quercus
Forum Enthusiast
I agree, if highly processed. Same with HDR. With mild use I think Dragan gives excellent results. Different strokes...
--
This space left intentionally blank
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
That Leica Look
- Thread starter quercus
- Start date
--
This space left intentionally blank
U
User190
Guest
For me "leica look" is something like that (first 2 with Summicron ASPH and last with Summilux ASPH, on Kodak E100VS). The key is that images must not be over exposed, that is very common with digital cameras with "default" metering. What I think make Leica lenses different is certain microcontrast that is not present with most other lenses, and this contrast is still present when wide open, plus very smooth bokeh. Also they have nice light fall off wide open (esp when under-exposed and then pushed in computer). Need I say that digital sucks!?
J
Jim Radcliffe
Guest
I like and appreciate the work of Dragan. I would not call it kitsch at all.. there is a lot involved in what he does to acheive his signature style.
--
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.
jeff hladun
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,262
- Reaction score
- 1,273
I agree with Mitch - Dragan's work is overly processed, and obviously so. His style may be current with what is fashionable today, but, just like HDR, and those distorted panoramic shots which are popular, they will evaporate with the test of time.
I agree with Jim that there is a lot involved in Dragan's effect - but that too is the problem. To me, photo processing should look very natural, and effortless. If one notices the processing, then the processing has failed.
-------------------------------
As to the Leica look, I'm not sure what that means. I always took it to be the overly contrasted photo-journalistic style from the 50s and 60s. In that sense, what Irakly posted is bang-on. The funny thing is, I don't think the Leica look is completely the provenance of Leica cameras!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12191517@N05/
J
Jim Radcliffe
Guest
Let me address something I forgot... "This thread has turned out to be absurd"... I really don't agree with that.. anytime a group of us can have a discussion, no matter how inane or how hopeless a final determination may be it is still fun and the interaction is generally good for everyone. If the thread is of no value to a member they simply don't have to read it.. it's not like any of us are paying for any of this and expect to get their monies worth.
Well, yes and no... yes, it is over processed but it is his unique style and his subjects are also unique and charismatic.. I think Dragan's work is certainly more photo art than straight photography. It has served him well, numerous awards and magazine covers and articles in Europe. I say good for him! And I appreciate his skill with camera, light and Photoshop.
Go to the retouching forum here on DPReview and search for Dragan and you will find hundreds of posts from people who have attempted it, some of them quite badly, and those who wish to know how it was done. In fact, as an experiment I am going to post my street portrait there for them to "play" with and let's see what they come up with.
Here's the link to my post in the retouching forum: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=32166561
The key words in your comment are "To me".. what's great about photography is that it is wide enough in scope to support so many different styles and opinions. As my own example: I often don't "get" Irakly's work but I can appreciate what he does. Many of his shots are totally posed and manufactured, something I don't do, but what he does, he does well and who am I to say it's not "real photography" because it does not appeal to me?
Sometimes I shoot a portrait and process it as naturally as possible. Other times I take it to the extreme. It's all good. It's all fun.. as a hobbyist it does not have to be anything more for me.
I totally agree with you here. Leica images today do not appear to look like the one Irakly posted unless the photographer wants them to look that way. Back in the 50s and 60s there was often no choice.. that's just the way they came out due to the glass, film, chemistry and paper.
--
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.
mitchall
Senior Member
There is an interesting point here about an "over processed" vs "natural" look. Basically, I don't think there's such a thing as over processing, although this term is often used on photo forums: there's only the artist's intention. For example, Moriyama Daido, who many will not like, but who I think is one of the best contemporary photographers, often dodges and burns parts of his high contrast images so that there is an obvious halo around some subjects as if he's saying, "Look this is just a photograph, not the real thing."
There are also the examples that you can see in Anselm Adams' instructional books, "The Negative" and "The Prints", in which he shows the original straight print and his final, highly manipulated "fine print", which shows his "visualization" of the subject or the scene rather what the film happened to record: some of the fine prints have black skies, which certainly are not "natural."
There's really nothing more "noble" or superior about a photograph which has been minimally processed, though people on forums often write proudly, "I only processed this image minimally, by only increasing contrast slightly.
On kitsch, Dragan, to me has, photographically some of the feeling of Thomas Kinkade, not in in subject matter but (a bit) in the "direction" of exaggerating sentimentality and melodrama — the fact that Kinkade is the world's largest-selling painter, and successful in commercial terms, does not make his any less kitschy. I don't want to make a big point point of this comparison, but only want to indicate why I feel that much, though not all, of Dragan's work is kitsch.
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/sets/72157618035393355/show/
There are also the examples that you can see in Anselm Adams' instructional books, "The Negative" and "The Prints", in which he shows the original straight print and his final, highly manipulated "fine print", which shows his "visualization" of the subject or the scene rather what the film happened to record: some of the fine prints have black skies, which certainly are not "natural."
There's really nothing more "noble" or superior about a photograph which has been minimally processed, though people on forums often write proudly, "I only processed this image minimally, by only increasing contrast slightly.
On kitsch, Dragan, to me has, photographically some of the feeling of Thomas Kinkade, not in in subject matter but (a bit) in the "direction" of exaggerating sentimentality and melodrama — the fact that Kinkade is the world's largest-selling painter, and successful in commercial terms, does not make his any less kitschy. I don't want to make a big point point of this comparison, but only want to indicate why I feel that much, though not all, of Dragan's work is kitsch.
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/sets/72157618035393355/show/
HuntingSand
Senior Member
Jim, you already have some great renderings over there; asoftwind and Sam B's takes are excellent. Great idea to put this particular portrait out there for these folks...I'll follow how they "play", although sometimes I wish they'd actually provide a walkthrough to what they did and why they did what they did. Many of the retouchers seem to take every single PS layer action for granted...or they guard their trade secrets...
