The main problem of the "Leica look"

[masjah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

If there is a 'Leica look' it is because Leica (along with other miniature camera manufacturers) gave the photographer the ability to use his or her feet. Feet are the most valuable accessory a Leica photographer could have (apologies to those who can't move, there are workarounds). It has always allowed them to move in, out, or sideways to compose an image so they can accentuate the subject of the photo while at the same time shooting quickly to make at least one photo where there isn't a telegraph pole coming out of the subjects head.

If for example you look at HCB's images there is very little that's distracting in the background or to the sides of the frame, and yet the background is still an integral part of the context. This is because he used his feet and looked at both the foreground and background before pressing the shutter. He then edited his images aggressively. Bring it up to date and you can have photographers such as Trent Parke (whether or not he uses a Leica) who can make the most complex compositions and the eye is drawn to what he wants you to see. Same for Winogrand etc. My criticism of 'the modern Leica look' is that simply pressing the shutter on a Leica camera is enough work for the day. People do a lap of honour for getting the subject in focus, or if they capture somebody walking down the street or doing an everyday job in an everyday way it's time to crack the champagne. Gone is careful accurate and thoughtful framing (feet again), and in comes an authenticity simply based on ownership of a Leica, a bogus substitute for skill in many cases. 

I do wonder though, where would that leave Leica reflex photography? A lot of my work is related to architectural photography, often tripod based, where careful and accurate composition and framing, careful and accurate focussing, and careful and accurate exposure control are of the essence, and are taken for granted, and equally so whatever camera system I might be using.  In such circumstances, therefore, would there be no such thing as a specific Leica look?

 

[pgk]

9 hours ago, pippy said:

With the greatest respect, Paul, and while I agree with pretty much every thing you have written here, I do remember reading, back in the 1980's, that Lietz did utilise unique to Leitz formulae of different glasses for their lenses in comparison to their competitors - mainly in the addition of rare earth elements aspect IIRC - so possibly not all is shrouded in world of Mythical Beasts and Iguanas...

Philip.

Philip. Lietz were not alone in doing so. I think that Nikon did the same. And some Pentax lenses are 'radioactive' too. Glass technology progressed but manufacturers gave up producing it themselves a long time ago. Now glass is selected from technical data catalogues or its characteristics specified if the buyer can afford to do so. Technology progresses but no one manufacturer of lenses made massive lens breakthroughs all of a sudden, nor were any unaware of what the others were doing - I am confident to say that when a new 'better' lens evolved, many would have been dismantled, analysed and lessons learnt by other makers and the knowledge gained would have been used. There is no Leica 'look' attributable to lenses because in order for there to be one, designs would have had to have incorporated a specific output requirement. This can't have happened because of the variance of designs/designers/lens requirements. The 'look' is a myth in as much as it is not down to the glass. Others have commented on alternative reasons which are far more likely to give a coherence to images than the glass,

[pippy]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Philip. Lietz were not alone in doing so. I think that Nikon did the same......The 'look' is a myth in as much as it is not down to the glass. Others have commented on alternative reasons which are far more likely to give a coherence to images than the glass,

Oh, I'm sure you are correct, Paul.

The 'Leitz' glass I mentioned was (I believe) required because of the relatively unique slim (in comparison to SLRs) nature of the M series body when paired with a very compact lens. I think it was all to do with a higher refractive index used in their very wide angle non-retrofocus lenses. Not in creating / continuing a 'Leica Look' whatsoever.

I think I read about it in Leitz advertising material at the time but it was just more advertising 'bumph' which was published around 35 years ago so my memory isn't too clear on the details.

Philip.

 

[250swb]

2 hours ago, masjah said:

I do wonder though, where would that leave Leica reflex photography? A lot of my work is related to architectural photography, often tripod based, where careful and accurate composition and framing, careful and accurate focussing, and careful and accurate exposure control are of the essence, and are taken for granted, and equally so whatever camera system I might be using.  In such circumstances, therefore, would there be no such thing as a specific Leica look?

