That Leica Look

This discussion is taking on the inane course usually reserved for discussions of the "Leica Glow" — and it's the Leica Glow that has always been considered the innate characteristic of Leica lenses, whether it exists or not. You can read at the following link an article that gives a recipe for how to get "The Glow" by Mike Johnston, the author of "The Online Photographer" blog and an experienced darkroom printer:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-28.shtml

The picture posted by Irakly has nothing in particular to do with the "Leica look" and could have easily been produced by my Ricoh GRD2. The idea of making "photographs in the camera" without post-processing is not a "nobler" or even better way than to dodge and burn amn change contrast in the darkroom or on the computer: if you're not convinced of that look at Ansel Adams two excellent instructional books, "The Negative" and the "The Print", which show the original "straight prints and the final prints by Adams.

And, finally, there's nothing such as the "Leica look" although some specific lenses have properties that sometimes are identifiable in prints, but not with absolute certainty.

—Mitch/Chiang Mai
http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/sets/72157618035393355/show/

I think I got it all wrong and mixed the "Leica look" with the "Dragan effect."
http://www.pbase.com/photofixer/image/36443713

I found a tutorial on this on PS and will try it out. Sorry for causing a stir...

--
This space left intentionally blank

Get closer. Study light. Shoot wide open. Compose, compose, compose. The Leica will take care of the rest.

----
vettran.zenfolio.com

mitchall said:

The idea of making "photographs in the camera" without
post-processing is not a "nobler" or even better way than to dodge
and burn amn change contrast in the darkroom or on the computer

Click to expand...

I hear you, Mitch, but the simple point I was trying to make was that, if you do see something peculiarly Leica in one of Irakly's pictures, you can rely on his having produced that look with his Leica, not with his Macintosh or Dell. I wasn't trying to make any general statement about the relative merits of settling for the image as it comes out of the camera or developing it further in the digital darkroom. That's a different discussion.

To me this is the Leica look! everything about says Leica to me. It was taken by Paul Tanswell. Am sure you will all agree is fantastic. It was taken on a leica with Nocitlux f1.0.

To me this is the Noctilux look, not the Leica look, which I don't think exists. Now, I also have to confess that I sold my Noctilux, last year because I never like the bokeh at f/1.0, the long focus throw and the difficulty of focusing at maximum aperture.

I prefer the bokeh of the Summilux-50 per-ASPH (first picture below), not to speak of the DR Summicron (second picture); both with the M6 and Tri-X — hey, the second one even has some "glow":





—Mitch/Chiang Mai
http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/sets/72157618035393355/show/

I agree that the Noctilux has its own signature, but I do feel it is clearly also in line with the leica look.

quercus said:

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?

--

Click to expand...

Are you searching for "digital leica look" or for "film leica look"? Or are they the same to you?

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

I have never seen a single photograph that could ONLY be attributed to a Leica. I have asked to be shown one and there are never any takers.

Photos from Leica's supreme reign in 35mm film photography often exhibited that dark, high contrast look that Irakly used as an example. I didn't find it appealing then and I don't find it appealing now. I will pass on "that" look.

Sorry, I just don't buy the myth. There is no Leica Look... not anymore.. unless you are trying to duplicate the look and feel of images taken thirty or forty years ago. I prefer to study the past. I have no desire to be stuck in it.

--
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.

If I may, Jim: are you familiar with Dr. Erich Salomon and his work? If not, bear with me for a couple of paragraphs, please. Salomon used the Ermanox (with the revolutionary 85mm F2 lens), and later, starting perhaps in 1928, the Leica screwmount with the much slower 3.5 Elmar. Salomon, who perished in Auschwitz in 1944, left a wonderful legacy of involved photography behind. He used his camera with great ingenuity in the German Reichstag, at the Quai 'Orsay in Paris, the British High Court, the American Supreme Court, and so on. There are many interesting and witty stories about him. On one occasion a meeting of European statesmen was convened, and one member of the group exclaimed: "Where is Dr. Salomon? We cannot begin without him, or people will think that our talks are quite unimportant." Aristide Briant, the French Prime Minister at the time, called him "the king of the indiscreet". He would 'steal pictures" through a variety of means and ruses, moving among those who had important matters to decide with great alacrity, even if he wasn't invited. His style of unobtrusive engagement with his environment was recognized by various influential folks, and the term "candid camera", coined by the editors of the British journal The Graphic on January 11, 1931, was largely a response to Salomon's style of photography. He was in the White House taking pictures of the encounter between Hoover and then French Prime Minister Pierre Laval, at the insistence of the Premier Laval. Time Magazine in its November issue called him Dr. Erich "Candid Camera" Salomon. Leica's "supreme reign", as you call it, started around that time...

