I can't let this Leica glow thing go

If you can't see it or measure it, it's a Myth.

 

If you can see a difference, and measure it, using subjective terms to describe it makes it sound like a myth.

 

Here is an example of my definition of the subjective term. The older Leica lenses have lower-contrast and

preserve shadow detail. The dark areas "glow", using the subjective term.

 

Shot in direct sunlight, most of my lenses would have lost the detail under the sailor's cap. My Nikkor 8,5cm F2

would have upped the contrast, and lost the eyes.

 

1954 Collapsible Elmar 9cm F4, wide-open on the M3, fujicolor 200.<div></div>

I was struck by one of the images of an Indian boy. The photographer said he overdeveloped the film. What he had was an image where the developer continued to develop in the transitional zones between densities. We used to strive for this effect by following different procedures in agitation times and frequency of agitation, so the developer would perform its magic.

 

So, Leitz lens or not, that was a function of the developing process.

 

Having said that, digitally speaking sometimes the best of both worlds is a Leitz lens mounted on and EOS body!<div></div>

I have to add, I made no adjustments other than raw to jpg and resizing. None--not in the raw converter or in CS3. ISO 1600, 1/400s @ f16. Manual focus, AV mode, no tripod or monopod. I did shoot at -1.33 eV to correct for the exposure factor the adapter seems to create.

Then minor adjustment and regular sharpening (my in-camera setting is always neutral):<div></div>

Has Leica ever tried to explain the glow? I can imagine reasons they would or would not want to do so. I can see why they wouldn't want to give away their "secret", but have they ever tried to address it at all?

If all of the above be glow, then glow gotta go.

 

--Lannie

Look at it from a "coolness bragging issue"; <BR><BR>Who talks about "Zorki glow";or "Argus glow" or "Petri glow" or "Brownie Glow" or " I-zone Glow" one gets from a Britney I-zone sticker camera?<BR><BR>the "glow" from my early 1960's Hit 16mm camera was then called flare; but that was a different era; before folks collected cameras before BS marketing. <BR><BR>A 1930's uncoated F3.5 Xenar/Ektar/Tessar on a simple Kodak Retina or F2 Xenon on a 1930's Retina has a certain "GLOW" to it that a 1940's non BS camera book called "filling the shadows look"; where the uncoated lens spilled light into the shadows; ie "pierced the shadows" as a 1940's term were one got brighter shadows due to lens flare.

So, no one has subjective photographs from 2 or 3 camera/lens combinations at the same spot and time to check if glow is lens

or light? I have no personal stake in this since for me a good photo is simply a good photo, with or without any claimed glow.

"For those brothers and sisters that don't "believe", just skip this thread."

 

So, if I am reading this correctly, you only want answers that support your assertion that this 'glow' is real. You do not want answers that explain the 'glow' in realistic terms or from people who do not see the 'glow' at all. If it exists only in silver based prints on a certain paper, that's fine, but I must believe that it exists to enter your conversation about it.

 

Is Leicaphilia the next sweeping religious movement? Is the enigmatic 'glow' the answer to life's big mysteries? If we believe in the 'glow', will we see it in all our prints?

 

Sir, I believe that the only thing glowing here is your imagination, with a bit of low contrast and lens flare thrown in. I have seen the photos posted which are deemed to possess the magical 'glow', yet I have not seen any magic in them. Most don't have anything that I would call 'glow' at all. Some have lowered contrast due to flare, which gives them a tone which some might consider 'dreamlike'. There is little doubt that differnet lenses impart subtly different characters to the images they resolve, but this 'glow' you speak of is a vague and ethereal character which has yet to be defined or demonstrated in any realistic terms.

 

Thus, I recommend that you do some real-world, side-by-side testing of your 'glowing' Leica lenses against other lenses which do not possess the 'glow'. First, you'll need to construct a scene with very few variables, most specifically lighting angle, intensity, and color character. Set a tripod and shoot the scene with your 'glow' lens. Then, place a lens which matches nearly precisely the focal length, aperture, and front element shape and diameter in exactly the same relative position to the scene, and shoot it again. Compare the two shots carefully. Define the 'glow' in this way until you can demonstrate it in a concrete manner. Then show us how the other lens lacks this 'glow'. Repeat with every other lens you can find, regardless of outside diameter, and compare those scenes as well. Only then will you be prepared to carry on a discussion of what the 'glow' is and from where it comes.

as a tube-amplifier designer, I can tell you that there is some form of negative feedback in all amplifiers. it isn't necessarily a bad thing .. in fact, just the opposite if done correctly. a tube-amplifiers signature generally comes from what it cannot do well, which just happens to please the ear. I suspect the optical artifacts of a lens that diverge from perfection, just happens to be pleasing to the eye.

