Leica Glow

Just wonder how many audiofiles in general have a degree in electronics, or can read a circuit diagram. I've read some things here that am pretty sure would stun my electric engineering teachers.. just not sure what of that was serious and what was tongue-in-cheek :)

Disclaimer: I have nothing against mains cable addiction as harmless personal occupation, as long as cutting of Amazon rainforests isn't involved.

EDIT: to stay on topic, I do see what can be called "glow" in some examples here, although am not convinced if such phenomenon limited to Leica lenses only.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Keith said:
Glow or glare ... a shot taken in very strong sunlight with a 1930 Elmar lens?

Leica11930_03.jpg
Click to expand...

Keith that Leica glare sure has a nice glow to it. I like it.;)
 
If I'm not offending or being offended, I'm having a terribly dull day.

I haven't been having a dull day.

Marc-A. said:
There is no reason to offend, be offended or feel offended :angel:
Click to expand...
 
i think we should limit this discussion to once a year and only allow new members to participate for the first 3 days of it.

my, but we do go on about this stuff and to what end? it's not like any one ever changes their mind about it. in fact, most seem even more 'dug in' after all is said and done.

i will admit that i think magus is softening his approach to others and that is a pleasure to witness.
all in all a still civil if unending discussion.

joe
 
Entertainment value. No-one has to do it, but here we are, arguing (well, I'm not, perish the thought) about the same old stuff. It must be fun.

back alley said:
my, but we do go on about this stuff and to what end? it's not like any one ever changes their mind about it. in fact, most seem even more 'dug in' after all is said and done.

joe
Click to expand...
 
This thread has been been interesting (to me) and Brian's and others photos with different lenses were helpful. The look to some of the portraits taken with a Xenotar (Rolleiflex) have a different look than on the recent Planar on a Hasselblad, and I think contrast is a big part of it. Any other Rolleiflex owners see the "Xenotar Aura"? (Thanks for the term Ned, and everyone buy a Xenotar now since if we use the term enough prices will go up fast!)
 
My take:

1) Glow exists. I've seen it, I've gotten it. I just can't reproduce it at will - it's a delightful occasional occurrence. I also can’t really define it - I'll leave that to the cognoscenti.

2) Glow isn't restricted to Leica glass. I've experienced it with my Nikons, too (mostly with my early Nikkor-O 35/2). I think there may be credence to the view that internal haze can contribute to glow - this lens is almost as old as I am.

3) I think Leica's Mandler era lenses exhibit glow much more frequently than modern designs, probably because newer formulations are much more highly corrected. (I know, d'oh.) I'm willing to bet Berek era lenses show it even more often, but don't have enough personal experience with any lenses from that time to know for certain.

4) I've gotten glow from my 40 Summicron, but never with my 35 Summicron ASPH. I'm seeing hints of it in my new 50 Collapsible Summicron, but the front element is so scuffed I can't be sure.

5) Just because something can't be measured using current technology doesn't mean that something does not exist. Case in point from the headlines: Chinese wheat gluten tested as wholesome because nobody thought to test it for a certain type of contamination.
 
What, would you call this?:D

All this discussion about Leica "glow" and most of the examples are B&W. :confused:

SPG.jpg


Regards.​
 
That track packs some umph! that leica lens glows like a motha f.. all the same stuff to me.
 
Last edited:
Bad analogy: the fact that tests weren't run for a contaminant doesn't mean that that it's not possible to test for the contaminant; those test have since been run. That doesn't have anything to do with what level of thechnology is available.

I don't disagree with the idea you're trying to illustrate, however.

Ken Ford said:
5) Just because something can't be measured using current technology doesn't mean that something does not exist. Case in point from the headlines: Chinese wheat gluten tested as wholesome because nobody thought to test it for a certain type of contamination.
Click to expand...
 
Beautiful. I think we can all agree MF is where it's really at, for glow and everything else :)

Ian
 
dlridings: great pic. However, unless it can be proven that this image, captured by another lens, using the same film and applying the same processing techniques, can't produce image of this quality (to a large degree) - then you can say that this lens possess some "glow" at the visceral level, unique only to this brand.

I think the problem is that people will capture some wonderful images of intangible qualities with their Leica lens and automatically attribute that end result to the lens (because they've spent $$ on what is perceived to be a superior lens). They are blinding themselves to the fact that the timing of the shot, the lighting condition has more to do with the end result.
 
Last edited:
Iskra 2 said:
What, would you call this?:D

All this discussion about Leica "glow" and most of the examples are B&W. :confused:

SPG.jpg


Regards.​
Click to expand...


Nice, But that ain't the glow that everyone is talking about. And it is almost always seen with B&W.​
 
Iskra 2 said:
and OBTW, alot of the "glow" looks like flare, to me...... :D ...... and I like the examples.:)

Regards.
Click to expand...


I think you got it nailed right on the head....But it is a very interesting charistic thats much to be admired.
 
back alley said:
i think we should limit this discussion to once a year and only allow new members to participate for the first 3 days of it.

my, but we do go on about this stuff and to what end? it's not like any one ever changes their mind about it. in fact, most seem even more 'dug in' after all is said and done.

i will admit that i think magus is softening his approach to others and that is a pleasure to witness.
all in all a still civil if unending discussion.

joe
Click to expand...

"Argghhh ... but they're chewin' on life's gristle" ... and as long as no one actually bleeds there's no harm done!

Some more 'non glow flare' with a Zeiss lens from the mid thirties ... just to keep the current flowing!:angel:

Carol_01.jpg


In the tradition of Billy Crystal ... 'Analyse This.'
 
Last edited:
telenous said:
...So, this is a question that should be easily corroborated by dint of empirical evidence. And yet it isn't (- or rather it is disputed that it is). I believe this is mostly down to the fact that different people mean different things with the term 'glow'. Others mean the highlights, others 'the way a subject pops', still others veiling flare, and who knows what more. For my part, I associate with glow, a particular 'look' of surfaces when they are hit from direct or reflected light...
Click to expand...
I.e., 'glow' is an ambiguous term. What's the point in arguing about it then? Wonderful! If someone shows a picture with veiling flare and says, 'Look at the glow from this Summicron,' I can agree that not only does the picture show glow (flare), but also it is not unusual behavior for a Summicron, especially when used carelessly, without regard for its tendency to glow (i.e., suffer from veiling flare). It is a nice lens, actually, but it is asking for trouble to use it without a hood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom