Does the "Leica glow" survive scanning and digital printing?

I, like a few others on here, went film to digital and back round to film again. Granted, that was kind of by necessity because my digital gear got jacked while I was in Brazil. I think creatively, losing my fancy digital SLR was one of the better things to happen to me. I had brought a "backup" canonet with me, and I came to love the thing once I actually spent some time with it. Since then, I haven't looked back. I think the most effective way to maintain lens character is to go with a print and a flatbed.
 
I've literally just made the move back to film, having fallen in love with Tri-X and HP5 (especially when pushed to 2000 in Xtol), and from all the looking through galleries, looking online, buying prints and stuff I've done, I think the 'Leica glow' is a combination of the gorgeous bokeh produced by the Leica lenses and how that bokeh distributes light accross the film. Then the second step is obviously for the film to be developed right, and it's somehow in the grain as well.

I don't think that the Leica Glow will quite translate to the M8 because the M8 will produce noise where grain is needed and Noise isn't beautiful, whereas grain is gorgeous (well... Tri-X grain is, Kodak Gold grain is... I tried it out as an experiment.... I wanted to cry it was so ugly)

Scanning can reproduce the Leica glow, however the problem that there is no way to tell how other people's mointors are calibrated - so different mointors will retain or destroy that glow. Old style 'softer' monitors which aren't flat screens actually help reproduce the glow better. Also the black on it them are blacker and a nicer smoother contrast....

But I wouldn't rely on digital to reproduce the Leica glow - it happens pre-production, not in post production. The print can also be made to glow (or not if poorly printed) if it's 'right'. It's a balance between those two things that will give you 'the glow'.

I feel like a nerd now. I'd say 'I need a girlfriend' but somehow I have one. I'll scare her off soon enough.
 
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

i need to take a break from this site! more crazy theories like this and i'll pop a blood vessel. 😱
 
A little off topic , but I started a thread similar to this at the Photonet Leica forum and almost got abused to death. (A few real arrogant tossers post there.)

In my case I was pointing out that you can now buy filters that emulate different film types for contrast etc and in any case can do this "by hand" as it were (ie by using three or four filters in succession to tune a photo to a specific "looK".

For example recently I was scanning an old B/W shot of mine from the late 1990s of the English Houses of Parliament. Shot with a Nikon if I recall correctly. It was a little too contrasty for my liking (it was a bright sunny summer day) so I used the curves tool to drop the contrast and brightness in a specific way that those who use Photoshop will understand. Damn me if suddenly this shot did not look a little like a shot taken with my 1950s dual range summicron - sharp and quite low contrast. I never experimented more wiht this shot, being happy with it but to me it was more confirmation of the possibilities.

There are even "glow" fliters that work to varying degrees and if applied with case will give something of a soft glow of the sort given by old glass in the gughlight areas.

My proposition at the time was that it may not be too long before it would be possible to buy filters that deliberately set out to emulate the appearance of specific Leica glass. (OK not perfectly perhaps but those who have never played with Photoshopping images you would be shocked at the srot of things you can get up to.)

And why not? I love my Leica lenses and the look they provide but not everyone can afford to actually buy Leica.
 
Back
Top Bottom