 

the notion that perfection, be it optical, aural, 18% gray, etc. somehow commands us to find pleasure within it. personally, I find the flaws far more interesting most of the time. as a designer, you need to identify them and spend your life learning to control them better.

 

photography and art is much more than some pursuit of perfection. which it is not.

 

daniel taylor

Clearly, there are lots of skeptics on this issue, just as there are on the comparably contentious issue of "bokeh." For photos shot under certain conditions, however, especially at large apertures in available light, one can sometimes see a difference between photos taken with Leica lenses and photos taken with other lenses. While not easy to define using words, the difference involves certain image characteristics, rather than anything mystical. It's not just a question of lower contrast and moderate flare from 1950s-era lenses. It may have something to do with the way in which some Leica lenses, including newer as well as older ones, render an optical impression of three-dimensionality, of depth and roundness and plasticity, especially in portraits, as opposed to being solely a question of shadow detail or highlight flare. It should not be a surprise that lenses, being designed by human beings and reflecting their personal judgments about the tradeoffs to be made between the various aspects of optical design, might have recognizable qualities despite being inanimate objects. Optical design is an art as well as a science.

 

One might draw an analogy to musical instruments, which are also inanimate objects that reflect the judgments of their designers about the tradeoffs between various aspects of design, whether one is discussing handmade or factory-manufactured instruments. It isn't just Stradivarius or Amati violins that are distinctive. Both the Fender Telecaster and the Gibson Les Paul are guitars, both are considered good instruments by a number of guitarists, and both can be used to play the same notes and chords, but most guitarists can tell them apart very quickly, even after hearing just a few notes, despite the fact that they are both mass-produced instruments. It isn't mystical nonsense; they simply sound different enough for most guitarists to be able to distinguish readily between them based on sound alone. If you ask for someone to explain in words how they're different, the answers are often a jumble and convey little meaning to people other than guitarists -- one might try to describe a Tele as having a nasal quality, honk or quack, another might talk about a Paul sounding fuller or having more sustain, and still others might go on about the differences between single-coil and humbucking pickups, or bolt-on maple necks and set-in mahogany necks. While the verbal descriptions and explanations may be unpersuasive, guitarists can usually tell the difference between them based on sound just the same.

 

The differences between the optical qualities of camera lenses tend to be more subtle, are not always as readily apparent, may only be visible with some types of images and not others, and are not always easy to identify or describe readily using words, but they do appear to exist. That does not mean that they are sufficiently obvious to be evident to all photographers, are sufficiently clear-cut to be described in consistent terms by people with differing backgrounds or personal frames of reference, or are sufficiently important to make a major difference in the overall quality of all photographs. There are many other aspects of image quality that may be more readily apparent -- composition, lighting, focus, exposure, contrast, depth of field, image blur due to camera motion, and film grain, among others. For an image that suffers from unimaginative composition and poor lighting, or is out of focus, underexposed or blurred, the concept of "Leica glow" is meaningless. In addition, it is indisputably clear that truly excellent photographs can be taken with other types of lenses. There are a very large number of high-quality photographs taken with Nikon, Canon, Zeiss or Hasselblad lenses, to name just a few, and there are doubtless photographers who prefer the optical signatures of those lenses to Leica glass. In some well-shot photographs taken with some Leica lenses under some conditions, however, there are subtle optical or image qualities not attributable to factors such as focus or exposure which at least some viewers can perceive, and which some people describe for want of a better term as "Leica glow." Your mileage may vary, and so on, but that's my take on it.

Jimi Hendrix played a Fender Stratocaster with 'glow'. oh wait .. he set it on fire with lighter-fluid.

 

never mind ...

 

daniel taylor

Here is one that I think glows:-

<br>

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6393954-lg.jpg" alt="" height="540" width="340" border="6">

I think some of you have demonstrated with your own mean spirited words why this guy wants non believers to skip this thread.