If you are still with me, I will try to get to the point via the detour of another story. On one occasion, Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother of Belgium) visited Germany. She was the guest of honor at a concert by Furtwangler, the great German composer and conductor. Salomon's reputation being what it was, Furtwangler allowed him to sit AMONG his violins, taking pictures of the musicians (and perhaps the audience) during the performance. Can you imagine the feeling of immediacy, the "power of directness", the sense of looking at people when they forget there is a camera shoved right in their face? It isn't how the camera looks at the subject (the person) which in my view creates the actual image, it's the way the subject (the person) surrenders his presence to the camera. Irakly's picture is a great example: the camera is there, but there is no pose to strike, the Leica does not demand anything, nor does it intimidate. Therefore, it does not change the natural state of human beings through its presence. Excellent optics notwithstanding, that, for me, is (or was) the "Leica look". Try that with a D3 (or with the OP's D40, for that matter).

Aloha.

Thomas

(P.S.: Much of the above was taken from Helmut Gernsheim's article on Salomon published in 1972)

===========================
Visit my Abandoned Homes in Upstate New York Project
at http://hahn.zenfolio.com/p467294225
===========================

Jim Radcliffe said:

I have never seen a single photograph that could ONLY be attributed
to a Leica. I have asked to be shown one and there are never any
takers.

Photos from Leica's supreme reign in 35mm film photography often
exhibited that dark, high contrast look that Irakly used as an
example. I didn't find it appealing then and I don't find it
appealing now. I will pass on "that" look.

Sorry, I just don't buy the myth. There is no Leica Look... not
anymore.. unless you are trying to duplicate the look and feel of
images taken thirty or forty years ago. I prefer to study the past.
I have no desire to be stuck in it.

--
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.

Click to expand...

Of course I read everything you wrote.. to not do so would be to shortchange myself and to show disrespect to you. You took the time to write it so I should take the time to read what you have written.

I enjoyed the stories. But what I hear from you in these stories is that it's not Leica that is important.. it's that if you are a photographer and are using an unimposing camera to "steal" the photos you get a certain look to your photographs.. the look would be the "invisble look".. not the Leica look... In other words, you are there, you made the capture but few if any noticed you...

This was one of the reasons that Leica cameras were so successful.. their discreet size and great lenses. Remember how large cameras used to be back in those days?

Now, I did not see any of that in Irakly's photo.. what I saw was everyone looking at the camera and a high contrast, dark, brooding print... not something I aspire to produce nor a look I care to recreate by any means.
--
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.

I don't have the foggiest... Is there a difference?

--
This space left intentionally blank

Now when I have You; this is one of your pictures that to me has "the look:"
http://www.boxedlight.com/m8/streetcar920.htm

This doesn't:
http://www.boxedlight.com/dlux4/trollybarn.htm

I cannot define "the look" very well, but I think it's about richer shadows, contrast and texture.

--
This space left intentionally blank

Jim please get out of the "Dark Side". The Lecia look is a Total thing of the past. Any film camera of that era can produce the same result.

Stick with something new and a "whole lot cheaper" to do the same result. I admire your work, but this Leica thing you are on is just crazy.

You know and I know the new EP1 will get the job done.

Don

Does nobody on this forum understand Irakly's sence of humor? His picture represents the Leica look in its purest form. All in the picture are looking at a Leica, presumably. All of your discussion of his picture is most irrelevant. He must be rolling on the floor laughing at the discussion following his post.

