"Leica glow" article in Black & White magazine.

The April issue the UK mag Black & White magazine has an article, by Frances Schultz

(partner of Roger Hicks) entitled "Getting the Leica glow".

 

Crudely summarised, she thinks it does exist (but doesn't matter) and can be achieved

with

lenses like the pre-asph 35mm Summilux, backlit conditions and 'incorrect' exposures.

 

Maybe there is a 'Leica glow' but isn't there also 'Rollei glow', 'large format soft focus lens

glow' and 'I've drunk too much booze nose glow'?

 

 

The magazine also has features on Ellitt Erwitt, the Ricoh GR Digital and all round cool

guy, Wolfgang Suchitzky.

As I understand it, you get "Glow" by buying old lenses which may not be in the best condition for a rediculous sum of money.

 

Some users of lesser systems might call it lensflare and ghosting.

I will be getting this mag on the way home today. Thanks (will look at that GR article)

Trevor, the mag is a little sniffy bit about the GR but a friend of mine has bought one and

loves it. In particular, he really rates the lens quality.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be interested in picking up the magazine.

 

In my experience, there is such a thing as "glow", and it's not unique to Leica. It's really "a touch of flare". Not unpleasant, out-of-control flare, but "pleasant flare" if you like. If you like it, it's "glow" and if you don't like it, it's "flare".

The article rambles on a bit and is not very informative, which is disappointing as I've

found articles written by Frances Schultz o be quite interesting in the past.

 

She acknowledges that there is a glow in Roger's photographs, but doesn't know whether

she likes it and is certainly happy not having it in her pictures. In comparison to the 'Leica

glow images' illustrating the article, her own picture looks rather drab.

 

In part, she puts the presence of glow down to Roger's poor camera work and laziness in

guessing exposures.

 

It's not a definitive article and was not worthy of a front cover headline.

 

B&W seems to me to be losing it's direction as it struggles with digital and newcomers to

the monochrome world, both of which have a place in the B&W discussion. However, I

suspect that the future of the magazine depends more upon the continuing appeal to

diehard B&W workers, both wet and digital, and the magazine needs to ensure their needs

are met. Weak articles with very poor illustrations by Mike Johnston etc, do not further the

magazines cause.

Hell, 5-10 pints off ale, and things glow without a damn camera.

I do like Black & White magazine and will want to look at this issue but have not read it

yet. I have seen the "Glow" in older images I made years ago (I was not trying for it, I just

noticed it later). In retrospect the circumstances that likey caused the effect were similar

to those described by Mike Johnson in a online article from 4 years ago:

 

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

 

 

I have tried some of these techniques since and the yellow filter for it's effect on light skin

tones gives a bit of the effect.

 

Robert

this "glow" is good enough for me!<div></div>

If you read Mike Johnson's article he advises to stay away from flairy conditions. The glow he describes is different from flair. The fast 58mm optics Mike wrote of were popular in the late 60s to 70s such as the multi-coated Minolta MC 58mm f/1.2 or Konica's 58mm, the best of the bunch. Prints sometimes seem to have a light within which is more about negative exposure and printing.

People who see "glow" when they're looking at it and like it would like to be able to produce it themselves once in a while. So, they search for a lens solution, which is implied by the discussion of glow up above. Given the never-dying interest in glow in the age digital image making and growing interest in B&W photograpy, it would make great sense for the digital Photoshop experts to program routines or "actions" to turn a flat digital photo into a classic B&W digital image with tons of glow. The discussion above suggests that everyone knows what produces glow. To me it's still a little bit of magic and hence pops up in my photos unexpectedly. It's not the same as getting a 200 mm fixed lens, opening it up wide, and blurring the backgound out of existence. You see that with a lot of bird photographs, when a slightly blurred background that shows context would make it more interesting. In sum, if glow can be defined in a serious scientific, material, factual photographic sense, the the photoshop experts should be able to give us a nice action set or add-on to produce it upon command, just like they can now simulate Fuji slide film or Delta 100 B&W. May not be perfect, but it should be possible. Seems like there would be a market for it as well.

An old pre-war un-coated lens like an Elmar 5cm or an old Rollei TLR with Tessar, a light yellow filter, a hood and some backlighting.

 

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

 

http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchFrame.aspx

 

James Ravilious took many of those with an M3 + pre-war uncoated Elmar + light yellow filter + Tri-x, and a modified hood.

 

Some of them display a form of 'glow' but (like bokeh) it is something one is almost ashamed to enjoy in a picture nowadays. I don't know all the 'ins & outs' of the matter and 'glow' is not something I seek in my own shots but I sometimes like seeing it in work by others. I have only seen it in prints and books rather than on web images. That may have something to do with my monitor.

(So why did I post links if I cannot see it myself on web images? Maybe you can.)

Oh yes Doisneau with his Rolleiflex/Tessar. His stuff jumps off the page at me.

<i>Frances Schultz (partner of Roger Hicks)</i></p>In fairness, since you've perhaps inadvertently implied that she is defined by her working partnership with her husband, it might be worth noting that Frances is by far the more talented and capable photographer of the two, whilst Roger is a prolific writer.</p>For Paul N.: Good shot and the best of yours I've seen, perhaps the effect of preoccupation with subject rather than kit.

Well, If you have the misfortune of having nearly-flare-free modern lenses, you can always

smear something greasy on a UV filter, leave off the lens hood, shoot close to wide open and

over expose a bit, to get some "glow" in. Not my cuppa tea though. I've been trying to get

away from flaring lenses in recent years.

Back in the 1960's, the term was 'brillance'. When resolution figures didn't support the clear superiority of Leica lenses over their competitors, a magazine expert would proclaim that the Leica lens quality had this extra attribute.

Thanks, Terence. I think!

"In fairness, since you've perhaps inadvertently implied that she is defined by her working

partnership with her husband"

 

That certainly wan't the intention. I mentioned her relationship to Roger simply because he

contributes to this forum whereas Frances doesn't.

Is it a Leica glow or a '50's glow. I think it's more about lenses of the period than Leica lenses in particular ...

In short, I think most lenses of that period had similar coatings, and similar flare characteristics. Some were outrageously bad dogs, but some, that had really good resolution, low contrast, and a certain vulnerability to flare created that glowing quality ...<div></div>

Leica Glow (definition): That warm feeling of satisfaction that comes from getting one good photo out of the last one hundred shots after spending thousands on cameras and lenses.

 

Seriously though I really like the black and white photos in the links posted above. Very nice glow indeed.