Glow?

[icuneko]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38471645@N00/198086485/

 

Good example of "glow" or not?

[alvin_hear]

glow ? No.<p>

Flare, Yes.

[michaelging]

I think, that if backlighting and flare is what a leica glow is all about, my box brownie will give you that. I think the term "glow" in describing a photograph is misused by people who want to believe, that by spending a lot of money on a lens,it will give you some kind of mythological properties that other inferior lenses do not have. I will say, that the way, quality lenses handle contrast ,and sharpness, is evident in a photograph.Even a non photographer can see the quality in a photo taken by a Hasselblad, Contax, Leica , Nikon lens.My father used to say how "clear" the photo looked. I think it's one of those things, that if you have to ask if a photo has the "glow:" then it probably does not.

[peter]

I think this is flare although it looks OK (We too often assume that any flare is "bad" flare.) Old uncoated lenses are as we know especially prone to flare in contra jure situations. But I have seen many such shots that look plain beautiful. Coated lenses are less likely to flare but when they do, tend not to look so nice most times - although not always. (Was this shot from a coated lens or otherwise?)

 

Incidentally there are some quite OK photoshop plugins that cause glow (iin the nature of flare exhibited here.)

 

Glow comes more from (I think) uncorrected spherical abberation. It too is not necessarily bad and there are many examples of very nice photos which are simultaneously sharp but with softer undertones that also are a characteristic of the glow.

[elmarfudd]

"I think the term "glow" in describing a photograph is misused by people who want to believe, that by spending a lot of money on a lens,it will give you some kind of mythological properties that other inferior lenses do not have."

<BR>

<BR>

<BR>

On the other hand, lens "quality" is subjective. Glow may be flare, but could also be desireable.... I wouldn't trade any of my uncoated Leitz lenses for a box brownie.

[brambor]

Glow? No.

[pico_digoliardi]

Not glow. Simple back lighting illuminating the partially transparent hair. The exposure is just terrible, too.

[todd frederick]

"Glow" is an urban myth.

[Ian Taylor]

glow, not

[tito sobrinho]

Glow, are you kidding?

 

I rather have a flare from my 6x9 Brownie. At least, I will have a bigger negative to work with instead of a smaller one whereas, the infinity turns "mushy".

[Rob F.]

I agree, this is not what I think of a "glow" or "the Leica glow." I think that glow is real, and not at all an "urban myth" as Todd feels about it. But I believe that glow is the result of using a lens that is undercorrected for certain basic abberations, especially spherical abberation. I think of it as a softness and roundedness of the highlight areas.

[tito sobrinho]

"I think of it as a softness and roundedness of the highlight area"

 

Hey Rob, you are now describing my 8x10 Dagor lens.

[icuneko]

Thanks one and all for the ... er ... glowing comments. It's good to post a question and not get BBQed. Been too much of that on this forum.

[lb-]

I actually didn't know that. thanks for the heads up james.

[Uhooru]

Oh I don't know. The reference to "leica glow" goes way back before internet photo forums

when camera's tended to be more thought of as tools. Just because people tend to become

doggidly iconoclastic in overcompensation to the equipment worshipers who think the

camera makes the photograph doesn't mean that there ain't no glow. The pic though isn't an

example of it.

[lb-]

<i>Just because people tend to become doggidly iconoclastic in overcompensation to the equipment worshipers who think the camera makes the photograph doesn't mean that there ain't no glow</i><p>

 

seriously though, great sentence! starts out very heady but ends up folksy and wise. <p>

 

how about this pic? is it glow? middle of the railing? glow? <p>

 

<center><img src="http://static.flickr.com/1/184495070_641e52bc8e_o.jpg"></center> <p>

 

 

I'm confused about what it is. <p>

 

plus, on another thread someone said my leica 35mm lens had bad bokey. Now i feel like I got ripped off. $3000 for a lens and bad bookey.<p>

 

lame.