Leica Glow ?

<I>Maybe he should concentrate on filling the family album with with dark murky black and

white images that look more "artistic"?</I><P>

 

Now that would be dumb... Why would he want to do that?<P>

 

Seeking better light and less contrasty situations would help tremendously. There's a pretty

good color cast as well that's not flattering.<P>

 

Being open to honest and helpful criticism would be good, too.

I don't see the photos. Did they get pulled? Is that a reaction to critique?

IMHO photographic "glow," especially in portraits, emanates (or not) from the subject(s)--not from the optics. Yes, yours have glow.

Leica Glow? Maybe. Amin Glow. Definitely.

"I don't see the photos"

 

They're just obscured by the glow. If you look hard enough you'll see them glinting

through.

The hostility in this thread comes from Raid and, to some extent from Al Kaplan, not from

Mike Dixon.

 

Raid, you indicate that you are happy with the pictures but you asked whether they have

the Leica Glow; and Mike answered politely, in effect, that they were snapshot taken with

below average skill. If I was taking pictures of my family I wouldn't be happy with pictures

such as these, for the reasons Mike has stated.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

I am coming too late, the pictures have been removed. Too bad. <br>

As for the Glow (Leica or not) it seems to be a matter of well controlling the depth o Field. Stand close to your subject, focus precisely on the eye (or whatever you find worthy of focusing on) then open between f2 and f5.6 (that's what I do with a 50mm lens).

Then if you have a lens that makes a nice smooth transition from the focused to the unfocused area, you will have 3D-glow. Leica lenses have a good reputation for this...

Actually, the picture that Mike linked to is a nice example of this (but I do not know what aperture he used). Now, is it Leica or XYZ glow, it is not that relevant. <br>

I actually have been shooting with wider aperture, not relying as much on a big DOF, and I have to say I am happy with the results, the subject stand out more, even on family snapshots.<br>

Last thing, I think family snapshots should be executed with a lot of attention and care, because your loved one will be more pleased -and greatful- to see themselves in a pleasing way than just on an other so-so family snapshot.<br>

Happy shooting- <br>

Ps: I whish my Leica had a Hasselblad glow! <br>

These question-marks have a great glow indeed!

And why shouldn't it glow. For that much money it should make coffee too.

It is very difficult to work a loaded term like "mediocre" into a constructive criticism. Although a wholly subjective adjective, it has a dismissive connotation and makes opinions come off as declarations of fact. A word with similar features is "charmless." Once you use terms like these, you are in a hole if your intetion is to communicate constructive criticism.

Raid, for some reason, my browser isn't showing your photos. As to the others, by the

response to Mike's to my sense, pretty straight forward response, that there is some deep

seated animus in Leica land towards a certain way of seeing photography that doesn't seem

to neccessarily have to do with Mike or any individual at all. Am I wrong?

Raid,

 

I tried to view this page in both Firefox and IE - neither will display your photos.

 

Carsten

I, for one, would like to see a work of genius on these forums. No, I demand it!

Genius work? Here it is...<div></div>

Nice family, Raid. I didn't see the glow at first, but after downing several litres of Kosher wine, the glow radiated out and made me red!

I would assume, if someone posts images on a photography forum and asks for comments he/she is looking for an honest answer. I don't think an honest comment, even if it's a negative one, is necessarily hostile. I didn't see anything hostile in Mike Dixon's comments.

 

I also don't see anything in Raid's pics that suggest a "Leica glow." But I do in Jack Lo's which I think is a great image. Subject, composition, lighting, aperture, bokeh, everything is great.

 

My wife uses an Olympus Stylus Epic p&s for family pics, buys her print film at the supermarket, has them developed at CVS, and she consistently gets better results that Raid has shown here, and she has no interest whatsoever in achieving photographic greatness. All she does is point and shoot, pretty much at random. Sorry Raid, but that's what I see.

I agree with Bernard and some others. When I commented "Very nice" I wasn't critiquing the pics per se, but remarking on the family, and the fact that you obviously enjoy taking their photos, (altho I've seen the same expression on my wife's face, impatience. Perhaps you took too long to focus & compose?)

 

I tried to hold my comments to the question asked- about the "Leica glow", and is it here or not.

 

When you post here on the internet, you expose yourself to criticism, whether you want it or not. Replies posted in this type of medium don't convey the "tone" of the comments, so you must have a thick skin or you shouldn't post here. What may sound abrupt or mean (not that Mike's comment was mean, I'm speaking in general here)may not be the poster's intent. If you think comments are abrupt here, just try submitting work to people in the photo business, the 'real world', you'll get an earful and then some, and all not very polite!

>I see no hostility in Mike's assessment. He's just being frank.<

 

No matter what you think of the guy, there's no need to call him Frank.

I have only seen glow from slow b/w film, and older lens samples?including Leica. Low sun

angle does not constitute such glow, glowing would be more a more appropriate description.

Mike Dixon is a great guy, a good photographer, and very accurate in this case. <p>

<a href=http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-28.shtml>GLOW</a>

Thanks everyone for your comments. Maybe it's time to move on.

Does the image in the above link show 'glow'?

<i><blockquote> No matter what you think of the guy, there's no need to call him

Frank.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Shirley you're joking.

Some of the responses to Mike's comments are quite typical of forumers' reactions to honest (and not hostile) criticism. Over the years, I've figured out that these responses are typical of people who believe that spending much money on Leica gear somehow substitutes for actually learning photography.

Mike Dixon probably holds the record here for not having EVER made an unwise or unkind post to this forum. I suggest that rather than childishly attack him you might start actually listening and learning. This forum reminds me of first grade sometimes.

I don't see the photos, either.

look what you guys did to raid. now he abandoned his presdentation on "leica grow"...

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=296656