Leica Glow ?

Here are three recent photos of my family, taken with a Bessa T and a

collapsible 50/2 Summicron with Fuji 160 film. Is there a "Leica

Glow"? Either way, I like the results. Hope you like the photos too.

 

<br> <br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3641449-md.jpg"> <br> This

is a photo of my wife just outside our home. <br>

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3641445-md.jpg"> <br>

This is Dana, my older daughter. <br>

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3641452-md.jpg"> <br>

This is Lina, my youngest. <br> Since I got "them", they have become

my primary source of photogarphy.

Wonderful shots. Take lots more year after year and you will have a treasure which is irreplacable. I don't know about "Leica glow", for 35 years I've heard about it, read about it, talked to people about it, and shot mostly with my Leicas...love the results, but "Glow"...I'm not too sure. Razor sharpness, Bokeh, etc...etc..

 

Mostly enjoy what you do, learn, keep your family a part of the process.

Very nice shots, very sweet looking family there, Raid. I'd agree that the bokeh is very nice, but I don't see a "glow". I've seen it before, but I just don't see it here.

 

George

Very nice photos Raid! If you are like me, you are probably using your Leicas every single day! :-)

I don't see much in the way of glow, either. As for liking the photos, the middle is a decent snapshot--pleasant lighting and her expression's kind of amusing. The other two are mediocre snaps. Other than loving the subjects of the images, what do you find appealing about the shots?<P>

<a href="http://mikedixonphotography.com/doyoung04.jpg">Leica glow?</a>

Mike: Thanks for your frankness, but why be so hostile? Constructive crtiticism may be more appropriate and more effective. try it out when you can.

I see no hostility in Mike's assessment. He's just being frank. Nice family, but the photos

suffer from harsh light.

raid, i'm seeing some un pleasant artifacting in the first image. did you downsize and save for web after your colour and curves? and spending a minute with dust and scratch removal goes a mile. try the healing brush if you have ps 7, it'll be your new best friend :)

 

as for glow...definately glow in your older daughter's hair :)

What was hostile about my reply? I answered your direct question, commented on the strengths of the best image, and asked what you think are the strengths of the other images (because, other than your relationship to the subjects, I don't understand why you think they're enjoyable images).

 

If someone asked the same kind of questions about the image I linked to, I could give straight answers to the questions rather than accusing them of being hostile.

Raid,

 

Don't worry about Mike's comments. He has his period more than once a month so we learn how to get used to his mood-swings.

If you are going to post a question here for which there is only one acceptable answer then you should include that answer with the post to save us time spent groping. There is a Leica glow which is not demonstrated by any of the photos exhibited with your question. The photos of your family members do not forward your premise. While you clearly like the family photos, you seem to invite others to express their like or dislike of them. In reacting to the quality of the photos, Mr. Dixon was tactful and, in my opinion, not as critical as some might be. G.E.

Knew it wouldn't take long for the insults to start--after all, someone dared to NOT heap praise on shot taken with a Leica. Still waiting for an actual answer to my questions . . .

Mike's a nice guy who made honest and helpful criticism here. The pics, esp, the first one, look like scanned prints, a tad fuzzy. The only sharpness is on the polka dots in the baby chair on the third pic.

 

Leica "glow" is supposed to be a 3-D effect, called a "roundness" by some writers. It may be all hype; it could be you can get the same effect with your old Ricoh Singlex. There's a glow in your daughter's hair, but that's because it's caught the sun.

 

Here's a collapsible Summicron image, that demonstrates a 3-D effect.<div></div>

Jack, that's an excellent picture.

>Knew it wouldn't take long for the insults to start--after all, someone dared to NOT heap praise on shot taken with a Leica. Still waiting for an actual answer to my questions . . .

 

There's nothing wrong, at all, being frank. But, there's a nice way and courteous way to present your frankness and there're uncouth ways.

gee Arthur, first you suggest a man has a "period," and then you claim one shouldn't be "uncoth" don't you think before you type?

<I>But, there's a nice way and courteous way...</I><P>

 

 

Funny, seeing the above lecturing, when just a moment earlier he jumped to the bottom of

the barrel with: <I>He has his period more than once a month so we learn how to get used to

his mood-swings.</I><P>

I think the leica glow refers to the colour of your wallet after forking out for any new bits of gear.

 

JJ

Nice pic Mike. As usual, ignore the mental runts.

Jack, how old are ya? What's wrong with a wide opened 68'?

I personally don't read Mike's comment as 'hostile'.<br>

As far as Leica 'pop' or 'glow' goes I think the common belief is that it's a combination of light, aperture, background - and some good glass.<br><br>

Out of your three posted photos I also find the second one to be the most pleasing (great light, composition, subject, colours and depth of field). I don't really see a 'glow' in any of the photos that can't be contributed to the light and depth of field chosen. <br><br>

Nice photos overall - make sure you take many more as these are certainly ages and moments that you want to preserve. :)

<br><br>

<center>

<i>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/rsilfverberg/image/36899849.jpg">

<br>

Leica M3, Elmarit 90, Acros. Extremely backlit shot in the shade on a sunny day</i>

</center>

It would be more meaningful if the criticism contained some hints on actually improving Raid's photos of his gorgeous wife and lovely children. Maybe he should concentrate on filling the family album with with dark murky black and white images that look more "artistic"? I'm not sure his relatives would be all that eager to hang them on their walls to show their friends what the kids look like. Some people actually just want to take nice pleasant looking photographs of their loved ones. Raid accomplished his mission! A pretty good job, too!

the 3rd shot showed a bit of glow. Nice family!

<i>Maybe he should concentrate on filling the family album with with dark murky black and white images that look more "artistic"? I'm not sure his relatives would be all that eager to hang them on their walls to show their friends what the kids look like.</i><P>

Where did that come from? Where has anyone suggested anything even remotely like that?<P>

<i>Some people actually just want to take nice pleasant looking photographs of their loved ones.</i><P>

If that was his goal, there are some dramatic improvements that could have been made to his shots. (I didn't list these in the first place since, in the past, Raid's extensive experience has been empasizied, and these are all basic stuff.) For example, in the first portrait of his wife, the side lighting in this image burns out her left arm and the papers she's holding in her hand, creating distracting white blobs in the photo. She's positioned straight on toward the camera which emphasizes the width of her hips. Her eyes are very dark and murky--there's little light to draw attention there. Much of the image is soft (in a way that implies missed focus, not a "dreamy mood"). Her expression looks slightly irritated or, at best, patiently tolerant, rather than engaged or open. Again, this is all basic, Portrait 101 stuff--exactly the kinds of things you look out for when taking shots that will please the family. Does Raid's wife think this is a good photo? She seems to be an attractive woman, but this is simply not an engaging or flattering photo of her.

"Is there a "Leica Glow"?"

 

Well, I could see a little bit of glow on the first image, but it looks more a symptom of a

dusty scanner than anything to do with the lens that took the picture.

 

"why be so hostile? Constructive crtiticism may be more appropriate and more effective.

try it out when you can."

 

Raid, this is really inappropriate in itself, and entirely unfair on Mike who has a track

record

of

offering meaningful advice. If you ask people to comment then you have to be able to deal

with the rough as well as the smooth. Why are you so sensitive? On a previous thread

when I, amongst others, had the audacity to question your credentials as a teacher of

photography you theatrically announced that you wouldn't be forced off the forums, when

nobody had tried any such thing. Strange.