 

Some of you are getting really annoyed about the fact some Leica owners really like their cameras and lenses and want to wax lyrical to each other on the Leica forum. What in the hell is wrong with that? Do we really need to address people as Sir here? How come you're all getting so uptight!? Does this description really anger you so much!? If it does, maybe you should have skipped the thread like the man says. We're not talking political ideology here.

 

If you're so content with your gear let the dude have his description.

 

I seem to remember photographers mostly being artists. Is it any wonder then we might take to using such terms?

 

Yes I use a Leica M system, I've used a lot of others too. I don't think I've seen this glow in my photographs, but the character the lenses posses does seem to stand out, a lot. No I haven't done any tests. Test won't make a damn bit of difference, being happy with what you have and being inspired to shoot does make a difference. Sometimes ignorance is bliss, no one is hurting anyone here. Each of us are drawn to subtle nuances in mediums, it's probably why we choose one over the other, fortunately that's not the reason people are looking at our pictures. Therefore it only matters that we like what we like, and I Leica Leica.

It's probably the way that the notion was presented: "Leica lenses do this, but no other brand of lens does it. It can't be quantified, it's just magical and you're missing out unless you see it." I believe that Leica lenses have a signature that is different from mainstream lenses. It's an optimization trade-off.

 

One feature not mentioned, that can easily be quantified, is color-correction. The Infrared Focussing index for the Summarit and Summicron lenses of the 1950's is just past the DOF mark for F2. That's fairly amazing considering that they are not apochromats, do not use quartz, Calcium Fluorite, or some other exotic material. Look at a current 50mm Nikkor, and the IR mark is somewhere between F4 and F5.6.

I encountered the Leica "phenomenon" in the 70's. I was in high school and shooting with a Pentax H3V and

Minolta SRT-101. Both well regarded cameras. Friends used Nikon and the occasional Canon.

 

When we processed our film and looked at them hanging in the darkroom there was a similarity to them. One of my

friends borrowed an M-4 and 50 Summicron from his Dad and when we hung his negs to dry we could immediately see

the difference from all the other cameras. They were very much more contrasty and had real snap you could see

from a distance. When printing them we had to go a grade lower in paper to reduce that snap. When equalized for

contrast it was harder to see differences but the images tended to be significantly sharper.

Here's my contribution. I don't know if "glow" is the best term to describe the Leica difference. But a difference there is. My hands-on experience: Went on a trip to Japan w/a Minilux and a Nikon FT-2 SLR with AI Nikkors 24/2.8, 50/2 and 105/2.5. Used the same batch of Fuji Reala for either camera. Took it to the same place for processing. Had 5x7 proofs made. world of difference. The Nikon shots looked paler, less contrasty, less "alive". The Minilux shots looked more... well, 3D, alive, micro-contrasty, etc.... (fill in your favorite term). The point is: It wasn't even close, and my wife, who is not a photographer but has a good eye, was able to pick them out of the stack with no problem. And that with a Minilux. So, whatever terms you want to use to describe the difference is fine by me.

"They were very much more contrasty and had real snap you could see from a distance."

 

Now this I can relate to, since clear, contrasty images are indicators of quality in a lens. If that is what people mean when they speak of "glow," all well and good. Marc Williams' pictures are masterpieces of the kind of clarity that I am thinking of. As for many of the photos above, I confess that I do not see that, but something else that is much less worthy in many cases, in my opinion.

 

--Lannie

Here is what I am talking about:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7974472&size=lg

 

--Lannie

<b>Fab Mastronardi [subscriber] , Nov 07, 2008; 12:18 a.m.</b><br/>

<i>"Here is another with an 8-200 f2.8 on a D200 body. Mind you the lack of hair may add to the glowy effect.</i><br/><br/>

 

No offense Fab but 50 cc's too much cyan shot with a Nikon camera is not what my intentions were with this thread. <br/><br/>

 

<b>Brian Sweeney , Nov 08, 2008; 09:11 a.m.</b><br/>

<i>"If you can't see it or measure it, it's a Myth.</i><br/><br/>

 

Religion, quarks, the earth being round. They were / are all myths. That's pretty preposterous if I might say so.<br/><br/>

 

