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

[J. Borger]

I have not tried yet to scan Leica negs, since I have done so far just one roll,which is not developed yet. However I constantly scan BW negs (mostly Ilford FP4+ and HP5+) taken by Contax 645 AF and Konica Hexar AF with my Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED. I want to ensure you that bokeh and all the beauty is still there after scanning. You may see some picures in my galllery here or on my web page.

regards,
Alex

Your website is a joy to watch Alex.
Some outstanding work in there: chapeau!

regards

Han

 

[Oh Two]

Oh Please!

Oh Please!

I scan from negative and the 'glow' (whatever that is) is clearly there. If you don't believe it just visit my gallery. However, there are certain lenses that 'glow' better than others, but the glow is the creation of the lens capturing the image.

 

[gareth]

Today’s desktop film scanners are very impressive indeed, and yes they can justify the use of high quality lenses.

Whether you go the digital scanning route or the traditional route the quality of the result will be down to you.

I do my colour work on either a film or digital camera. If I shoot colour film I scan. If I shoot b&w film I print it in the darkroom. For me there is still a certain something about traditional prints, and in particular if you are printing on fibre paper.

I do my own b&w display prints. If I want a colour display print, I take my finished digital file (whether from a DSLR or a film scan) to a specialist printer.

I don’t have any Leica lenses so ultimately I can’t give you a definite answer. But I do invest in the best glass as and when I can afford to, and it pays dividends as far as I am concerned. Though I’ll always point out that no piece of equipment will automatically make you a better photographer. Only you can do that.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

If the Leitz special qualities are lost in the digital chain, then it would make my decision easier.

Any thoughts?

Not if you're careful or have cooperating equipment.

You mean "glow" like this:

(Tri-X in Diafine)

or this?:

Ilford XP2

They're both taken with a Summitar, wide open. I can get them to print as shown, but I have to set the printer and paper profile correctly, otherwise it's just one disappointment after another.

Both were scanned with a Dual Scan IV

 

[scottgee1]

I belong to the OM list. We had a recent discussion about the ever increasing demands some stock agencies are placing on photographers. The shooter who started the thread had two weeks worth of printing rejected by his long term agency because of "noise" and was told that they would henceforth accept files made with cameras with 10+ MP. How they'll police that is a mystery to me. By the time I finish with a file EXIF is long gone.

Stock photography usually leaves me cold. Technical perfection obviously takes precedence over, well everything else. People pix are particularly odd because well, as Firesign Theatre once observed, "Rich Hollywood actors portray the lives of average working people." Yeah, they may not be rich but they are usually models and they're definitely acting. = BOR-ing.

my two lux worth/ScottGee1

I did what you suggest. I ditched all my Nikon digital gear in favor of an M6, an M7 and five lenses.

I had never had a darkroom for probably forty years, so being able to have a digital darkroom made me happy, indeed. I have no knowledge of a glow since I was a transparency shooter, both Leica and Nikon, for many years. I always considered all the Nikon lenses very sharp, but some lacking contrast. The Leica lenses all had that hard-to-define "color contrast" that made slides pop. Now, I am scanning film, both color and b+w, a new experience for me.

Unfortunately, some of the stock agencies I deal with shrink back in horror when they encounter grain, which they equate with noise. I had to buy a Sony A100 and a few lenses in order to produce the grainless, noiseless, featurless ultra-sanitized images they prefer for stock.

But I still would rather shoot Leicas when I feel the need to create!

 

[scottgee1]

Years ago I had a 'frank and productive' discussion with one of the technical people at Hasselblad.

I expressed my frustration over the difficulty of getting fine color prints. Zeiss/'blad transparencies shot at the same time of the same subject in the same lighting were far superior to negatives shot at the same time.

And yes, I know about transillumination of 'chromes making them look "better".

After a few polite questions, he just shook his head and got real. Turns out, he and Hasselblad were even more frustrated than I was because they could empirically prove their product was superior to their competitors, but only when every element of the process was optimized. IOW, the chain is, as always, only as strong as the weakest link.

This means fresh film, properly stored prior to shooting. A camera/lens/back correctly calibrated. A pic correctly focused and exposed with vibration limited as much as possible. (After this point, most of us are at the mercy of the lab other than the choice of which one to use.) Optimum development of the film using fresh chemistry and exacting temperature control. Printing to fresh, high quality paper through an enlarger lens of exceptional quality (he recommended Rodenstock, based on their tests). Development in proper, fresh chemistry.

I've found the same logic applies to digital processing. Simply put, I gave up trying to print at home. IMO, it's cheaper and ultimately easier to upload my files to a local lab and have my stuff printed on their multi-thousand dollar printer than my <$500 inkjet. I proof to a local cheapie lab that uses a Frontier and for serious stuff use a pro lab. The same pix printed by the latter even without ANY modification simply look better. I found this out when I delivered an album to a bride whose eyes widened as she went through it. "Wow! These look even better than the other prints!" I knew I could tell the difference, but to have a client do so really made the point.

So, if you want to retain as much of the The Glow as possible, make sure every step in the process is optimized.