Irakly Shanidze said:

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



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

Click to expand...

--
Chuck Currey

Jim, thanks for the courtesy of your response. I think Leica (the rangefinder) IS an important concept because it does allow "to steal" a glance (for all eternity, if committed to print) in ways that other cameras won't easily allow. Leica reduced the factors size & weight, added an array of beautiful lenses, and the whole package was inconsequential enough to be taken everywhere without much ado (like you carry your D-Lux 4 with you more than other cameras I suppose). I went from IIIC to M3 to M4 to the R-system, and recall the handling and feel of these cameras with great fondness, including the R class.

Re Irakly's example, I certainly agree it is a high-contrast image, but the guys are caucasian, they wear black suits, and the picture was taken in a dark tunnel for crying out loud, so you do really only get the faces to stand out - which is exactly the reason I think it is useful for the discussion at hand: it reduces what is marginal, and highlights what is of importance. That particular balance is a matter of debate of course, as personal taste (or the public's aesthetics) come into play, among other things. With the Leica in capable hands (not necessarily in mine, I am not a pro at all, although I have stuff published), I always had the feeling it was easier to strike that balance, to reduce what was marginal, and to concentrate on what was (is) important.

Thomas

Jim Radcliffe said:

Of course I read everything you wrote.. to not do so would be to
shortchange myself and to show disrespect to you. You took the time
to write it so I should take the time to read what you have written.

I enjoyed the stories. But what I hear from you in these stories is
that it's not Leica that is important.. it's that if you are a
photographer and are using an unimposing camera to "steal" the photos
you get a certain look to your photographs.. the look would be the
"invisble look".. not the Leica look... In other words, you are
there, you made the capture but few if any noticed you...

This was one of the reasons that Leica cameras were so successful..
their discreet size and great lenses. Remember how large cameras
used to be back in those days?

Now, I did not see any of that in Irakly's photo.. what I saw was
everyone looking at the camera and a high contrast, dark, brooding
print... not something I aspire to produce nor a look I care to
recreate by any means.
--
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.

Click to expand...

--
===========================
Visit my Abandoned Homes in Upstate New York Project
at http://hahn.zenfolio.com/p467294225
===========================

Hi,

Perhaps we are confusing the Leica image which is about their advertising with the Leica look which ought to be about slides and prints.

Talk slides and Leicas and I might have agreed thirty years ago but these days, I'm sorry to say, it's just a legend. Although I think it was the truth in the 1930's when they really put the cat amongst the pigeons with the model II in 1932...

But they did and did make some wonderful lenses. I still get a kick out of the Digilux's photo's and their handling is in a class of it's own overall but a lot of individual cameras from other makers can have that label put on them. Try the Olympus XA f'instance or the µ 300 from the digital ones. Both neat cameras for the street shooter.

Regards, David

quercus said:

I don't have the foggiest... Is there a difference?

--

Click to expand...

Absolutly. There is a difference in tonality, highlight rendering, grain vs noise. The classical B&W Leica photojournalism look is coupled to that from high speed B&W film, often Kodak Tri-X .

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

webrunner5 said:

Jim please get out of the "Dark Side". The Lecia look is a Total
thing of the past. Any film camera of that era can produce the same
result.

Stick with something new and a "whole lot cheaper" to do the same
result. I admire your work, but this Leica thing you are on is just
crazy.

Click to expand...

I did not start the thread, Don. I commented on what Irakly provided as "the Leica Look".. nothing more. I agree that the Leica Look is a thing of the past. The OP posed the question to which Irakly provided "the answer".. which I happen to disagree with.. am I not allowed that?

webrunner5 said:

You know and I know the new EP1 will get the job done.

Click to expand...

I totally agree... and now, since it is Sunday afternoon.. I'm going to go find something to photograph.

--
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.

I really enjoyed your gallery of abandoned houses, nice work, IMO.
--
JohnK
Take a picture, it'll last longer.