The Iconic Leica Look

[Herman Zhang]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's a shame that m10 and m11 lost the leica look in terms of how the colour is rendered, and that's one of the reasons why I got a m240 over m10.

[Advertisement]

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

[a.noctilux]

14 minutes ago, Herman Zhang said:

It's a shame that m10 and m11 lost the leica look in terms of how the colour is rendered, and that's one of the reasons why I got a m240 over m10.

Your opinion is not shared by M10x* or M11x* user.

 

* mainly in Monochrom models

** anyway we are here even to read some opinions

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by a.noctilux

[pippy]

21 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Say what?

Yeah. I've only just realised who this clown is. It's been a fortnight since I worked out that each thread they've started is intended to wind-us-up-and-set-us-off.

I must remember to put them on my 'Ignore User' list.

P.

[elmars]

vor einer Stunde schrieb pippy:

Yes, Al, but to be fair the 50mm f1.5 Summarit was really just a mildly-tweaked Xenon (TTH design from 1930 originally licensed to Zeiss and subsequently licensed to Leitz) and, being a 7 element / 5 group optical design has practically nothing in common with the famous 'Cooke Triplet' apart from TTH having being given the licensing rights to market Cooke's lenses.

It does show the 'Leica Look' off quite well, though......😸......just for a giggle here's the very first pic I took with my own 1953 Summarit (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!

Philip.

Absolutely great photo!

[pippy]

16 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

...there’s hordes of forum individuals here in LUF who start meaningless threads with clickbait titles and completely chewed up content...

To be fair there has been quite a bit of fun and info posted here so it's not been all bad by any stretch of the imagination. Sadly - having just checked on an earlier thread started by the same OP - we still don't have an answer to the burning question of the day; i.e. 'Which shampoo was favoured by HCB?'...

😸

Philip.

 

[52K]

On 12/19/2023 at 6:43 PM, Al Brown said:

The Leica look is the look your wife gives you when she sees your bank statement.

The best answer on here 🙂 

[Pyrogallol]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/20/2023 at 3:34 PM, pippy said:

To be fair there has been quite a bit of fun and info posted here so it's not been all bad by any stretch of the imagination. Sadly - having just checked on an earlier thread started by the same OP - we still don't have an answer to the burning question of the day; i.e. 'Which shampoo was favoured by HCB?'...

😸

Philip.

 

Rodinal.

[fotomas]

HC-110 Dilution B

[hepcat]

On 12/20/2023 at 9:34 AM, pippy said:

To be fair there has been quite a bit of fun and info posted here so it's not been all bad by any stretch of the imagination. Sadly - having just checked on an earlier thread started by the same OP - we still don't have an answer to the burning question of the day; i.e. 'Which shampoo was favoured by HCB?'...

😸

Philip.

 

C'mon people.  Seriously?  Rodinal?  HC-110?  I absolutely abhor these silly discussions.  What a waste of time.  EVERYONE knows that the brand of shampoo wasn't important.  What was important was the one minute pre-soak in 72º distilled water with a gentle agitation routine prior to applying whatever developer... errr... I mean... shampoo there was laying around that's important.  Pre-softening the emulsion...err... I mean scalp is what was MOST important. 

[pippy]

1 hour ago, hepcat said:

C'mon people.  Seriously?  Rodinal?  HC-110?  I absolutely abhor these silly discussions.  What a waste of time.  EVERYONE knows that the brand of shampoo wasn't important.  What was important was the one minute pre-soak in 72º distilled water with a gentle agitation routine prior to applying whatever developer... errr... I mean... shampoo there was laying around that's important.  Pre-softening the emulsion...err... I mean scalp is what was MOST important. 

...not forgetting to use some wetting-agent to act as a 'Conditioner' in the rinse-wash stage to sort-out any tangles...

P.

[Indeepthought]

I must have got something wrong- I washed my SD card and then used conditioner- it doesn’t work now! 🫣

[Indeepthought]

In all seriousness, the Leica Look does exist, as does the Nikon, Canon, Pentax look. Going back to Leica, whether B&W or color,  contrast and light all contribute to the Leica Look. Some people don’t like steak! That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist!  😎

[LocalHero1953]

On 12/25/2023 at 5:24 PM, Al Brown said:

Sorry completely wrong thread - my answer above was meant for a Lenses thread. Apologies.

