"Leica glow"

Hi all,

<p>

Old lenses and Leica « glow » is something I ever tried to understand fully� Like many of us, I�ve seen black an white images made by the old lenses� Besides the fact any (good) lens has its own fingerprint and will create a particular �atmosphere� form these specific character, I am wondering if the famed Leica �glow� is not related to another point than the lenses particularities�

<p>

Many years ago (at least 25 years), I found an old pack of Kodak Velox paper. It was already out of date, but nevertheless I tried it just to see� Miraculously, it was still in perfect shape and gave me from negatives coming straight from my Nikon F2 splendid prints with this very milky appearance often showed and depicted as the �Leica glow� and attributed to the old Leitz made lenses� Of course the lens fingerprint was different, but the result was there�

<p>

Knowing the Velox was a rather common (and not specially �deluxe�) paper back in the 60�s and the 50�s and it is so difficulty now to get a truly good paper with a high proportion of silver (even with the so called �archival� papers), I wonder if, at least for a part, what we attribute to the lens is not more (or partially) linked to the kind of paper we have to use know and its relatively low quality�

<p>

I�d really whish to have your opinions on that particular point�

<p>

Friendly

<p>

François P. WEILL

Paper is centainly much more important for the "glow". Have you tried Bergger

FB papers? You will be surprised...

You don't mention what enlarger you used for your test. Different

condenser enlargers give a particular look, and cold cathode

enlargers can make 35mm negs look postively etherial. Using old

Leica lenses can still give the 'look' you are talking about even

with modern materials, so I would say that this is still the main

reason for what you describe. But paper, enlarger, and even bad

technique in the darkroom can also contribute.

looking at your forum now and then (more then) i find this a very

good question. I have negs dating back to the middle of the

seventies, done with various cameras (changing as we go, right?) like

Nikkormat, Olympus OM1, Leica M2, Olympus OM4, Leica R4s, Olympus

OM4t (I was unable to use a rangefinder, tried the M2 and later an

M6, really loved it's silence, but could just not get into the all

clear viewfinders).

<p>

But I know very well what you mean by this quality, this look of a

print, and to me the answer does not lie so much in the camera, but

much more in the enlargers, the paper and how you developpe your

prints. From a print I can not tell which camera someone uses, but I

might see which enlarger was used. It's nearly always evident when a

Focomat 1c, or 2c, was used. Something about the grain in the edges

and the warmth, the feel of the image. The 2c has the additional

factor of printing between glass (the neg. carrier with the anti

newton glass) and Leitz managed to construct something that still

gives a brilliant print, despite it's changing caracter due to the

extra glass.

<p>

Because I mix old and new work I still print from "all type cameras'

negs" and sure I get some differences, but these mainly result from

better film developpement and better light metering over the years.

I used to think the Nikkormat gave me harder, more contrasty, negs.

That the Olympus looked very much like Leitz, or visa verca, but now

I feel there just is not much of a difference at all. Anyway, not in

that "this is better than that line of thinking".

<p>

Now I no longer use Leica's, it's back to Olympus, for many reasons,

but not because I think O. is optically the best, sorry I feel there

is no such thing. But I do swear by the 1c and the 2c - even to the

point that i've been buying more of them, so cheap now, because I

dread the moment when they'd break down and could not be repaired.

<p>

To me the best camera is the one you forget about while working, the

one that does not give you a hard time, the one people don't fuzz

about when they see it. Paper is important and strangely enough,

with all the digital stuff happening, there has never been a time

when so many good fiber papers are being produced. Just search and

try the different ones. However, if you stick to mass produced

prints, that's where it becomes like driving a beautiful car on dirt

track roads, funky sometimes - sure, but in the end .......

<p>

Machiel

Anyone who believes the glow is inherent to the printing process or

can't tell it from negs, should shoot just one roll of slide film

with the Leica M.

Sorry to disagree with you Jay, but photography's end product in on paper, be it

silver gelatine, RA4, Ilfochrome, offset or billboards. This is where we should

measure resolution, glow or whatever.

photography's end product in on paper

<p>

Which we put to the side,what lense on the end of our camera has far

more glamour. Reality is about the above and how it is achieved,it

has as much relevance to the final image...if not more.

