I can't let this Leica glow thing go

We are discussing the optical qualities of lenses here, not religion or philosophy. Whether one professes belief or disbelief in the existence of the "Leica glow" is not something of major import. I don't think that Leica lenses have mystical qualities. I just think that they are superb lenses, not all of whose optical qualities are fully understood by most photographers in ways that can be readily explained in non-technical terms.

 

This is one of those debates where one side argues art, and the other side argues science. The issue, of course, is that both photography and the field of optical design are somewhere in between art and science, and do not rest clearly either on one side or the other. One must be a scientist and engineer to design lenses, and scientists using measuring instruments and quantitative and analytical techniques can offer us significant insights into art. In the end, however, science cannot explain art satisfactorily, including the intuition as well as knowledge and skill that seems to differentiate great lens designers from merely good ones.

 

Optical design is not just a science, but also an art. Leica's optical designers over the course of several generations have included the late Max Berek (1886-1949), the late Walter Mandler (1922-2005), Lothar Kolsch, Horst Schroder, and Peter Karbe, Leica's current head of optical design. While it is evident that they have all had significant scientific and engineering backgrounds, they also seem to be gifted in ways that involve creativity, intuition and artistry in addition to scientific knowledge. It isn't just Leica enthusiasts who take that view. When Dr. Mandler died a few years ago, one of the people quoted in the photographic press as expressing great respect for his ability was Ichiro Yoshiyama, the former Chief Operating Officer of the Minolta Corporation. Anyone interested in additional information on Leica's optical designers over the years, and on some of the issues involved in optical design, might take a look at the following sites:

 

http://www.eightelmphoto.com/articles.htm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mandler

 

http://www.koelsch-schroeder.de/english/k_s_optical_engineering/l_koelsch.html

 

http://www.koelsch-schroeder.de/english/k_s_optical_engineering/h_schroeder.html

 

http://www.overgaard.dk/leica_history.html

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page93.html

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page61.html

<i>We are discussing the optical qualities of lenses here, not religion or philosophy.</i>

<p>Actually the similarities are there. It's kind of funny that even the people who believe in the "glow" can't agree on exactly what that "glow" is. Sort of the same as people who believe in the existence of a deity or higher being can't agree on if it's God, Allah, Buddha, Shiva, Ra, Zeus or whatever... the faithful just "know" their gods exist even in the absence of any objective evidence that they do. I guess it's called "faith" for a reason.</p>

It's a Myth- we were on the subject of Leica Glow, not the existence of Zeus or any other deity. If it is not an

optical property that can be seen or measured, then it's just a Myth tied to the Leica Name. If you care to state

optical properties that set Leica Lenses apart from other designs, than it's worth discussing.

>I've gotta think that Leica glow is something real. I don't see it in my Nikon, Hasselblad, or LF shots. But it

is<p>

>obvious to me in 50% of my Leica shots. For those brothers and sisters that don't "believe", just skip this <p>

>thread. For those that do, is it possible this is the result of such a short distance between the lens and film <p>

>plane, or a narrow cone of light or something?<p>

 

 

 

 

It's not the back-focus distance or narrow light cone. Nikon RF's, Contax, Canon RF's, and in fact most RF

cameras have similar designs. Most fixed-lens cameras as well, rf or point and shoot. As stated, it's probably

the set point for contrast vs resolution selected for Leica designs, and the degree of color correction. These

properties can be measured and described.

 

But if you do not want to tie it to a set of optical properties and just refer to it as "Leica Glow" for the

brothers and sisters that believe, great.

I am sure it has been done, but why not simply do a quick study shooting the same scenes using different lenses? Leica sets the baseline .. and assess from there. I shoot mostly film, but the only glow I have been seeing (consistently) has come from digital photos I have seen. it really is all about light isn't it? Steve McCurry's work always seems to have a glow, but he is a master of selective lighting. and Frans Lanting. hmm .. could it be it has more to do with the light and photographer than glass?

 

just thoughts .. waiting for the tea kettle to boil,

 

daniel taylor

Here's Mike Johnston's recipe for "the glow," as posted on the Luminous Landscapce. Its a generic recipe for any camera system, and it is limited to old fashioned B&W silver gelatin printing.

 

I believe that somewhere in this same site is posted an article on adding the glow to a digital image.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-28.shtml

I'm a little late to the thread, but then I've had a chance to read it all. Part of the problem is the use of the term, "glow." I have no idea what that term means with respect to a flat photograph that cannot physically release any kind of light itself. My backlit flat screen monitor glows behind images, but it does that for all of them. Some of the better descriptions above used more appropriate words.

 

It cannot be a myth "if it cannot be seen or measured," but several people provided instances of neutral judges who could consistently "see" it in printed photographs. So, it can be seen. I was completely convinced by my own children when they looked at my Nikon photos side by side with my first Leica 50mm Sumicron photos: "We like these the best. They look more 3-D." Another way to communicate what it is, therefore, is to say what the opposite would be. My kids could do it, untrained. The Nikon photos were good (best fixed focal length lenses--50mm and 85mm), but "flat." That's the easiest way to describe it. Other cameras tend to produce flat looking images. They come closer to Leica images with telephoto lenses (Nikon 180mm lens) when the foreground is in focus relative to the background (hence, bokeh), but . . . and this is a big exception, Leica lenses can often produce the same depth and 3-D plasticity with wide angle and normal angle lenses. As someone else said above, many Leica photos have a "real snap you can see." So, if it can be seen, and seen by more than one person, it's an objective fact. Objective: when two or more observers reach the same conclusion using the same methods.

 

So, I'd recommend dropping the use of the term, "glow," and sticking with "pop," "snap," and 3-D look to them. These words are easier to understand and don't get in the way of the phenomenon that's being observed. Too much time is being wasted by arguing about what the WORD "glow" means rather than what actually makes the photographs different from others. By the way, not all Leica images have this quality, just a lot more of them. Worth the money? Not to some. But once I saw the difference it just seemed to expensive to me to keep taking photos with a camera that hardly ever produced that kind of effect. It would just be a waste of time and money

Lannie, Yes, that is the glow I'm talking about. It's a little harder to capture in a scan, as someone else responded, but it sure is easy to print it from the negative on an enlarger.

I have Leicas, mostly old ones.Taken many pictures.I slogged through this thread when I should have been out shooting and I don't have a clue what it's about. Maybe I need new glasses.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/188/376399656_ed8e5003f3_o.jpg

Okay, so let's say we call it micro contrast, do you guys agree that Leica lenses produce better micro contrast than other

35mm format lenses?

It would be useful to understand / define micro-contrast. I suspect Leica lenses are not the only ones that can produce the glow. I think Zeiss lenses are candidates for Leica glow as well. What would be useful is to know: 1) What lenses are likely to produce Leica glow, 2) What lighting conditions aid in producing it, 3) Is there a relationship between focal length and aperture in producing it, 4) Are certain films, speeds, developers, etc., more likely to capture it, and 5) What other factors might be involved in replicating it?

I have learnt so little from all of this. As Peter Mead said, let everyone define 'glow'. No effort is made to do this.

Whether I like the pictures from my M Leica lenses or whether I think they have something special and whether

someone else can pick that same something still does not mean it is Leica 'glow'. I am trying, although perhaps not so

hard as I don't really care if there is or is not a Leica 'glow'. The likelihood, from the above thread, is that there is not

such a thing. Some think it is blown highlights, or the result of haze in '50s and earlier lenses. One says its Bokeh. MS

Keil admirably attempts to define the quality of the transition from sharp to out of focus in mathematical terms. Has

anyone downloaded his paper? In a way this is an historical enquiry, more the province of an etymologist than a

photographer or mathematician. Somewhere, some time, someone used the term Leica 'glow'. He (unlikely to be she as

women are so sensible as evidenced by their absence here) possibly meant something by it. The idea caught on. The

usual thing would be that those who took it up and promoted it actually meant something quite different. If research could

track down the originator or the early proponents we might be close to knowing how to define 'glow'. Then we could work

out whether it exists. Meanwhile the term remains pretty much meaningless and I wouldn't ever use it. Wittgenstein: 'Whereof one cannot

speak, thereof one must be silent.'

