Reading mode: Light Dark

That Leica Look

Go to last post
I was looking at the blog of Jeff Ascough, an outstanding wedding photographer, who in an article on equipment writes:
BobYIL said:
On a side note, I had a comment from one anonymous photographer
...who stated that my work was better when I shot with Leica cameras.
The interesting thing for me is that there are five Leica images in my
website portfolio. I'd challenge him to tell me which ones they are.
Click to expand...
The "Leica look" indeed. Here's a link to the whole article:

http://jeffascough.bigfolioblog.com/weblog/post/107638

But make sure to look at his portfolios:

http://jeffascough.typepad.com/

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/malland/sets/72157618035393355/show/
 
It seems that a year ago a very similar thread occurred. So, here is a bump to bring it back to the present.
 
mgatov said:
It seems that a year ago a very similar thread occurred. So, here is a bump to bring it back to the present.
Click to expand...
Interesting in that the first post (from 2009) mentioned getting the look with a very different type of camera. Maybe the short answer would be to get a fixed 35mm equivalent lens and do the walkabouts with that camera/lens and nothing else. That's how I got the look with the film cameras, and haven't given that any thought until acquiring the X1. Someone somewhere mentioned they'd like to get a digital Rollei 35. So far I haven't gotten any portraits that are as good as what I got with the Rollei 35, but maybe I will eventually with the X1.
 
Can anyone empirically verify this look? If not then it is totally subjective and amounts to little more than a very well crafted marketing ploy. Any "look" can be Photo Shopped and you all know that. But hope springs eternal among those that feel the need to unique.
 
The look that I associate with Leica has

slightly desaturated colours but almost a creamy texture
soft out of focus areas just melding into the background
incredibly sharp focus and detail rapidly falling away

Not all shots are like that.
My Dlux4 doesn't have the look but my X1 does

I've tried all sorts of post processing to make my GF-1 images look the same but I've failed so far.
 
tvw said:
Can anyone empirically verify this look? If not then it is totally subjective and amounts to little more than a very well crafted marketing ploy. Any "look" can be Photo Shopped and you all know that. But hope springs eternal among those that feel the need to unique.
Click to expand...
When I first posted something about the look approx. a month ago, I posited that part of the look was very low noise, which although you don't "see" noise consciously at ISO 100 with large sensors in most cameras, the brain can still see the differences subliminally. So a photo from an X1 or M9 may look "creamier" than those from OLY or PANA cams, as one other person here has suggested.

Another factor, where I noticed the difference between my Rollei 35 and Leica M4-2 with 35mm lens, was a kind of "clarity" in low-contrast scenes -- the M4-2 showed better detail in the low-contrast scenes, probably because of the lens. I haven't seen such a comparison in digital, but it might still apply.
 
It's not a surprise that this thread would turn into a discussion about .... ??? what? lol! Something intangible, non-existent to some, incredibly real to others, etc. Reminds me when I was young and used to love foreign beer. (LONG time ago. Now I love micro-brewed IPAs) There were people who used to tell me that you can't tell the difference in beers? Some people can't experience the difference and therefore the importance of that difference in and of many things.

Most of these lenses have unique signatures. I would bet there are people who can spot and name the lenses used on images as easily as someone, me, for one, else can hear the difference between a Gibson and a Fender guitar. Sure you can put humbuckers on a Fender and probably fool me. Or single coil pickups on a Les Paul and probably fool me. But there's more subtle differences inherent in the density and shape of the wood and many other things whether I can hear them easily or not.

Anyway. I've shot Nikon gear forever. And digital SLRs since 2004. D70,D2Hs, D80s, D200, D3. With just every Nikon lens except giant teles. My final four of Nikon glass is the 50 1.4 G, the 80 1.4, the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8. I've used those lenses and gear in every conceivable situation (for me) but mostly with available light. I know I KNOW what that gear produces because I've produced it. And it IS great stuff. I've gone for a Leica look in my head always when using that gear and in post.

I don't have a lot of experience with Leica rangefinders and lenses yet. But I'm now the owner of both a M9 and a freaking spanky minty M7 which I adore like it's a human that looks good in a bikini. But I don't think that the Leica look I've dreamed about for years is THAT easy to get with all the current Leica lenses. So... as with Nikon... I'll be buying and selling to ultimately end up with glass that produces the look that I want.

One lens I won't likely be selling is the one I bought along with my M9. The 35 Summarit. Because whatever its shortcoming in terms of speed are, it delivered from DAY ONE what I consider the Leica look.

My sig-other with a towel on her head.



Model in Beverly Hills at a salon opening.

 
jammerbirdi_1 said:
It's not a surprise that this thread would turn into a discussion about .... ??? what? lol! Something intangible, non-existent to some, incredibly real to others, etc. Reminds me when I was young and used to love foreign beer.
Click to expand...
Try comparing a SchwabenBrau (sp?) with a U.S. domestic beer. You could tell the difference if you were already drunk to the point of passing out.
 
You mean the "Leica glow" ? I was told it's because (only?) of the German glass.
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?

--
This space left intentionally blank
Click to expand...
--
It's not what camera you use, it's how you use it.
 
When I first glanced at this my thought was "American Gothic", with more people. If you could re-shoot this (or maybe you have) with nobody smiling, it would look like something from the Golden Age of photography.
 
The powers that be seem to have deleted my comments. Not sure why, but now I can at least claim the dubious distinction of being censored!

Amazing, given the nature of my comments. Oh well. I wonder if this will be deleted too. Fascinating...
flhotelin said:
Why some of those threads were deleted ?

I don't like censorship in any form.

--
http://kromofor.com
http://flickr.com/lhotelin
Click to expand...
--
'Change is not Mandatory, you don't have to Survive...'
 
flhotelin said:
All the threads about the Noct-Nikkor. Remember Dale, "cold and analytical", the comments by Raajs, etc.
Click to expand...
Has to be a mistake, or got moved or something. I haven't tried a search here - not familiar with the search engine.
 
I'm sorry, but this looks like a drawing and not a photograph. I'm sincere.
George
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top