Thanks for paying attention to the details. I thought it was a Sony camera lens combo. I was trying to prove you can get the look regradless of equipment, but there seems to be more to it.
Reading mode:
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Leica look (continued)?
- Thread starter Aquarius2014
- Start date
If someone wants the look from Leica lenses then they should get Leica lenses. Duh! Panasonic sells several Leica m4/3 mount lenses. And Leica mount lenses can be easily adapted to m4/3. Or there are tons of new and used Leica cameras that can be bought to get the "Leica look" too. Why is there so much angst about this? If you want it you can very, very easily get it.
Last edited:
I agree with this, but I keep thinking it is best to leverage the equipment you have to get as close to the look you want. I am still new to photography so I am interested in how to achieve a certain look with the equipment I have. This has been a good adventure as I have learned quite a lot and even though there has been a lot of noise in these two threads I have become a better photographer.If someone wants the look from Leica lenses then they should get Leica lenses. Duh! Panasonic sells several Leica m4/3 mount lenses. And Leica mount lenses can be easily adapted to m4/3. Or there are tons of new and used Leica cameras that can be bought to get the "Leica look" too. Why is there so much angst about this? If you want it you can very, very easily get it.
dmanthree
Forum Pro
Well, I like them. They have a real "Anders" look to them.
;-)
;-)
dmanthree
Forum Pro
I think you are the first person in my 62+ years to actually tell me I was right about something. Thanks!I make no claim of having to prove to anyone that the look exists. The only people asking for proof that the look exists are those calling for double blinds and scientific proof. Somehow being able to simultaneously say it doesn't exist and ask others to prove that it doesn't exists makes this group of people right.I don't need to. I make no claim that any such "look" exists. Someone who claims it does needs to produce the test.I think you should conduct the double blind. I don't see many clamoring for one, so unless you do it it probably won't happen.Proof of any negative is impossible. That's a fact, so please...That wasn't directed to you, but to dmanthree, who I think took it as I intended (as he has owned Leica in the past). You will never get statistical proof of a leica look and I think most of the guys asking for this know that. So while I can't prove there is a Leica look, neither can you disprove that their isn't one.
For example, I can't prove that you've never skinned a cat alive, either.
...still waiting for the double-blind test...
OK... you are right.
Now those of us that want to discuss our fantasy can continue without being interrupted by those seeking self affirming theories.
Seriously, if someone sees "the look" and it pleases them, have at it. I've already shot my mouth off way too much on this one.
G
greg 123
Guest
I own a Panasonic 15mm Leica Summilux because it is a great performing lens at a size and focal length that I can use. I have no expectations about a Leica look. Leica is interesting to me as a cool antique rangefinder, but not interesting enough to buy today.
Last edited:
As I've said before "the look" is based on how an individual lens is designed and as a result the specific rendering it gives, and this looks is more prominent on certain Leica lenses than other.Thanks for paying attention to the details. I thought it was a Sony camera lens combo. I was trying to prove you can get the look regradless of equipment, but there seems to be more to it.lattesweden wrote
Yes, it is shot on a A7II with the Leica Noctilux 0.95. I remembered that review of his and looked it up.
There is something about this lens that isn't like a normal 50 mm renders. It has the depth rendering more of a wideangle lens that is background enlarged in depth to not have the normal perspective shrinking. Can't explain it better but it does look different.
Here it is again - http://www.artphotoacademy.com/the-leica-look/
If you read halfway down the author talks about "Leica grow", and there are specific Leica lenses that exhibits this more than others.
The bokeh rendering again is based on lens design.
If you think Leica look is about emotion or processing then you are looking at it wrong.
Bottom line - each camera/lens manufacturer can have their own looks in their output. It is a highly subjective matter what one likes. Raising questions like this in a m43 forum is bound to get a lot of negative response...because I can assure you the majority of m43 shooters either can't see it nor care about the subtle differences between lens design and philosophy .