 

I don't really think there is a Leica look. But I think people who've spent a lot of money on a camera hope for uniqueness. The type of camera can generate a typical type of image, but it's a wide open playing field especially with miniature cameras. A for-instance, many combat photographers in Vietnam used both Nikon SLR's and Leica rangefinders side by side. Did their picture editors ever get exasperated that they couldn't do a layout across two pages because the style of the photograph kept changing? Of course not. The photographer overrides the camera and equipment is simply a choice, or it would be if people didn't invent the idea of a 'Leica look' and then keep trying to emulate it. Anybody in doubt should ask themselves if they've every worried about not having enough creamy bokeh? On the other hand almost every month in LFI magazine you can see Leica photography that defeats preconceptions about what can be photographed and how the photographs will look. 

Edited December 29, 2020 by 250swb

[Guest Nowhereman]

5 hours ago, 250swb said:

If there is a 'Leica look' it is because Leica (along with other miniature camera manufacturers) gave the photographer the ability to use his or her feet....If for example you look at HCB's images there is very little that's distracting in the background or to the sides of the frame, and yet the background is still an integral part of the context...Bring it up to date and you can have photographers such as Trent Parke (whether or not he uses a Leica) who can make the most complex compositions and the eye is drawn to what he wants you to see. Same for Winogrand etc. My criticism of 'the modern Leica look' is that simply pressing the shutter on a Leica camera is enough work for the day...Gone is careful accurate and thoughtful framing (feet again), and in comes an authenticity simply based on ownership of a Leica, a bogus substitute for skill in many cases. 

I have trouble with this type of prescription for "good photography" — apart from setting up of the straw man of people thinking they'll have a good photography just by shooting with a Leica.

My problem is with the idea of setting up rules such as that backgrounds should not be complex or distracting. Like the "rule of thirds", this "complexity rule" is not something that must be followed: sometimes a photographer may want complexity in the background to reflect the type of chaos, for example, often seen in Southeast Asian cities. Yes, one can look at Ralph Gibson and the subtractive concept of reductive composition, or that of Michael  Kenna; but the opposite approach can also be valid.

M-Monochrom | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 1250 | f/5.6 | 1/125 sec | Chiang Mai

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!

________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

 

[Chaemono]

Got another one with gradual transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas. Otus would have blurred the heck out of everything behind the focus point.

Less compressed JPEG here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-GDsFC2/i-Gw9G4s2/A

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]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, Chaemono said:

Got another one with gradual transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas. Otus would have blurred the heck out of everything behind the focus point.

Less compressed JPEG here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-GDsFC2/i-Gw9G4s2/A

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!

Some major 3D Pop going on in this photo! As I posted before, stepping back from the monitor can help enhance the effect for those that might not be able to see it. Checking out the photo on the url posted, I see the photos was taken with the SL2-S ( BSI) + 75 Noctilux. 

Just curious, are you by any chance able to re-create similar composition with another non Leica camera and fast lens to compare. 

Edited December 30, 2020 by LBJ2

[Chaemono]

vor 19 Minuten schrieb LBJ2:

Some major 3D Pop going on in this photo! As I posted before, stepping back from the monitor can help enhance the effect for those that might not be able to see it. Checking out the photo on the url posted, I see the photos was taken with the SL2-S ( BSI) + 75 Noctilux. 

Just curious, are you by any chance able to re-create similar composition with another non Leica camera and fast lens to compare. 

I’ll try M10-P + 75 Summicron-M. It may take a couple of days. We’ve had nothing but rain with a few exceptions for a couple of weeks now.

[LBJ2]

18 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

I’ll try M10-P + 75 Summicron-M. It may take a couple of days. We’ve had nothing but rain with a few exceptions for a couple of weeks now.

Thank you. That would be an interesting compare too. BTW, the Cartwheel image on your Smugmug is a pretty cool "almost like you are there" look too. 

Edited December 30, 2020 by LBJ2

[LBJ2]

Blind test. No EXIF. Which one is the Leica image, first image or second image? Which one is the non Leica image, first image or second image? 

*Both images were RAW imported to LR with respective LR default profiles applied and exported as jpeg. SOOC other than a tiny crop and matched exposure on one image best I could.

