I can't let this Leica glow thing go

[graham_thompson1]

Bob.

That is an unfair comment. These people are quite serious. To some it is just about the overpriced outmoded and overated equiment they use but it is not really fair to use comments like that. Hey just noticed my phone has a glow also. I think phoneglow is only on the Nokia. Is yours a Nokia also? How many megapixels?

[squareframe]

<br>Brad,

 

don't despair. I have a bottle of Kodak Photo-<u>Glo</u> right here!<br><br>

 

uh oh .. my bad. it's only Photo-<u>Flo</u> not <s>Photo-Glo</s>.<br><br>

 

drat .. foiled again!<br><br>

 

dt

[leicaglow]

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

 

Bob and Graham, why even make comments like that? Do you care so little about photography or what others are trying to achieve? It's very childish.

 

"To some it is just about the overpriced outmoded and overated equiment[sic]...'

 

Graham, I don't even see that you have a portfolio here. So obviously your equipment isn't serving you.

 

MODERATOR: since so many think this issue is a joke, let's just close this thread. It has little use to anyone at this point, least of all the OP. It has obviously run its course. It certainly does not speak well for the Photo.net community.

[graham_thompson1]

Michael et al.

Whilst the post is closed I would hope that a sincere appology to all dedicated Leica people

would show. I have every respect for them and am sorry that my childish humour may have caused offence.

None was intended. And yes I do see the Leica difference.

Graham

[squareframe]

"So at the risk of getting the verbal tilt shift kicked out of me, here it goes:" --Michael Axel

 

Michael, you led off pre-disposed to some grief, so you should hardly be surprised to find it here. your basic premise was that Leica lenses have a 'glow' and that justifies their insane pricing. unfortunately, though not unexpected, there were no submissions that showed this 'glow'. in fact, the submissions showed really poor photography and processing in my opinion. Tirta submitted a beautiful picture resplendent in 'glow' but as we all know it was because of the gorgeous evening golden light. my Canon G2 would have glowed all evening.

 

it was a good discussion. been discussed many, many times before. next time you make an assertion, you might want to provide an example and have some technical substantiation behind your proposition. I think the distillation of this thread, is that it is NOT the lens, but the combination of good positioning, great light, luck, a worthy subject, and finding yourself in the right place at the right time.

 

daniel taylor

[stindphoto]

I posted at photo here. It isnt glowing. Some would say it has good plasticy or 3D rendition because the woman at the

right stands out - more than just because of sharp subject against unsharp background.

 

Keith L commented on my photo: "In fact, looks like that image was shot with a "highly corrected lens" -- I would even

guess that it has aspherical element(s)." - sorry Keith, but wrong (no offense, please read on.) The photo was made a

few days ago with a beaten up 1964 design - the Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8 - shot wide open. Maybe its all in the eye of the

beholder. But we still miss to see photos with glow.

 

None of the photos shown in this thread show glow. I have Leica books from the 1940s and '50s - no talk about glow

formed by lenses. Ludwig Leitz - son of Ernst Leitz II writes in 1949: "When everything goes right, a slide is a

reproduction of nature in terms of range of light levels and color and the reproduction can only be influenced by cropping,

perspective and - if you go further - lighting." So with everything right, Leica founded their products on reproduction. A

few years later Ludwig Leitz would lead Leitz with his brother.

 

The closest I get to glow is in a text by Alber Boger in the Leica-Brevier 1949 published by Photographia zu Wetzlar. He

writes about the strongly developed negative, that on a soft paper grade gives a smooth enlargement with a soft glow

with a quality equal to a contact print.

 

In an 1949 interview with Professor Dr Max Berek - wissentschaftliche Leiter at Leitz and responsible for designing the

5cm Elmar, the 5cm Summitar, the 5cm Summarit, the 8,5cm Summarex etc - he explains that even the first lenses for

the Leica were highly color corrected. This I believe sets the Leica lenses apart from many competitors. But he goes on

to say: "If we were to talk about differences between similar systems, then it would be on the basis of limitations in the

measuring techniques." I believe he here refers to the Contax - what other similar system was there? His final remak in

that interview was, that "with todays (1949) level of optics, the wellmade photograph is less of an optical problem but

much more a matter of the technical precision of the camera, the properties of film and especially the schooling of the

user of the camera." Sorry, but still no glow.

[Brad_]

>>> Brad, don't despair. I have a bottle of Kodak Photo-Glo right here!

 

No problem Dan. I have a bottle myself and dip my compact flash cards in a fondue pot of the stuff before putting them in

the camera. It does work.

[dogbert]

"See, I knew many of you would come around. I specifically asked for those who didn't believe in Leica glow to simply skip this thread. But could they? No. "

 

What is the value of asking people who may disgree with you to leave the thread? Is it fair to prove Leica's glow by asking non believers not to comment?

[kelly_flanigan1]

The old 1937 Rollei Standard I have wth a 75mm F3.5 Zeiss Tessar has a glow to it; its great for portraits. Glow is not just a Leica thing; its one of older lenses and often uncoated ones designed i older eras; with different design goals.

[tirta s]

I don't think the OP ever tried to prove to the non believers that Leica lenses really do glow. That's why he only asked for

the believers opinion about their experience with the lenses that they think have this "glow", so there is no need to get

upset and try to prove otherwise. We should all just be respectful of each other's opinion. To the non believers, I'm sorry if

my photos upset you, I just wanted to share my experience with the believers about what I think is what they called the

Leica glow, not trying to prove to you that there really is a glow. Peace.

