That Leica Look

I'm conteplating the expansion of my Nikon DSLR bag, but I have totally fallen in love with that "Leica look." Do I need a rangefinder to achieve it, or is it just post- processing? I have seen some astounding images taken with the D-lux 4, but I'm not able to replicate them with mine. Are there any shortcuts to achive them?

--
This space left intentionally blank

dlux4 and "leica look" have almost nothing in common.
this is what "leica look" means:



--
Irakly Shanidze
http://www.shanidze.com/en

Exactly; shadows, contrast etc. I have seen that on a few D-lux 4 images, which made me think that it's all about post-processing.

--
This space left intentionally blank

no, this is not "shadows and contrast". it is the fact that the image does not have to be sharp to look sharp.
--
Irakly Shanidze
http://www.shanidze.com/en

then my Nikon D3 produces that "Leica Look", too.

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida

You lost me there... My father had a rangefinder in the early 70s and he managed to capture the magic quite well. Let's disregard the "Leica look" description, of which I seemt to have the wrong understanding. What I meant was a 3D feeling through the use of shadows, contrast and sharpness (eg the wrinkles on an old mans face).

--
This space left intentionally blank

Irakly Shanidze said:

dlux4 and "leica look" have almost nothing in common.
this is what "leica look" means:

Click to expand...

Uh... NO.. one photo of your choice does not demonstrate the alleged "Leica Look".. How can you possibly present this photo as an example of the "Leica Look". This look can be achieved with any number of cameras as well as post processing.

--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.

OUCH!! Grumpy's back........

CelticOdyssey said:

OUCH!! Grumpy's back........

Click to expand...

No, grumpy is not back.. just my opinion... I don't think anyone here is qualified to say that any single photo is the defintive Leica Look...

what is the Leica Look to Irakly is not necessarily the Leica Look to others. To suggest that that photo is THE Leica Look, if any such thing really exists, is just a real stretch and totally open to disagreement.

And frankly.. .if that is the "Leica Look".... I am not interested.

--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.

What exactly is the 'Leica Look' - can it only be achieved through a Leica M, R or any other Leica Lens (compacts) which have a distinctive signature or is it a 'digital image or film image' in post processing which produces a 'certain style of image' more in 'art form' than a regular image?

I have looked at a great number of Leica images on the web but I have to say in many, many cases they are no better or worse than the standard images from many other film and digital cameras.

Leica "look" can be acheived with most cameras and some PP. The M8 or any other leica camera and lens is only as good as the photographer. Any recent camera can give you leica look, just use manual and some photoshop.

I have studied this very area for several months now and as yet I am unable to reach a definitive answer to the reality of the 'Leica Look' - I currently use Canon DSLRs + Canon Lenses and quite recently bought into a Nikon FM3a + Nikon 50mm f1.4 to further my film 'street' photography (still on the fence re Leica).

There does appear to be a combination of factors and I split them up into 2 camps:-

The first is that the image (digital or film/scanned) is heavily post processed and lends itself more to certain types of subjects which suit the final style (portraits and people/scene street photography) The final result is often abstract in final composition - still a photography but verging on an art form.

The second is that the Leica does indeed deliver a 'signature image' most commonly associated with the summicron/summilux lenses and with very little post processing the same result is achieved (as in number 1)

Critical to all of this appears to be (in both camps) the availablity of the subject material which tends to lend itself to distinctive colouring and scenes with 'old world' styles in the street and in portraits. Very often the image is captured in B+W either through film or through digital camera.

I have no final conclusion, perhaps it is all a myth but the problem is that to finally test the second 'camp' I would have to lay out an awful lot of dosh to establish if indeed Leica has a signature worth buying into.

Any further elaboration would be very welcome!

Irakly,

I like the composition and the final result of your image!

Can you please tell me what camera and lens was used to take the picture and was there any form of post processing (relative to film, scanned/film or digital)

Shoot in manual and be there when something interesting happens.

