can create whatever look you want. I understand the character, rendering, 3d-pop... But the Leica look, I think it doesn't exist. Like the Cron King of Bokeh... They are urban legends, keen to tell in our stories, but they are not based on anything.
and by the way, whatever the Leica-look looks like, I like it very much. 🙌

Good vibes

Many times you probably can emulate it. Last sentence of the write-up.

https://www.artphotoacademy.com/the-leica-look/

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.

[LBJ2]

15 minutes ago, Dennis said:

 I can bet that with a Nikon D700 (to mention one) and a specific Nikon ED lens, plus Capture One, I can create whatever look you want. I understand the character, rendering, 3d-pop... But the Leica look, I think it doesn't exist. Like the Cron King of Bokeh... They are urban legends, keen to tell in our stories, but they are not based on anything.
and by the way, whatever the Leica-look looks like, I like it very much. 🙌

Good vibes

You have a lot of company with similar sentiments! 

At the end of the day a memorable image is made up of many attributes. A certain optical signature is only part of the final result. I've seen beautiful images that are to my eye, flat as a pancake for instance, and void of any signature look. I like the saying if you want an interesting image take a picture of something interesting! 

[Jeff S]

30 minutes ago, Steven said:

There are tons and tons of example of the Leica looks on the LFI gallery. They are not reproducible by other camera system in my opinion.

Here are a few, from different cameras and lens combos. I really didn't have to dig deep to copy/paste a couple. 

https://lfi-online.de/ceemes/en/gallery/m-mastershots/Some-Circles-1196395.html

https://lfi-online.de/ceemes/en/gallery/sl-mastershots/Two-Boys-1058220.html

https://lfi-online.de/ceemes/en/gallery/q-mastershots/Espen-1219891.html

https://lfi-online.de/ceemes/en/gallery/q-mastershots/Living-Room-1156625.html

https://lfi-online.de/ceemes/en/gallery/q-mastershots/Christmas-at-gypsy-family-509341.html

https://lfi-online.de/ceemes/en/gallery/m-mastershots/Humbleness-1079784.html

https://lfi-online.de/ceemes/en/gallery/m-mastershots/La-Dolce-Velly-1228501.html

https://lfi-online.de/ceemes/en/gallery/m-mastershots/Low-Emissions-1181268.html

https://lfi-online.de/ceemes/en/gallery/m-mastershots/Reflection-1077322.html

Looking through the many posted LUF camera-specific pics, using a variety of quality Leica camera/lenses, I guess that some folks here must be using fake or defective gear.  Either that, or the photographer (and editor) really do matter.  
 

And even when the user is talented and fully competent, the ‘look’ of their work, even when using identical gear (including Leica) varies dramatically. That’s been shown time and again by the styles of many different photographers and printers, past and present. Once rendered in fine print, the viewer generally has no clue about gear used, nor do they care.  Screen shots don’t tell me much, and my guess is that you (and others) would fail miserably in a blind test of quality prints produced by a variety of gear. 
 

Increasingly more companies are cranking out quality lenses (and cameras) these days, due in large part to technological and production advancements.  Great IQ comes in many forms and packages.  And that’s besides the tremendous variability in modern software enhancements. 
 

The Leica difference for me is not a unique look; it relates more to its excellence in viewing and focusing systems (best RF, best EVF, and the S optical finder), simple interface and controls, fantastic design/build quality and ergonomics,  and a broad line of consistently high quality lenses (with a range of rendering characteristics) over many decades.  Other companies have lens gems within their lines, but Leica doesn’t have many duds or poorer stepchildren. A great photographer, however, doesn’t need the best gear to create gorgeous work (see E. Weston prints). Some do a lot with a little; others create mediocre work with the most expensive equipment.  That’s been true for film and digital, Leica or other.

Jeff

 

[pippy]

On 12/26/2020 at 9:17 PM, TomB_tx said:

...In going through them projected large he flagged several to remove, saying "That wasn't with a Leica lens." He was right in every case. I couldn't tell the difference, but that convinced me the difference was there...

Funnily enough I had rather a similar experience but which was approached from the 'other end'.

For my very first submission in the first week, first term of my college course (1984) we were asked to submit four printed images on a particular theme. During the communal crit when mine were being assessed our lecturer announced 'Philip has failed the project'. When I asked why he said that the criteria in part insisted that all images had to be shot on 35mm film and, clearly, "That one wasn't shot on 35mm film". I insisted it was and declared I could show him the negative to prove it. He then backtracked slightly and said "That wasn't taken on the same camera as the other three." I agreed and that told him "Those three were shot with a Nikon F; that one with a Leica M2."

He smiled and said; "Ah! You have a Leica!!!..."

We got on very well after that first session.

Philip.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LBJ2]

5 minutes ago, pippy said:

Funnily enough I had rather a similar experience but which was approached from the 'other end'.

For my very first submission in the first week, first term of my college course (1984) we were asked to submit four printed images on a particular theme. During the communal crit when mine were being assessed our lecturer announced 'Philip has failed the project'. When I asked why he said that the criteria in part insisted that all images had to be shot on 35mm film and, clearly, "That one wasn't shot on 35mm film". I insisted it was and declared I could show him the negative to prove it. He then backtracked slightly and said "That wasn't taken on the same camera as the other three." I agreed and that told him "Those three were shot with a Nikon F; that one with a Leica M2."

He smiled and said; "Ah! You have a Leica!!!..."

We got on very well after that first session.

Philip.

Excellent story ! 

[Dennis]

2 hours ago, Chaemono said:

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.

I entirely agree with this. And it fantastic to have already the Leica look on camera instead of spending time on PP. I want to have a great DNG on camera and apply a very slight PP. No vice versa, of course.
And I guess we all here agree that the M system is an incredible tool. And as I told here previously, I enjoy shooting more with Leica than with Nikon, for example, for many reasons: the rangefinder first, IQ, different and more unique workflow, weight, size, and much more. But there are many factors together that make the M a terrific system for me. No doubt about it. 
But my point is that I don't buy Leica stuff for the look, but for all the rest. Does it make sense?