Thomas
===========================
Visit my Abandoned Homes in Upstate New York Project
at http://hahn.zenfolio.com/p467294225
===========================
J
Jim Radcliffe
Guest
Thanks.. and some of the retouch guys do go to far and the subject ends up looking like a zombie or some other living dead creature.
Walkthrus can be difficult as I often never follow the same path, it always depends on the image.
Better to respond in the retouch forum than here as this is off topic for this forum and some of the natives get a bit twitchy sometimes.
--
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.
quercus
Forum Enthusiast
This thread has turned out to be a revolution for me. I may not be the most active photographer an have thus previously only used the Nikon ViewNX to process my pictures. The Dragan action on atncentral.com has opened the Photoshop world to me. My pictures look so much more contrasty, texturized and 3Desque - which apparently is my personal definition of the Leica look - with a slight touch of that action. Friends say they suddenly have that professional feeling to them. All this makes me take my gear out more often.
--
This space left intentionally blank
--
This space left intentionally blank
julieng
Leading Member
Talent and expertise is a decisive factor. But gear is not insignificant. ...I'd just have a pin hole and work on my skills, hoping for divine intervention...
U
User190
Guest
IMO there is big difference between digital art and photography, although for many people there seems not to be any difference, which is actually sad. Often over processed stuff that goes into realm of digital art is presented as photography...
Mark Ehlers
Senior Member
You are absolutely correct. Even though much of this can be subjective, there are often extremes of processing that people will take way beyond any chance for argument on this point...even though they will argue that too!. That's why I usually choose to stay out of discussions such as this.
--
- Mark Ehlers (formerly 'markE')
'Good street/wildlife photography is a controlled accident,
a vision of preparation and surrender materialized.'
vernonleow
Member
I was just thinking the same thing! The "Leica Look" as shown in the photo is the Looks you get when you use a Leica.
--dlux4 and "leica look" have almost nothing in common.
this is what "leica look" means:
--
Irakly Shanidze
http://www.shanidze.com/en
Chuck Currey
I would say, more of an HP3 look than a Leica look. The quietness of the Rangefinder versus the SLR was always an advantage when taking candid shots - even posed candid shots. My old Agfa Silette and Kodak Retina cameras with their compur shutters were even quieter.
polarabbit
Senior Member
To me, the Leica look is also something along those lines. I've never thought about it but I really do agree with the point about Leica look is very rarely over exposed (and often times looks under exposed as a matter of fact). Ironically, I find that due to it having a basic metering that is heavily centre weighted, when shooting dark subjects under high contrast situations, the M8 often over exposes by default and eV adjsutment is necessary to maintain highlights.
For me "leica look" is something like that (first 2 with Summicron
ASPH and last with Summilux ASPH, on Kodak E100VS). The key is that
images must not be over exposed, that is very common with digital
cameras with "default" metering. What I think make Leica lenses
different is certain microcontrast that is not present with most
other lenses, and this contrast is still present when wide open, plus
very smooth bokeh. Also they have nice light fall off wide open (esp
when under-exposed and then pushed in computer). Need I say that
digital sucks!?
--
Canon Pro1, Epson RD1s, Leica M8, Fuji S3 Pro, Sigma DP1&2, Panasonic LX3, Ricoh GRD & CX1
andy siddens
Active member
After a 20 year wait for a Leica, eventually bought an M8 for exactly that.. the Leica look. Its taking a while getting used to but loving it so far.
--
andyS
http://www.andysiddens.co.uk
--
andyS
http://www.andysiddens.co.uk
Don Simons
Forum Enthusiast
I know I should just shut up and read these threads as I love the look of the old Leica cameras and of course all the good photos taken way back were taken with Leicas by many brilliant photographers. BUT, to talk about the "Leica Look", well honestly let's not get carried away. Some contributors even mention the DLux 4 in the same breath as Leica? Come on we all know it is an LX-3 Panasonic unless we are in denial. Why not celebrate what is good in Leica's past and present and not try to create subjective myths. A person put a vintage Leica in my hands recently and it felt so solid and something like a Swiss watch. If I had taken a photo with it then it would just have been one of my photos. I agree with Jim if the example photo is the Leica Look then leave me out of that depressing style of representing life. However your opinion is as valid as mine and most interesting reading.
Visit Mark Schretlen's web site and compare his Leica shots with his 1DsII pictures. Same person, same technique, same PP but different looks. Clarity is one word to help define "Leica look".
http://www.pbase.com/kodachrome/image/85305014/original
http://www.pbase.com/kodachrome/image/80995616
http://www.pbase.com/kodachrome/image/86866914
--
BobYIL
http://www.pbase.com/kodachrome/image/85305014/original
http://www.pbase.com/kodachrome/image/80995616
http://www.pbase.com/kodachrome/image/86866914
--
BobYIL
Mark Ehlers
Senior Member
The images contain the word "kodachrome" in their link, but they were all taken with an M8.
Sacrilege!!!
'Good street/wildlife photography is a controlled accident,
a vision of preparation and surrender materialized.'
Sacrilege!!!
--
- Mark Ehlers (formerly 'markE')
'Good street/wildlife photography is a controlled accident,
a vision of preparation and surrender materialized.'
I remember a certain Ernst Haas who has deposited a huge number of rolls in his fridge when Kodak discontinued the production of Kodachrome I by declaring that Kodachrome II was way away from what he was used to like. I do not know but probably Mr. Schretlen could still be in the seek of something he used to admire by using Kodachrome.
--
BobYIL
--
BobYIL
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum