Is the high contrast look the Leica look?

[Leicaboy Norway]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm asking because I don't know.

I've personally never been a fan of dramatic images and lots of blacks in an image, combined with contrast.

But what strikes me from checking out several Leica shooters, but perhaps mostly checking out the excellent images on LFI gallery, is I've never seen so many high contrast images.

a few examples here:

 

It's like the clarity slider is pushed quite ahead in, and they're nice images, I just am curious because I rarely see Sony images or images from other manufacturers where such a big portion of the images have this look.

 

Or is it all in my head?

 

 

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

54 minutes ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

 

Or is it all in my head?

its all in your head.

[Leicaboy Norway]

1 hour ago, frame-it said:

its all in your head.

Haha, fair enough.

You do agree these are hard contrast / clarity slider photos though?

Edited August 7, 2024 by Leicaboy Norway

[Viv]

The Leica Look is a myth, like the perfect pizza.

Edited August 7, 2024 by Viv

[Leicaboy Norway]

12 minutes ago, Viv said:

The Leica Look is a myth, like the perfect pizza.

But have you been to the lfi gallery and seen? Do you not share my sentiment that there is a lot of photos there using the same contrast /clarity editing? 

[Viv]

6 minutes ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

But have you been to the lfi gallery and seen? Do you not share my sentiment that there is a lot of photos there using the same contrast /clarity editing? 

Yes, there are a lot of high-contrast photos there.

But you don't need a Leica to produce that "look", any camera will do, just as any wood-fired oven can produce a decent pizza.

[Leicaboy Norway]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, Al Brown said:

No. High contrast images are "high contrast look".
Leica look is something everybody thinks they can identify and describe but nobody can. The look is made up of M lens flaws and pixie dust, combined with physics and marketing FOMO. It does exist, but only in description - like a sasquatch or Nessie.

Ok, I think i was wrong! Thanks for the feedback though!

[frame-it]

50 minutes ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

Haha, fair enough.

You do agree these are hard contrast / clarity slider photos though?

yes, decisions made by the photographer not the camera lens.

the Leica look is all in your head as YOU said

[frame-it]

37 minutes ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

But have you been to the lfi gallery and seen? Do you not share my sentiment that there is a lot of photos there using the same contrast /clarity editing? 

yes prolly the "in thing" to do these days or weeks or months, though if a memorable shot is slightly out of focus a bit of clarity and texture helps give a "sharper" feeling.

Edited August 7, 2024 by frame-it

[evikne]

This is the look of LFI, and that's the look you should try to achieve if you want to get your images there.

[pippy]

46 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

......High contrast images are "high contrast look"......The look is made up of M lens flaws and pixie dust, combined with physics and marketing......It does exist, but only in description - like a sasquatch or Nessie......

I'm Shocked!

I agree completely about the Pixie Dust used by the Elves of Wetzlar but how can you possibly assert that Nessie doesn't exist?............

A ridiculous notion!

😸

As far as the 'High Contrast Look'? It's funny because way back in the mists of time (when 'The Myth' first came about) Leitz' lenses, famously, produced photographs which were less contrasty than, for example, those lenses manufactured by Zeiss.

How Times Photographers' Tastes Change...

Philip.

Edited August 7, 2024 by pippy

[frame-it]

16 minutes ago, pippy said:

How Times Photographers' Tastes Change...

these days it seems to be like the instagram-colorful-high-contrast look

[spydrxx]

Back in the 1960-70s Leica went back and forth trying to determine if their lenses should be designed to show increased contrast or increased resolution...in the end they thought it best to balance the two. Zeiss chose to increase contrast and what we call microcontrast today, giving their images a "pop". When I hear of the "Leica look" I tend to think of lower contrast images with fine resolution, but mostly agree that it really is a figment of the marketing department.

[pippy]

22 minutes ago, spydrxx said:

Back in the 1960-70s Leica went back and forth trying to determine if their lenses should be designed to show increased contrast or increased resolution...in the end they thought it best to balance the two. Zeiss chose to increase contrast and what we call microcontrast today, giving their images a "pop". When I hear of the "Leica look" I tend to think of lower contrast images with fine resolution, but mostly agree that it really is a figment of the marketing department.

Was it not something which came about quite a bit earlier than that, spydrxx? My understanding (from what I have read) is that the two companies' differing approaches to lens/optics-design goes back to the mid-late 1930's and most notably after Zeiss introduced their Contax II.

It is possible, of course, that there is a degree of post-rationalisation going on. It would be illuminating to know whether there were any discussions on this aspect in 'period' literature.

It would also be an interesting experiment, in the present day, to compare results obtained from two films shot concurrently; one which had been loaded into a Leica II with, say, 50mm f2.0 Summar against the other which was loaded into a Contax II with, perhaps, a 50mm f2.0 Sonnar.

In order for the results to have any value the lenses would, by neccessity, need to be in absolutely pristine condition......which rules my kit out......😸......

Philip.

[JTLeica]

I like those images a lot. All you are seeing is an editing style, nothing more.

The irony though, is Leica (at least in my opinion) is not known for high contrast. If you compare a typical Zeiss or Voigtlander lens they are generally higher contrast and a lot of the time, lower resolution. Of course not all.

I did an ultra quick comparison yesterday of a 50 APO Lanthar Voigtlander and a 50 APO Summicron, the Leica lens is lower contrast, noticeably, but more detail. Contrast make the appearance of sharpness. Easier to make a contrasty coating rather than a high resolving lens.

So definitely the Leica Look is not high contrast. If anything, the opposite. High detail, slightly muted colour and even contrast.

Also, the 'Leica look' is somewhat of a myth. Years ago with uncorrected lenses the abberations (imperfections) seen as character now, displayed similarly in some lenses, but not nowhere near uniformed. Nowadays, the NEW APO lenses like the 50 APO M and later display arguably no character, although there is still ultra smooth rendering when the background it significantly out of focus, so you could say that was character.

There is no better corrected, more 'perfect' lenses around than the new APO SL designs. I'd day these are a tiny bit more high contrast.

 

[spydrxx]

24 minutes ago, pippy said:

Was it not something which came about quite a bit earlier than that, spydrxx? My understanding (from what I have read) is that the two companies' differing approaches to lens/optics-design goes back to the mid-late 1930's and most notably after Zeiss introduced their Contax II.

It is possible, of course, that there is a degree of post-rationalisation going on. It would be illuminating to know whether there were any discussions on this aspect in 'period' literature.

It would also be an interesting experiment, in the present day, to compare results obtained from two films shot concurrently; one which had been loaded into a Leica II with, say, 50mm f2.0 Summar against the other which was loaded into a Contax II with, perhaps, a 50mm f2.0 Sonnar.

In order for the results to have any value the lenses would, by neccessity, need to be in absolutely pristine condition......which rules my kit out......😸......

Philip.

I think there was always a race, but if I remember correctly, Leica somewhere around the 60-70s concluded that they would try to balance contrast and resolution rather than try to outdo Zeiss. If I had the lenses to do a direct comparison I agree it might provide interesting results, although I'm not convinced that the man n the street could discern the difference. I believe most discernable differences at the time were probably a function of the skill of the photographer and efforts of a master printer. I've seen some of Vivian Maier's negatives and straight prints alongside those done by  skilled master printers...what a difference the use of skilled printers makes. IMHO use of them would probably erase or at least diminish the differences between the Zeiss and Leica lenses of that era. 

[pippy]

49 minutes ago, spydrxx said:

I think there was always a race, but if I remember correctly, Leica somewhere around the 60-70s concluded that they would try to balance contrast and resolution rather than try to outdo Zeiss. If I had the lenses to do a direct comparison I agree it might provide interesting results, although I'm not convinced that the man n the street could discern the difference. I believe most discernable differences at the time were probably a function of the skill of the photographer and efforts of a master printer. I've seen some of Vivian Maier's negatives and straight prints alongside those done by  skilled master printers...what a difference the use of skilled printers makes. IMHO use of them would probably erase or at least diminish the differences between the Zeiss and Leica lenses of that era. 

I agree fully about the difference a skilled printer can make. This aspect cannot be stressed enough!

On the question of whether it is possible to replicate 'the look' of Zeiss with Leica and vice-versa? Leaving aside the 'Lens Aberration' aspect for a second...

Were a photographer to shoot a medium contrast B'n'W film using a vintage Zeiss lens, process the film in a low-contrast developer and make a print using a cold-cathode/diffuser enlarger it might be considered to have more of the (perceived) 'Leica Look' than were a high contrast film to be shot using a vintage Leitz lens, processed in a high-contrast developer and printed using a point-source/condenser enlarger.

Philip.

[Leicaboy Norway]

There was this guy who hunted for the Leica look all his life. He went to the highest mountain tops, searched at the bottom of some seas..then he found an ancient cave in Tibet.

Inside this cave was an old man. He was the keeper of the secret. To be told the secret he had to solve several riddles. I am not sure whether he solved the riddles or not or where the cave is. But it I there somewhere.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Olaf_ZG]

Their is no leica look. But there is a 50mm summilux asph look though… as well as the 50mm sonnar look…

[pippy]

15 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Their is no leica look. But there is a 50mm summilux asph look though… as well as the 50mm sonnar look…

...and the 50mm f1.2 Noctilux @ f1.2 look, the 50mm F1.5 Summarit @ f1.5 look; the 50mm Summicron APO @ f11 look...

Which is to say the reality is that there is no definitive, omnipresent, unique-to-the-manufacturer 'Leica Look'.

Philip.