--

Aurance,

WOW> . pretty impressive breakdown.

Honestly, using the process of elimination,
the camera itself do not deliver a particularly different file...
The sensor is not really magic
the lens is not shockingly fast - particularly the cron's
the lenses ARE very sharp wide open, so that is something.

We can pretty quickly agree that any high-end SLR, equipped with a fast 50mm 1.4 or better, can match the general technical description.

I will not pursue the comparison of lenses further, as many of the lengendary leica look images was captured with 1950 lens which are easily matched by the big camera makers today, so lets not get into the otherwise interesting lens discussion just now.

This leaves us with at least one interesting variable.

How the camera get between you and the object. Its more than a matter of keeping it simple, its a matter of the camera controls and function supporting your photography of the above said image. Having spend most of my life using pro SLR/DSLR's for my work, I can safely say that your head works differently when working with a M style camera. interestingly you will find this also applies to the use of Zeiss Ikons, Voigtlander Bessa's, Leica CL and surely other rangefinders which I forgot to include... I call it "not getting in the way".

another is emulsion. a lot of the iconic images was captured on different film, Im scanning my grandfathers old HP3 negs, wow they are contrasty, grainy and quite different from a roll of ilford today. They were all more contrasty, the D-lux have a setting called dynamic which might provide some of that.

What the D-lux also have is ease of use, it don't much get in the face of the shooter or the subject. so that might help it get a look to the images.

Go to your camera store and rent a Leica and a 50lux or 35lux for the weekend.. its either going to shake you off right there or you will be sold and then you have the problem of being hooked on a very lovely camera system.

Bo

DOWNLOAD template for handcoding M lenses

http://bophoto.typepad.com/bophoto/2009/01/m8-coder-simple-manual-handcoding-of-m-lenses.html

Random d-lux4 images - http://bophoto.zenfolio.com/p978526368
Experimental blog - http://www.bophoto.typepad.com
Homepage - http://www.bophoto.com/panos

Everybody has their own opinion, so I'll toss a few of mine out. If there is a Leica look and you can pick the Leica produced images out from a stack of similar prints, so there might be, it can probably be traced to a few factors.

The lenses (mostly M, but some Rs) have very high micro contrast compared to Asian lenses for SLRs. They also have a rendering of the out of focus gradient that is only match by a few Asian SLR lenses. The German lens designers seem to have the knack, because many Zeiss lenses can do this, too. The sharpness or resolution can be matched and has been, but the rendering is sort of clinical or sterile in comparison.

Another facet which has been mentioned is that the window-direct view view finder of rangefinders invites us to see the subject differently, process it internally differently and choose the moment of exposure differently, resulting in different looking pictures than other types of viewfinders. The composition shows subtle differences.

While you can get some of this stuff in PP, it doesn't equal starting off with it. You can run the same PP argument against the perspective correction lenses. but you have to see prints side by side to really know. PP approximates.
--
Bob

I don't immediately the alledged "Leica look" in the Nikon pictures:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/35_14ais

Is it just my imaginarion, but i think I see it here (contrast, shadows, sharpness etc):
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/leitz/35_14_summilux_m

--
This space left intentionally blank

I have never had the chance to learn Photoshop that well. Is there a shortcut to achieve that "Leica look?" I'm not that keen (yet) on the other forms of PP.

--
This space left intentionally blank

I retain a degree of scepticism about mysterious phenomena such as "the Leica look" but I trust Irakly before anyone else on this forum to be able to show me what it is and convince me that it exists. The man is a master photographer. He knows light and what Leica lenses do with it. He makes his photographs in the camera not in a computer. I wish he would re-enter this discussion to expand on what he has said already but I can understand why he might not have the patience to do that. In any case, study the example he posted and try to understand what he is telling us.

Irakly Shanidze said:

this is what "leica look" means:

Click to expand...

quercus said:

no, this is not "shadows and contrast". it is the fact that the image does not have
to be sharp to look sharp.

Click to expand...

Hear hear! Love it.