Well, Michael, I am simply saying that there is glow and then there is glow, and sometimes it has nothing to do with the brand of glass:

 

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

 

Sometimes, that is, people and things just get warm and "glow."

 

Clarity and contrast are what I look for in images made with a good lens, of whatever brand, and from whatever country of manufacture.

 

--Lannie

Man oh man this is a long discussion! I won't read it all. I read and skimmed and hopped to get some gist of it.

There's a glow. It almost shows up invariably on Summicron 50 Ms. I believe it is because the lens 'comes together

masterfully' and renders the 'tipical and optimal normal lens shot' with so finely corrected aberrations at that

particular point that gives you the sense of faithfully seeing the actual subject as it is.It is not a Leica Patent.It's just

that Leica works best to get it.A close performer is the nikon 50 1.8.I have some pics with it that look glowish but

something is missing.Tightness.The 'tightness' of correction at that precise point that pokes your neurons to

say "that is the actual thing" and your perception remembers more keenly the real subject because of it and the 3

dimensionality and glow of life remarkably get recorded.A face shot shows the sides of the face in the same focus

resolution as the nose with negligible distortion if any.It's a sweet spot.Another pic of some other situation with the

lens may not show 'the glow'.The nikon 50 1.8 is a reckoning by nikon that this is the case

but to get each of those lenses tight enough to have a competent glow will put the price up there with Leica's.So they

let it go at close enough ,hit or miss.Another case of a fine lens is the Contax G normal 45 planar.The colors are

superb but the look is 45mm.It is off tightness by those 5mm.Close but no glow even though the color rendering is

often superior to Leica's warmer one.Those 5mm toward telephoto make the Cron50 more intimate.The 45 is more

social.

There is glow and it is a remarkable feat of engineering and a spot that Leica may know how to get better than the

rest.

I still remember an article in a Dutch photomagazine from about 15 years ago written by 2 authors. One was a Nikon user, the other was Erwin Puts and most of us know which brand he uses and adores. The article compared the 24, 35, 85 and 180mm (ed Nikon and 3,4 apo Leica) lenses of Nikon and Lieca mounted on an F3 / R7. Exactly the same scene was photographed from a tripod on the same slidefilm.

 

The conclusion of the article was that while comparing the not marked slides, most of the times neither author could tell which brand was used. Sometimes they were even naming the qualities of a certain brand after which it turned out that the photo was made with the other brand. There were subtle differences indeed, but subtle and most of the times not showing to either author, even to Erwin Puts.

Oh, for heaven's sake. All of you need to get away from your computers and go take some pictures with whatever camera you prefer. That's what photography is about; NOT these eternal internet forum discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Bill, well put........I would suggest Konica 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 85/1.8 & 100/2.8..........

The `Leica Glow` that you mention to might be down to the vintage of certain Leitz lenses. Do a Google search for the late `James Ravilious` who used Leica rangefinders with older single coated lenses which produced sharp, but softer gradation B&W negatives than the newer multicoated lenses. His photos in the book `Down The Deep Lanes` are superb.

http://www.jamesravilious.com/default.asp

The glow you're seeing is probably from your computer screen. Try printing your pictures. Those with olde Leicas might like

to use correspondingly olde darkroom methods. If there's enough "glow," you won't even need a safelight.

I'm REALLY having trouble understanding why the naysayers simply can't move on. Is it so hard?

 

Bill, sorry for the delay, I've been out photographing all day.

 

Clive, you're absolutely right. I've only printed a few dozen images this weekend. We've already said it's easier to show in a print. Keep up or read the part about moving on if you don't see the glow.

 

If I was simply a Leica collector, would I have asked about Leica glow? Keep up people!

More enlightenment (sorry, unavoidable pun) from Mike Johnston <br><p>

 

<a href=http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=008v1n>here</a> and especially, <a href=http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-28.shtml>here</a>

Good link, Mani. That's a man who knows what he's talking about.

>>> I'm REALLY having trouble understanding why the naysayers simply can't move on.

 

Same reason the faithful are not able to consider other points of view?