<b>Grayson McBrickwater , Nov 08, 2008; 02:30 p.m.</b><br/>

<i>"For those brothers and sisters that don't "believe", just skip this thread." So, if I am reading this correctly, you only want answers that support your assertion that this 'glow' is real. </i><br/><br/>

 

No. I only want those who truly see and understand what Leica glow is, to suggest how it can be achieved. As any technique worthy of mastery, I simply wanted help from those who truly see it to suggest what they believe it is and how it might be replicated. Is that so far fetched? For those who don't see it (the way some people don't understand or see value in a style of art), I simply asked them to move on and not criticize those of us who want to pursue how to use it, not ridicule us.<br/><br/>

 

<i>"Is Leicaphilia the next sweeping religious movement? Is the enigmatic 'glow' the answer to life's big mysteries? If we believe in the 'glow', will we see it in all our prints? </i><br/><br/>

 

If you know how to use a lens with great bokeh, is it too far fetched to suggest you might want to experiments with what spatial quantities maximize the pleasing effects of a particular lens or aperture without try to suggest it is a religion?<br/><br/>

 

<b>Daniel Taylor [Hero] , Nov 08, 2008; 03:17 p.m.</b><br/>

<i>as a tube-amplifier designer, I can tell you that there is some form of negative feedback in all amplifiers. it isn't necessarily a bad thing ..</i><br/><br/>

 

Forgive me, but are we really back to talking about tube amps again? And this relates to Leica glow and our ability to replicate how?<br/><br/>

 

<b>Daniel Taylor [Hero] , Nov 08, 2008; 03:20 p.m.</b><br/>

<i>Jimi Hendrix played a Fender Stratocaster with 'glow'. oh wait .. he set it on fire with lighter-fluid. never mind ... </i><br/><br/>

 

Very helpful. Thanks.<br/><br/>

 

<b>Ross Wilson , Nov 08, 2008; 04:00 p.m.</b><br/>

<i>I think some of you have demonstrated with your own mean spirited words why this guy wants non believers to skip this thread. </i><br/><br/>

 

<i>Some of you are getting really annoyed about the fact some Leica owners really like their cameras and lenses and want to wax lyrical to each other on the Leica forum. What in the hell is wrong with that?</i><br/><br/>

 

Exactly! Thank you Ross.<br/><br/>

 

<b>Brian Sweeney , Nov 08, 2008; 04:09 p.m.</b><br/>

<i>It's probably the way that the notion was presented: "Leica lenses do this, but no other brand of lens does it. It can't be quantified, it's just magical and you're missing out unless you see it." I believe that Leica lenses have a signature that is different from mainstream lenses. It's an optimization trade-off. </i><br/><br/>

 

I absolutely did not say that. If you re-read my message, I made the assertion that it might be the short or narrow angle of light and that I also saw it occasionally with my Zeiss Ikon Contessa rangefinder. The reference point is that I called it "Leica" glow because that's what it's known by.

Lanny, I do shoot with an H3 when I rent them for fashion shoots. I've not seen Leica glow with any of my Hasselblad equipment. Though nice; though contrasty; though sharp, they just don't exhibit a glow.

Hmm, I don't think I explained my point well earlier with the hibiscus shot. What's apparent to me--because I use this same flower bush time after time to check a new lens--is that I often find that I have to pump up saturation with Canon's cheaper lenses, sometimes a bit with the Ls, but the Leitz lenses, of which I have four, all seem to produce more than satisfactory saturation and color, even though my sensor is recording the light in neutral mode.

 

From long experience shooting with an M3, years ago, I can safely say that catching the light right, combined with the inherent saturation of the lens, can give one that satisfactory--if not glow--remarkable contrast and crispness.

 

The shot below benefited from late afternoon "golden" light. Unfortunately it is a scan of a print, the orinal negative is buried somewhere in years-old stacks awaiting archiving. <G><div></div>

Sorry, Michael. I forgot that Marc shot that one with the big Hassy digital. Well, anyway, it made my point, and you have no doubt seen comparable results from Leica. People like what they like, and I am not going to try to tell them that they should like something else.

 

--Lannie

Here is another that I found to glow

<br>

 

<img height=507

width=500 hspace=5 vspace=10 src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00D/00DYyX-25667384.jpg">

Well, Michael, here is one of your own that really does glow, I have to confess:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6823551

 

--Lannie