FWIW/ScottGee1

 

[nrj]

I use an M6 and scan with a Minolta Multipro and print with Epson 1290 and HP8450. I think the lens characteristics are retained. I have prints made professionally (to a high standard) of the same subject using traditional methods as well and I'm really delighted with the prints from scans. I'm delighted with both actually but scanning and printing gives a lot of control in colour which is what I usually shoot.

Nik

 

[scottgee1]

Here's an odd one.

One of our favorite pix is of our youngest granddaughter playing with a dress-up set. She was completely absorbed in what she was doing and I managed to get a few completely candid shots of her. The original neg and resulting print was pretty good but was missing something so I pulled up the scan in PS. After experimenting a while I tried the Diffuse Glow filter. After some fine tuning we ended up with a pic that had a nice glow that suited the overall feel of the image.

The punch line? The pic was made with a Minilux. Even with backlighting, The Glow had to be added. 😉

FWIW/ScottGee1

p.s. My wife, who is truly clueless about the technical aspects of photography can pick out Leica and Zeiss images from, ahem, others. I was quite taken aback the first time she did it. I switched back and forth between a Leica and Canon while shooting the same situation. When we went through the prints (same film, same lab) every time a print made from a Canon shot showed up, she'd make a face and say, "Nope. That's not as good." I gave her a quick overview of Leica's price structure and she replied, "Well, you can sure see the difference!" And this was with 4x6" machine prints!

 

[Alex Krasotkin]

Your website is a joy to watch Alex.
Some outstanding work in there: chapeau!

regards

Han

Thank you very much, Han!

Best,
Alex

 

[matt fury]

Maybe I'm tainted by the Imacon virtual-drum I use to scan at school, or by my lack of expertise in the darkroom, but I've never felt that I've lost any unique characteristcs of a shot in a scan.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I've found the older formula, lower contrast lenses tend to have some veiling flare which equates to the "glow" when shot wide open IMHO. I've seen several examples of Nikkor 50/1.5 (or is it 1.4) RF lenses that give off a nice glow wide open as well.

Does the glow carry over through the scanning process? here's a 50/2 Summitar shot that I think glows (scanned with a Minolta dualscan IV):

I printed it on an Epson 2200 with EM paper and it looks great!

Todd

 

[scottgee1]

"tainted"? Not so much. Spoiled might be a better word. Arguably the best scanners made. Wish I could be that kind of spoiled 😉

Is it a 646 or 949?

Maybe I'm tainted by the Imacon virtual-drum I use to scan at school, or by my lack of expertise in the darkroom, but I've never felt that I've lost any unique characteristcs of a shot in a scan.

 

[matt fury]

"tainted"? Not so much. Spoiled might be a better word. Arguably the best scanners made. Wish I could be that kind of spoiled 😉

Is it a 646 or 949?

Maybe you're right. I think its an 848. I just wish I was a bit better with it.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Bryce]

I can't comment on the Leica glow. I've never so much as held one in my hands, but I do have some fine camera gear and some (painful and expensive) experience as far as getting the best out of them. Here are my notes and opinions.
As far as B+W is concerned, there is no replacement for a well made print, on quality materials, made in a wet darkroom. Of course a good print takes a huge investment of time to create, not to mention a roomful of equipment. And getting someone else to do it is out of the question.
So why is the wet darkroom so important? Simply put, no scanner seems to reproduce the contents of a B+W negative; I've used a $300 Minolta, a $2000 Nikon, and a $10,000 Imacon. All of them make negs look grainy, and only the two more expensive options were even close to getting subtle tonality right. The best scanned B+W's I've seen come from flatbed scanner and a print, not a negative. I can't say that I know what a drum scanner would do with a negative.
The next problem with digitized images is getting them back onto paper, with full range of tones, no scan lines, and faithful detail retention. I've never been happy with inkjet prints; even with purpose made inks, they struggle to give a true black and their "dithering" pattern seems to always be visible and unnatural looking.
Of course these are opinions, but this is why I ended up with a darkroom and medium format equipment rather than the digital equipment I started this journey with. Hope this helps.

 

[jano]

Not if you're careful or have cooperating equipment.

You mean "glow" like this:

Mr. Mxyzptlk, well done 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

I htink i've seen the "glow" effect visible on Todd's image happening with lenses which have many many tiny barely visible "cleaning mark" scratches. I'm not 100%sure that's the reason but i would suppose it is.
I attach an example (my own humbleimage) where it is visible in a similar way but this time in colour.

 

[scottgee1]

Which raises a very good point. It takes a fair amount of experience and skill to get the most out of the scanning process.

A person with solid experience with a modest scanner will likely make a better file than a beginner using an Imacon.

And no, I'm not talking about Matt . . . 😀

ScottGee1

Maybe you're right. I think its an 848. I just wish I was a bit better with it.

 

[jaapv]

I htink i've seen the "glow" effect visible on Todd's image happening with lenses which have many many tiny barely visible "cleaning mark" scratches. I'm not 100%sure that's the reason but i would suppose it is.
I attach an example (my own humbleimage) where it is visible in a similar way but this time in colour.

Prague again?

 

[Pherdinand]

Prague again?

Amsterdam again.
I've never been in Prague yet.