Both cameras set to Daylight WB in camera and F4

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 30, 2020 by LBJ2

[pedaes]

43 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

Blind test. No EXIF. Which one is the Leica image, first image or second image? Which one is the non Leica image, first image or second image? 

*Both images were RAW imported to LR with respective LR default profiles applied and exported as jpeg. SOOC other than a tiny crop and matched exposure on one image best I could.

Both cameras set to Daylight WB in camera and F4

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 second image is 'sharper' (logo) but so what. 

[250swb]

On 12/29/2020 at 2:38 PM, Nowhereman said:

I have trouble with this type of prescription for "good photography" — apart from setting up of the straw man of people thinking they'll have a good photography just by shooting with a Leica.

My problem is with the idea of setting up rules such as that backgrounds should not be complex or distracting. Like the "rule of thirds", this "complexity rule" is not something that must be followed: sometimes a photographer may want complexity in the background to reflect the type of chaos, for example, often seen in Southeast Asian cities. Yes, one can look at Ralph Gibson and the subtractive concept of reductive composition, or that of Michael  Kenna; but the opposite approach can also be valid.

M-Monochrom | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 1250 | f/5.6 | 1/125 sec | Chiang Mai

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!

________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

 

I think either I wasn't clear or you misunderstood me, complex backgrounds are a distraction when they don't contribute context. I'm not insisting on rules, but just look at the photograph to decide if your gaze is taken away from the subject. I would agree your example is a fine photograph, a complex image that all hangs together.

Edited December 30, 2020 by 250swb

[pgk]

1 hour ago, LBJ2 said:

Blind test. No EXIF. Which one is the Leica image, first image or second image? Which one is the non Leica image, first image or second image? 

Problem is that they aren't taken under absolutely identical conditions, both are processed and trying to determine anything from a file downsized to 1200x1800 pixels isn't possible. So I have no idea. 

[LBJ2]

30 minutes ago, pgk said:

Problem is that they aren't taken under absolutely identical conditions, both are processed and trying to determine anything from a file downsized to 1200x1800 pixels isn't possible. So I have no idea. 

Yes, some minutes apart in fast changing natural morning light. I Really didn't process unless you feel importing into LR is "processing". LR does apply profiles per camera/lens model + Adobe colors. They are both surprisingly very close even in colors..but there are some nuances. 

Edited December 30, 2020 by LBJ2

[pgk]

15 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

.....but there are some nuances. 

Even so nuances are hard to see. Ad they may or may not be relevant. Optical design is very technical these days. A friend who is a lens designer recently did some work for me looking at a very old 1857 lens and he could predict MTF data, field curvature, aberration details and a great deal more, very quickly and easily. The transition from point of focus to out of focus can be 'designed' these days too - Zeiss have published about this some years ago in a paper which was readily available. Basically designers can control how lenses produce images because they have software and computing power which enables them to do so and they understand a huge amount about cause and effect of optical design. In the past this was not so much the case so lenses would have characteristics which were not predicted, but may sometimes  have been the product of experience - Mandler's 35mm Summilux is such a lens because lens designers concluded in a paper on this lens written in the early 2000s, that its performance could not have been bettered given the glass types available when it was designed. Mandler seems to have combined technical design with his experience of outcomes and produced an extraordinary lens in this case. My point is that in order for there to be any specific look, then designers need to know exactly what the parameters which produce this look actually are. As many varied designers have worked on Leica M lenses during a period of evolving optical design, this is unlikely in the extreme. So whilst there often are nuances of difference between lenses, these nuances are not consistent over time and lenses.

[P1505]

The top one is better to my eyes.

The 3D effect on the bridge though! Damn!

[LBJ2]

50 minutes ago, Steven said:

I would say that the first image is the Leica. 

I would also like to add that with all due respect, this is a meaningless blind test. I have tested camera side by side, on landscapes, brick walls, dolls... Under exactly these same "testing conditions", all images look approximately the same. 

The magic with the Leica look, as far as im concerned, is that it's not automatic. You don't press the shutter and get a magic image. It's a reward. It happens sometimes. Out of every 5 pictures, I could have taken 4 with any cameras. Thats why I think some people debunk the Leica look. They have been unlucky. But the fifth photo, the one where the planets aligned, and the light was just right... then I ll get that Leica shot, one that is impossible to reproduce with any other camera or post processing software. 

No worries. I agree with what you wrote about my "meaningless blind test" In fact my own frustration is I don't know the exact conditions/settings to create the Look! I only know it when I see it after the shutter fires. The Leica Look is rare in my own frames. I posted what I think is one of my best most recent Leica Look creations in the Lady sitting on the car image I posted on a previous page in this thread.

I do not think I captured an obvious Leica Look in the blind test I posted either. FWIW, in this blind test ( flawed as it is) I was amazed how similar between two very different cameras and two very different lenses. * Also, I wanted to use f4 because many will complain the Look is nothing more than a wide aperture/ small DoF look. But Mister Steven, there are nuances for those that have the tendency to look carefully, even with the "meaningless blind test" I posted and as you continued "Under exactly these same testing conditions, all images look approximately the same" again as you so rightfully proclaimed. 

Here is what I think I have pinned down regarding the magical Leica Look:

1. Wider than F4 is more common, but can be seen in smaller apertures too.

2. Light has to be just right. Harsh light natural or artificial annihilates the look ( That's why I did an early morning Blind Test with more even less harsh light)

3. I see the Leica look more often coming out of my Summilux APSH 50 and Noctilux 50 f0,95 on the only Leica camera I have ever owned, the M10

Even with your criticism of my sloppy blind test, you selected the Leica image 😃. The first image even down sampled is the 24MP LEICA M10 Summilux APSH 50. The second image is the 61MP Sony A7rIV + Sony FE 50 F1.4 which BTW, is known to be a very fine optic often called the Baby Zeiss Otus. 

As I mentioned...too many times already, even a sloppy blind test and severely downsized images still allows nuances for those that take the time to scrutinize. Thanks for looking and commenting. 

Edited December 30, 2020 by LBJ2

[Jeff S]

41 minutes ago, Steven said:

The magic with the Leica look, as far as im concerned, is that it's not automatic. You don't press the shutter and get a magic image. It's a reward. It happens sometimes. Out of every 5 pictures, I could have taken 4 with any cameras. Thats why I think some people debunk the Leica look. They have been unlucky. But the fifth photo, the one where the planets aligned, and the light was just right... then I ll get that Leica shot, one that is impossible to reproduce with any other camera or post processing software. 

Planets align similarly with lots of different gear... and light...and shooting technique,  etc.  And that’s before editing and printing plays a critical role. Print display lighting alone can turn a good image/print into one that ‘sings’. There are myriad ‘looks’ possible using any given gear, across many brands (many of which, including Leica, have many decades of continually evolving designs and formats).

Jeff

[LBJ2]

52 minutes ago, Steven said:

15 years using canon, Sony and nikon, with the finest optics, and the planets have never aligned for me. I took fine photos because I liked the subject or the message, but IQ wise, nothing ever unique. 
Since I tasted Leica, I am seeing the planet alignement several times a week. 
 

since you also mention post processing, Sony canon and Nikon required extensive time spent in Lr and PS. With Leica, when I compare before after, there’s almost no edit done to the sooc photo. They are already alive in my eyes. 
 

strange for me to see a forum user with dozens of thousands of posts be the one to reject the Leica look and say Leica’s are like other cameras. You have a frigid sense of objectivity. So much that one could wonder if you’re not a Sony spy! Jokes aside though, you were one of the first person to respond to my first post in this forum a few months ago, and your answer was already very puzzling then. I still haven’t managed to see through who you are, Jeff (digitally speaking of course). 
 

lbj2, great post above. I’m going to sleep so I’ll answer tomorrow. But just to let you know that I didn’t mean to be mean with my comment about the test being meaningless. What I really meant was that it was meaningless to me if I answered the wrong image. But the test was actually great ! I appreciate the time you took to post it. Cheers. 

If there is a Sony guy lurking these Leica forums its ME! Sony FF mirrorless is my first love. Leica M is my mistress 🙃

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[aksclix]

What do you call an image from a non-Leica camera that has the Leica look?

lookaLeic 🤔