[larry_kincaid2]

"Glow" is not the right word. If you cannot agree on what the word glow means, then there's no way you can ever agree if "whatever it means" applies to any object in the real world such as a photograph. Which are these are you referring to:

 

Noun

1. light produced as a result of great heat

2. a steady light without flames

3. brightness of complexion

4. a feeling of wellbeing or satisfaction

Verb

1. to produce a steady light without flames

2. to shine intensely

3. to experience a feeling of wellbeing or satisfaction: she glowed with pleasure

4. (of the complexion) to have a strong bright colour: his pale face glowing at the recollection [Old English glōwan]

 

If you put a negative or slide on a light table, they all "glow." Leica images have a greater 3-D quality or "pop." These qualities can be defined and agreed upon by multiple observers when looking at the same photograph or negative.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Maybe its just that some Leica shooters understand lighting abit better than a dRebel user; and thus the 3D look is thru better lighting?

[robert_clark]

As we say in England: men sweat, women perspire, and ladies glow.

[Brian1664876441]

Kelly, that lens must have a really big gouge in it. Missed the best part of the shot. I'd switch to a different lens if the chance ever comes around again.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

I think it's ok for some people to have some yuks in this thread while others are taking it more seriously. Any mockery seems to be good natured enough. I sold my Summicron as part of a way to finance a good digital, but I will always miss it. There <i>was</i> something special about some of my pix with it. Whether at F2 or f11. Most of the "examples" here though, don't show me anything. Someone said it right: show us the glow, & show us the non-glow, together. Here's one I think is special:<div></div>

[derek_stanton2]

"Maybe its just that some Leica shooters understand lighting abit better than a dRebel user; and thus the 3D look is thru better lighting?"

 

I don't think Canon/Nikon folks talk about "glow," so they don't try to post examples within discussion threads like this one. I think the

'effect' is pretty much random, and even people who swear their lens does the glow thing can't repeat the effect when they want to. So, a

Leica guy shoots a thousand pictures, finds two that he thinks exhibit 'glow,' and then attributes it to the Leica magic glass. The Canon

guy shoots a thousand, doesn't recognize the same effect as anything to discuss in those terms, and so he doesn't attribute anything to

the Canon glass.

 

Whatever it is - and still, i maintain there is no recognized definition - it involves favorable lighting conditions and a combination of film,

exposure, printing/processing. So, it's SITUATIONAL and not related to a piece of equipment.

 

And, i always thought it was strictly a black and white thing. Not color. And, it has nothing to do with "flare." I always thought it wasn't a

literal application of the word "glow," but more of a description of how a print appeared somehow 'luminous' - but, that's just me. And,

then we're left with an explanation/definition of the word Luminous....

[clive1]

Robert Clark, it's actually an Aussie expression, and it is, "Horses sweat, men perspire, ladies glow."<P> I second

Ian's assertion that Holga's glow.<P><center><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3157/3015310144_8c772e4815.jpg?

v=0"></center>

[graybrick]

Indeed. The two Holga shots here exhibitfar more 'glow' than anything else posted. But I digress.

 

I am a skeptic by my nature. I do not, however, dispute the claim that different lenses display different optical characteristics which may be discernable by trained or untrained viewers in the images the lenses produce. I also don't doubt that different manufacturers produce lenses based on different design principles, and these will likely render some fairly characteristic differences among lens families produced by these different companies.

 

I'm still waiting for an explanation of what, exactly or approximately, you have determined to be 'glow' apparent in photos taken with Leica lenses, followed by some examples which demonstrate a comparable scene with and without it, so that we may understand what we are discussing here and possibly offer a hypothesis as to where the difference lies. Until we are all speaking the same language it is impossible to answer the question.

[mark_amos]

I tried to offer this question about 50 posts ago, but my laptop battery failed, so here it is: Can anyone provide a reference to the first usage of the term "Leica glow." What were the original images referenced?

[stephen_pitts]

Jack Lo,

 

Great, great picture.

 

Perfect exposure to get the mood.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[pensacolaphoto]

So, what is the general concensus on Leica Glow ?

 

It is not really a "Leica" ownership, but older lenses and special light with certain photography skills may bring out a certain glow in some images?<div></div>

[pensacolaphoto]

Here is another photo taken with a pre-war 5cm 2.0 Sonnar. Is there a "glow"?<div></div>

[graybrick]

Sonnar: backlight with flare in #1... could be 'glow' in #2, though we have not yet established what 'glow' refers to, so I'm unable to say for sure. Is it the 3-D look? Is it only tenable in black and white images? It's an enigma. The OP can't even describe what it is or compare it among other shots which do not have the 'glow'. I'm on board with the Holga Glow from the examples posted here. It's a combination of vignetting, edge softness, and moderate contrast which create a dreamy look, similar to what the more expesive Lensbabies give us for other camera systems. Holga is famous for thier revolutionary plastic lens design...

[lesged]

This photo pasted below was taken with my first Leica and possibly the first roll put through my brand new Leica

IIf. Before I ever heard the term "glow" referred to as a quality of a lens, that is exactly how I described the

skin tones in my wife and child.

 

For me it still glows. What do you think?

 

<center>

<img src="http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e109/LesGed/DT-Claudia--Marc-Copenhag-2.jpg" alt="Photobucket - Video

and Image Hosting"><br><br>

</center>

[lesged]

My photo didn't open. I'll try again

 

<center> <img src="(link); alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"><br><br> </center><div></div>