--
My Flickr
My Getty Images
Last edited:
As I've said before "the look" is based on how an individual lens is designed and as a result the specific rendering it gives, and this looks is more prominent on certain Leica lenses than other.
Here it is again - http://www.artphotoacademy.com/the-leica-look/
If you read halfway down the author talks about "Leica grow", and there are specific Leica lenses that exhibits this more than others.
The bokeh rendering again is based on lens design.
If you think Leica look is about emotion or processing then you are looking at it wrong.
Bottom line - each camera/lens manufacturer can have their own looks in their output. It is a highly subjective matter what one likes. Raising questions like this in a m43 forum is bound to get a lot of negative response...because I can assure you the majority of m43 shooters either can't see it nor care about the subtle differences between lens design and philosophy .
mg_k wrote
Bottom line - each camera/lens manufacturer can have their own looks in their output.
You can assure anyone of anything. But it doesn't mean anything as an argument. It's a reflection of your emotional state and will to believe. The Leica look exists if people can pick it out in a blind test. Otherwise it's just crankery, like those idiots who buy power conditioners for their hifi.--Raising questions like this in a m43 forum is bound to get a lot of negative response...because I can assure you the majority of m43 shooters either can't see it nor care about the subtle differences between lens design and philosophy .
And the use of cherrypicked images to "prove" leica look exists is just worthy of contempt. For any reasonable camera and lens pair there will exist shots where one lens shows more "pop" than the other - because that part of contrast curve will be hit. Cherrypicking has a bad name for a reason - you're supposed to know better than to do it! (Whoever did it - I can't remember and can't be bothered to look.)
Last edited:
Please, everyone who is arguing there is or isn't a "Leica Look", stop arguing here. You are not helping the OP. If the OP sees something in certain photos and want to try and duplicate it, great. It doesn't really matter what it is called. Let's just try and help the OP figure out what is needed.
It is a bit like walking into a house of worship and telling the people inside that there is no proof that their faith is true and therefor they shouldn't worship there. Doing so doesn't do anybody any good.
Thank you, I hope.
It is a bit like walking into a house of worship and telling the people inside that there is no proof that their faith is true and therefor they shouldn't worship there. Doing so doesn't do anybody any good.
Thank you, I hope.
Please, everyone who is arguing there is or isn't a "Leica Look", stop arguing here. You are not helping the OP. If the OP sees something in certain photos and want to try and duplicate it, great. It doesn't really matter what it is called. Let's just try and help the OP figure out what is needed.
It is a bit like walking into a house of worship and telling the people inside that there is no proof that their faith is true and therefor they shouldn't worship there. Doing so doesn't do anybody any good.
Thank you, I hope.
You can't actually do that without deciding whether the lens is a necessary part of the look.Please, everyone who is arguing there is or isn't a "Leica Look", stop arguing here. You are not helping the OP. If the OP sees something in certain photos and want to try and duplicate it, great. It doesn't really matter what it is called. Let's just try and help the OP figure out what is needed.
And threads like this shouldn't be just about the OP. They get googled and leaving junk info on the Internet is unfair.
Really? What if the church is taking a vast part of peoples earnings in return for false promises?It is a bit like walking into a house of worship and telling the people inside that there is no proof that their faith is true and therefor they shouldn't worship there. Doing so doesn't do anybody any good.
Anyway, I suggest to the OP that he just try using an unsharp mask with a large radius. This adds contrast selectively to "objects" in the image creating pop. And don't do too much low radius sharpening. That's pretty much it for the mystical leica look - quite a few other lens brands shoot the same way. Film people usually buy sets of vintage Takumars when they want Lecia-like on the cheap. You should do a custom white balance - Taks shoot a little blue.
Just don't ask for the Cooke Look - that's really hard...
(Cook make movie lenses; their users look down on Leica as plebian. Cooke's do have a very strong look due to de-focus characteristics.)
Bam! This is the sort of thing I am looking for as I have not heard of an unsharp mask with a large radius. At which point is this applied? As a filter, in post processing, etc????Anyway, I suggest to the OP that he just try using an unsharp mask with a large radius. This adds contrast selectively to "objects" in the image creating pop. And don't do too much low radius sharpening. That's pretty much it for the mystical leica look - quite a few other lens brands shoot the same way. Film people usually buy sets of vintage Takumars when they want Lecia-like on the cheap. You should do a custom white balance - Taks shoot a little blue.
FWIW I am working on my WB...
Thanks!
It's applied in a tool like gimp or photoship after you've shot. You need to play with the settings and develop a feel for things - settings are tool dependent. (I actually use wavelets instead of USM, but I'm not even going to begin explaining that.)
Let's see... Read this
Gimp is free, so maybe start by downloading that. Or try a raw developer with level of detail sliders, like rawtherapee:
Remember: if you want the Leica look, do NOT push fine details sharpness super hard! The look is relatively restrained on fine detail - it's more about a contrasty middle-level of detail. Ie the horses head looks 3D but the hair on the head looks normal rather than like an engraving.
And don't expect too much - shots that people cherrypick as examples of pop are often the result of exceptional lighting, etc.
Let's see... Read this
Gimp is free, so maybe start by downloading that. Or try a raw developer with level of detail sliders, like rawtherapee:
Loading…
rawtherapeewavelets.wordpress.com
Remember: if you want the Leica look, do NOT push fine details sharpness super hard! The look is relatively restrained on fine detail - it's more about a contrasty middle-level of detail. Ie the horses head looks 3D but the hair on the head looks normal rather than like an engraving.
And don't expect too much - shots that people cherrypick as examples of pop are often the result of exceptional lighting, etc.
G
griddi
Guest
Well said......If someone wants the look from Leica lenses then they should get Leica lenses. Duh! Panasonic sells several Leica m4/3 mount lenses. And Leica mount lenses can be easily adapted to m4/3. Or there are tons of new and used Leica cameras that can be bought to get the "Leica look" too. Why is there so much angst about this? If you want it you can very, very easily get it.
Griddi.....
Most shots taken with Leica lenses don't have the look - that's why Leica lenses and cameras don't pass blind tests for their special snowflakeness. There is a look associated with them however, wrongly or rightly, and that is referred to as the Leica look.If someone wants the look from Leica lenses then they should get Leica lenses.
Also: some Lecia lenses are possibly good at producing the look, but they are expensive. (The m43 12mm f1.4 seems to be one.) So if there is a trick you can do in post that gets the look from a cheaper lens, then if you are smart and not a masochist, you'll do it.
..You have to get used to this sort of thing in English. For example, French mustard doesn't necessarily have to come from France - it's become a style of mustard, yes?
Aquarius2014
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 257
- Reaction score
- 117
[No message]
G
griddi
Guest
Hmmn......I don't know .......my " politic " is " one get only what one pays for " and if only possible I prefer Leica lenses.....Most shots taken with Leica lenses don't have the look - that's why Leica lenses and cameras don't pass blind tests for their special snowflakeness. There is a look associated with them however, wrongly or rightly, and that is referred to as the Leica look.If someone wants the look from Leica lenses then they should get Leica lenses.
Also: some Lecia lenses are possibly good at producing the look, but they are expensive. (The m43 12mm f1.4 seems to be one.) So if there is a trick you can do in post that gets the look from a cheaper lens, then if you are smart and not a masochist, you'll do it.
..You have to get used to this sort of thing in English. For example, French mustard doesn't necessarily have to come from France - it's become a style of mustard, yes?
Griddi.....
Similar threads
- Replies
- 147
- Views
- 94K
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 313K
- Replies
- 132
- Views
- 131K
- Replies
- 92
- Views
- 45K
- Replies
- 104
- Views
- 49K
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
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.
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.