What was wrong with your post? It was a very helpful answer to the question asked by the OP.

[pippy]

4 hours ago, Indeepthought said:

In all seriousness, the Leica Look does exist, as does the Nikon, Canon, Pentax look...

Whilst I agree that there is irrefutable evidence that "The Leica Look" exists as an abstract concept I have never once seen any incontrovertible proof whatsoever that it exists in reality. I am, of course, willing to be surprised. So; let's see what anyone present can produce - right here in this thread - which will prove that this 'concept' is factual rather than merely fantastical.

Philip.

[Indeepthought]

6 minutes ago, pippy said:

Whilst I agree that there is irrefutable evidence that "The Leica Look" exists as an abstract concept I have never once seen any incontrovertible proof whatsoever that it exists in reality. I am, of course, willing to be surprised. So; let's see what anyone present can produce - right here in this thread - which will prove that this 'concept' is factual rather than merely fantastical.

Philip.

PP can alter an image and the exif can be manipulated, therefore anything posted might be questionable. I might see the LL’ in an image but will a third party? My theory is that some eyes are able to see the LL  ..

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!

[pippy]

42 minutes ago, Indeepthought said:

PP can alter an image and the exif can be manipulated, therefore anything posted might be questionable...

"Anything Posted" Indeepthought?...

My own view (FWIW) is that, empirically, the only way in which any image(s) might be considered in any discussion regarding "The Leica Look" would be for a selection of identical images to be taken at the same time of the same subject matter from the same position using a diverse range of similar lenses (1960 Canon 50mm f1.2 / Leitz 50mm f1.2 and so on); all of these images being shot on the same roll of film and that only the negatives from that particular film strip should be examined against their 'compatriots' without undergoing any further intermediary steps (such as printing) as these subsequent steps might skew the results from those of the preliminary examinations...

😺

For obvious reasons nothing shot on Digital is even remotely admissible as 'Evidence'.

Philip.

Edited December 26, 2023 by pippy

[Indeepthought]

16 minutes ago, pippy said:

"Anything Posted" Indeepthought?...

My own view (FWIW) is that, empirically, the only way in which any image(s) might be considered in any discussion regarding "The Leica Look" would be for a selection of identical images to be taken at the same time of the same subject matter from the same position using a diverse range of similar lenses (1960 Canon 50mm f1.2 / Leitz 50mm f1.2 and so on); all of which images were shot on the same roll of film and that only the negatives from that particular film strip should be examined without any further intermediary steps (such as printing) as these steps might skew the results from those primary examinations.

For obvious reasons nothing shot on Digital is even remotely admissible as 'Evidence'.

😺

Philip.

That’s been done! Way back, it was 3 out of 5 -5  negatives, 5 people 3 chose the Leica negative. Nothing conclusive. Here’s the question:- why do we spend thousands on Leica equipment if there is no discernible difference between Leica and other equipment? Is it marketing, I doubt it, QC, that’s iffy! IQ now that’s something else. 

[pippy]

52 minutes ago, Indeepthought said:

That’s been done! Way back, it was 3 out of 5 -5  negatives, 5 people 3 chose the Leica negative. Nothing conclusive. Here’s the question:- why do we spend thousands on Leica equipment if there is no discernible difference between Leica and other equipment? Is it marketing, I doubt it, QC, that’s iffy! IQ now that’s something else. 

I use Leica M stuff not because there is any discernible difference in IQ when compared with anything else on the market but primarily because of the way an M-camera and I interact with one another. This intuitive understanding goes back a very long way and it really is as simple as that.

Philip.

Edited December 27, 2023 by pippy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[stray cat]

I use Leica because that's what HC-B used.

[Indeepthought]

3 hours ago, pippy said:

I use a Leica M not because there is any discernible difference in IQ from anything else but primarily because of the way the camera and I interact with one another. This feeling goes back a very long way and it really is as simple as that.

Philip.