I can't let this Leica glow thing go

[clive1]

Interestingly, in Mike Johnston's 10-point recipe for the "glow," only the first point is attributed to the actual Leica lenses.

According to him, use of film, developer, enlarger and photographic paper is more important, as each get at least two

mentions.

[derek_stanton2]

There are a hundred responses in this thread, and no two people have the same impression of what constitutes "glow."

So, much like religion and 'god,' it does exist, but only as a personal explanation for whatever that particular person

wants to explain. Someone (Einstein or Nietzsche?) said god is the sum of all the properties of the universe. That seems

to be the approach of defining "glow" here. It's all things, so it must also be nothing.

 

Tirta's photograph is fantastic. But, it's the result of amazing light, composition, that particular film, and how a lens

renders it all. It's not glow. It's just a great photograph. If there were some component of a Leica lens responsible for

that, that type of image would be more easily repeatable.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with Michael Church's post. THAT is where the truth lies.

[pensacolaphoto]

This is a photo taken with a Zeiss Jena 5cm 2.0. Is this a "Zeiss Glow"?<div></div>

[photo_galleries]

<i>Is there a Sonnar glow? -- Raid</i>

<p><p>

YES -- to illustrate, the first is from a ZM 50mm Sonnar, the second, from a ZM 50mm Planar.

<p><p>

The first has an obvious glow, while the second, which is a lot sharper, does NOT, although it shows a nice 3D-like

separation between subject and background.

<p><p>

Sonnar<p>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/2943998248_53ae9258a9.jpg">

<p><p>

Planar

<p>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3127/2697513192_856a1da2a4.jpg">

[tom_higgins3]

So it's a subjective characteristic, right?.

[photo_galleries]

IMHO, it is not subjective. I do believe it exists and I think it is some sort of spherical aberration. Thus, the effect is effectively minimized when using aspheric lenses. The "glow" also seems to be most evident when the image is sidelit.

 

Anyway, that's my understanding, and I'm sticking with it. IOW, I don’t know for sure, but I’ll know it when I see it.

 

Keith

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here is some great classical Zorki Glow:<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/LTM%20lenses/tripods-213.jpg?t=1226448105">

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here is some some Summarit F1.5 Glow <BR><<BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Summarit%20F15/_EPS5853NUGGETS.jpg?t=1226448226">

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here is some some Ektar glow on a Signet 35<BR><<BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/signet%2035/SIGNET35GORDOsmallfullframe.jpg?t=1226448335">

[kelly_flanigan1]

Noctilux glow <BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Noct/tripods-322.jpg?t=1226449202"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Noct/tripods-323.jpg?t=1226449258">

[kelly_flanigan1]

Photographers confused by this glow thing :<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/paparazzi/Cameras03.jpg?t=1226449326">

[kelly_flanigan1]

Xenotar glow <BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/biker/tripods-498.jpg?t=1226449673">

[kelly_flanigan1]

16mm Fisheye Nikkor Glow on an Epson RD-1<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/EPSON%20R-D1/_EPS0572NIKKOR16mmcloset.jpg?t=1226449903">

[kelly_flanigan1]

TOO MUCH GLOW here ruined a Nice Canon FTb:<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Canon%20FTB%20goof/tripods-152.jpg?t=1226450204"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Canon%20FTB%20goof/b3ef65a0.jpg?t=1226450272">

[kelly_flanigan1]

<a href="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/signet%2035/SIGNET35GORDOcrop.jpg?t=1226450432"><b>Zoom of the 20 dollar Signet 35's image; above Gordos/WB6NOA's wagon.</b></a><BR><BR>@FIN

[stindphoto]

Would you say that this shot has glow? - Just answer "yes" or "no" and briefly explain your verdict!<div></div>

[Brad_]

Glow...<P>

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images35/JeffMovie2.jpg">

</center>

[photo_galleries]

Peter - no, I don't see it. In fact, looks like that image was shot with a "highly corrected lens" -- I would even guess

that it has aspherical element(s).

<p><p>

Brad - nice shot, but I don't see it either.

<p><p>

From Kelly's series, I see the glow in the Summarit image and the larger Noct image, but not in any of the others.

<p><p>

Again, that's what ***I*** see/don't see. If you don't agree, that's fine. While I do believe "glow" exists and is

observable (since it is a function of a lens' spherical aberration), it is not necessarily a must-have for an image to be

inhrerently good (or bad). Like I said, I don't see it in Brad's image, but I happen to like that image -- noce

composition and tonality.

<p><p>

Here's another example -- glow / spherical aberration:

<p><p><center>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2943139313_467b59fa74.jpg">

<p><p></center>

Again, just my $0.02.

<p><p>

Keith

[mohir_ali]

Brian Sweeney's Nov. 11 3:35 pm post has a glow.

 

http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00RRXT

[Ian Taylor]

Holga glow

<p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/33/37233969_62d9a77f27.jpg?v=0">

[graham_thompson1]

As Shakespear said " To glow or not to glow that is the question"

He did of course have a slight speach impediment so what he really was saying was to Go or not to GO.

I think he might have had a Leica, not sure which model but quite an old one I expect.

[lorriman]

I love these kind of threads: gives a good idea of who hasn't any self-control. Incontinent people are the kind you can't trust, and that is very useful to know.

[Brad_]

>>> Brad - nice shot, but I don't see it either.

 

Thanks Keith. But the shot was intended to be a goof. There is no glow...

[notraces]

i get glow from my camera phone -- does that count?

[don_e]

Glow:

 

http://fhunter.com/american.htm