Roger:

<p>

>> Paper is certainly much more important for the "glow". Have you

tried Bergger

FB papers? You will be surprised...<<

<p>

Roger I�ll try to test it� I say I�ll try for my �wet�

darkroom �printing department� is now gone. I sold everything last

year in anticipation for a move to come� Three elements were

determinant in that decision: First and foremost, it is more and

more difficult to get quality paper for a day to day work, both in

terms of availability (and moreover where I�m going to move) and on

the economical side of the problem these papers are sold at a huge

price worthy only for exceptional shots and gallery enlargements.

Second, the problem of photo-finishing is now nearly insurmountable

if you want to obtain glazed prints� Flat bed glazing machines are

of a very low quality now (mainly the chrome plates) and the output

is ridiculous and rotary glazing machines (if any are still

available, I asked for one about ten years ago for the last time)

cost the price of a mint second hand M6 TTL� Third, at least 2/3 of

my production (which includes a sizeable quantity of MF films too)

is now made from slides (though a more important part of my 35 mm

negatives are black and white). Consequently, I decided not to

include in my new home to come the relatively vast darkroom I had

here and go to learn digital printing� Using bi-chrome function in

Photoshop (but being limited by a flatbed scanner, while waiting for

a 4000 dpi film scanner) I succeeded in giving the appearance of the

relatively good Agfa Record-Rapid paper to my prints (including the

slightly warm tone) and a much better rendition than the average RC

papers I hate so much (they almost succeeded in killing B&W

photography). I have no reason to doubt your experience with the

Bregger paper gave you the specific precious glow (or whatever it

can be called) of the B&W prints of the past, but I regretfully

notice that a photographer has now to rely on so-called special high

end paper (with associated huge costs) to obtain a rendition which

was once common even in standard and lowly papers of the past. Not

to mention once more the question of finishing the prints with the

same ease our elders experienced with these papers. Anyway thanks

for the tip�

<p>

Steven:

<p>

>> You don't mention what enlarger you used for your test. Different

condenser enlargers give a particular look, and cold cathode

enlargers can make 35mm negs look postively etherial. Using old

Leica lenses can still give the 'look' you are talking about even

with modern materials, so I would say that this is still the main

reason for what you describe. But paper, enlarger, and even bad

technique in the darkroom can also contribute. <<

<p>

Steven, it was a Durst L 900 Laborator with Rodenstock lenses with

condensers but also with the specific feature of Durst enlargers:

the light illuminating the neg. is reflected once in a mirror before

going through the condensers� But as the comparative was made under

the same enlarger, I doubt the effect was affected by the nature of

the enlarger itself. I compared what was obtained on an Ilford FB

series ordinary paper of the time (still better than the RC version)

to the old Velox� As for the modern material, it depends on what you

call �modern�� and what category of paper you use� Most of the

pictures which were at the origin of �Leica glow� (something far

more elusive than the lens fingerprint) were printed on day to day

use paper during the 50�s and the 60�s or earlier. My comparative

was made under the assumption the AVERAGE day to day paper once

available extracted much better the qualities of any good lens than

nowadays. Unfortunately, we can�t produce anymore what was

obtainable on high end paper of the same era as I think from the

prints I have seen not a single of the so-called archival, gallery

and so on FB papers available today can compete with them. For me,

they are at best equal to the workhorse papers of the 50�s and 60�s�

The difference lies in the cost and availability of these so-called

high end papers from what was once a very common and widespread

product. Hence my interrogation: besides the specific fingerprint of

Leitz lenses from the past, which was indeed specific to them (and

different for each lens) and the new Leica lenses which has also a

specific fingerprint of a different nature, is the famed (but

elusive and scientifically not clearly defined) glow, is it Leica

lens or the paper the prints were made on which gave birth to the

myth ?

<p>

Machiel:

<p>

>> looking at your forum now and then (more then) i find this a very

good question. I have negs dating back to the middle of the

seventies, done with various cameras (changing as we go, right?)

like

Nikkormat, Olympus OM1, Leica M2, Olympus OM4, Leica R4s, Olympus

OM4t (I was unable to use a rangefinder, tried the M2 and later an

M6, really loved it's silence, but could just not get into the all

clear viewfinders).

<p>

But I know very well what you mean by this quality, this look of a

print, and to me the answer does not lie so much in the camera, but

much more in the enlargers, the paper and how you develop your

prints. From a print I can not tell which camera someone uses, but I

might see which enlarger was used. It's nearly always evident when

a

Focomat 1c, or 2c, was used. Something about the grain in the edges

and the warmth, the feel of the image. The 2c has the additional

factor of printing between glass (the neg. carrier with the anti

newton glass) and Leitz managed to construct something that still

gives a brilliant print, despite it's changing character due to the

extra glass.

<p>

Because I mix old and new work I still print from "all type cameras'

negs" and sure I get some differences, but these mainly result from

better film development and better light metering over the years.

I used to think the Nikkormat gave me harder, more contrasty, negs.

That the Olympus looked very much like Leitz, or visa verca, but now

I feel there just is not much of a difference at all. Anyway, not in

that "this is better than that line of thinking".

<p>

Now I no longer use Leica's, it's back to Olympus, for many reasons,

but not because I think O. is optically the best, sorry I feel there

is no such thing. But I do swear by the 1c and the 2c - even to the

point that I've been buying more of them, so cheap now, because I

dread the moment when they'd break down and could not be repaired.

<p>

To me the best camera is the one you forget about while working, the

one that does not give you a hard time, the one people don't fuzz

about when they see it. Paper is important and strangely enough,

with all the digital stuff happening, there has never been a time

when so many good fiber papers are being produced. Just search and

try the different ones. However, if you stick to mass produced

prints, that's where it becomes like driving a beautiful car on dirt

track roads, funky sometimes - sure, but in the end ... <<

<p>

Machiel, it seems you at least confirm my theory on the importance

of the paper used (and of course the technique behind) to give a

particularly attractive rendition on a B&W print. Since a long, long

time I ever printed my B&W negs. myself. Yesterday on photographic

papers, today with digital� I�m not so surprised the classical

papers are now multiplying themselves� It is more and more necessary

to rely on high quality paper to beat what is now possible with

digital. But to be frank, it seems to me it is a kind of swansong as

digital is coping much faster than with the shooting part of the

process with the classical silver based technique. Any picture

printed on RC paper is already of poor quality when compared to what

is obtainable with a good digital chain. So it seems logical to try

to extract once again the best the classic paper can offer us. But

there is an economical and practical limitation to this tendency�

The valuable papers you mention are not widely distributed and very

expensive and only gives you what a photographer was used to expect

from an average paper in the 50�s and the 60�s and all the photo-

finishing tools once commonly used during the exclusive reign of FB

paper to obtain a perfect result and a reasonable output are now

whether very expensive or no more available.

<p>

Jay:

<p>

>> Anyone who believes the glow is inherent to the printing process

or

can't tell it from negs, should shoot just one roll of slide film

with the Leica M. <<

<p>

Jay, I�m sorry but it seems we are not calling the same thing

the �Leica glow�� The first time I used an M3, it was during my

first days as a professional press photographer in a small local

newspaper� It was just collecting dust on a shelve, almost forgotten

with its old generation Summicron� I cleaned it and used it for some

assignments in company with my Nikon SLR�s. By any mean the gray

scale the thing can produce was astounding� As usual in this era,

the pictures were however printed on RC paper to speed up the

process and even with these awful paper, this characteristic still

held. But in no occasion I noticed the so-called �Leica glow� to

appear. This lens was superb, gave an unbelievably rich gray scale

rendition when compared to the Nikon lenses (a proof the final

correction compromise was different) but nowhere I obtained the

milky highlights and rich black tones I was able to extract with my

Nikon negatives from the lowly old Velox I mentioned in my original

post or what I obtained with high end FB papers, whatever was the

shot taken with� I also tried for me an Ektachrome film with this M3

(I sincerely regret not have offered the paper to buy it by the

way). The rendition was here again different, warmer, a tad less of

contrast than with a Nikon� But the rendition was not soooooo

evidently better here, perhaps because my personal taste was (and

still is) toward a more neutral rendition of colors. With my present

outfit (as far as Leica lenses are concerned it is composed of a 35

mm pre-aspheric Summicron and a 135 mm f/4 Tele-Elmar so none of the

present series) I find a much better rendition of colors than with

this old Summicron. Perhaps, the color correction of Leica lenses

has much improved since the 50�s� It seems to me you are more

referring to the peculiar fingerprint of these lenses.

<p>

Roger again:

<p>

>> Sorry to disagree with you Jay, but photography's end product in

on paper, be it

silver gelatine, RA4, Ilfochrome, offset or billboards. This is

where we should

measure resolution, glow or whatever.

<p>

Allen:

<p>

>> photography's end product in on paper

<p>

Which we put to the side, what lens on the end of our camera has far

more glamour. Reality is about the above and how it is achieved, it

has as much relevance to the final image...if not more <<

<p>

I evidently agree with Roger and Allen here.

<p>

Friendly.

<p>

François P. WEILL

<p>

<p>