Leica Glow

L

lushd

Donald
Local time
10:57 PM
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
676
Hi folks - I almost hesitate to post this as wars have been started over less controversial subjects. So take this as an exercise in brainstorming that may illuminate an issue for me. In the spirit of that I will take "You are talking twaddle, Lush" as fair comment if that's how you feel.

So this was started by an article by Frances Schultz in the last B + W photography magazine about the glow from the early Leica lenses that some can see and some can't.

I belong in the can't camp and I really couldn't tell the difference in the test pictures in the article, although Frances's test was a very interesting effort to try and put some objectivity on a long running debate.

My question - can anyone build on the concept of glow detecting by providing some specific criteria to look for?

And secondly, can anyone explain to me why I think I can see a glow off stuff shot with a Jupiter 8 (there was a reason for putting my question in this bit of the forum)? To me glow means that the tones have a life and energy about them, especially at the lighter end.

Feel free to lob some virtual rotten tomatoes, starting now... :D
 
Thanks Reagan - glow away!

I have read those threads and it still feels like detecting the force...

All ideas welcome - please contribute!
 
I'm with you, I don't see it. I say it is a result of a well taken picture on a good lens, and that it is not just a fluke of early leica lenses. Not to trash leica lenses, if I could afford one I would buy one in half a heart beat (with an MP to keep it company).
 
Well, here is an Observation: The Infrared Index on most of my Leica Lenses, including the 5cm F1.5 Summarit, is very close to the maximum F-stop. In other words, the color correction on Leica lenses is amazing. For example, on the Summicron it is very close to F2 meaning that you do not need to refocus when using IR film. On most of my Nikkor's, the shift is somewhere close to F4 to F5.6. Now, figure that the visible range is dead-on with the highly corrected Leica lens, but drifts at the blue and red end with lenses that require a large degree of IR focus shift.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Well, here is an Observation: The Infrared Index on most of my Leica Lenses, including the 5cm F1.5 Summarit, is very close to the maximum F-stop. In other words, the color correction on Leica lenses is amazing. For example, on the Summicron it is very close to F2 meaning that you do not need to refocus when using IR film. On most of my Nikkor's, the shift is somewhere close to F4 to F5.6. Now, figure that the visible range is dead-on with the highly corrected Leica lens, but drifts at the blue and red end with lenses that require a large degree of IR focus shift.
Click to expand...


Er Brian, could you repost that in English please?? :confused:

Andy
 
I believe it when people will start pointing at the same photos each time they talk about the "glow". But there's much disagreement among those who claim to see the "glow"even when showed the same photo. So, for me, right now, there's no point in defining such a thing as the "glow".
 
> Er Brian, could you repost that in English please??

> Andy

The color correction on Leica lenses is better. It is good enough that the depth-of-field at F2 covers the focus shift for Infrared Film. On most lenses you have to stop down to F5.6 or F8 for the depth-of-field to cover the focus-shift for IR film.
 
Actually, even when I was quite young (and it's been awhile since I've been in that category) I can remember my dad used to talk about the "... occasional smoothness and tones you get in certain light on some shots taken with a Leica. They almost shine in places," he said. He was no pro; he just liked taking pictures. Since he's been dead for 25 years and didn't own a Leica after 1953, I doubt if he looked at the "same photos" as others here on RFF.

I don't know that it's any grand mystery or even that big of a deal ... at least to me. Just one of those little details that are enjoyable to discuss that in this case may even revolve mostly around semantics and the descriptive wording some choose while others don't. Emphasis is often given to details by some more than others; "sharp vs. edgy sharp vs. razor sharp vs so-sharp-it's-dangerous." Of a pennant winning home run, I believe it was once said, “He hit the ball a lot further than it went.” I get the meaning there, but the next guy may say, “Huh?” On the other hand, I've got to be honest here, so my apologies to our wives, but I've never in my whole life seen a pregnant woman, uh, "glow," as they say. Sorry. I’ll admit I’ve seen “blooming idiots, glaring imbeciles and flaming nut-balls,” but never once a “glowing mother.” However, that's the way some folks describe the rosy-cheeked healthy look of an expectant mom. And BTW, even one of Microsoft Word’s synonyms for “rosy” is “glowing” :rolleyes: so what do I know? In another thread I just read earlier someone described a nickel-plated camera as "gold." Right.

So when some see overexposure or flare or ___? I get it. I personally use [quite loosely] the term "glow" at times to describe the look of a subject taken with an uncoated lens shot at delicate light on medium contrasting tones against a darker background. All the above, when "just right" in the eye of the beholder, seem to me to create on occasion quite notably contrasted and pronounced smooth tones that are themselves, even apart from the subject, fairly eye-catching. Others may describe it in some different fashion... "nice tones" or "excellent lighting," whatever. Some see it as WOW, others as … ho-hum. I certainly wouldn’t tell someone “you MUST see what I see and you MUST call it ga-looow!” and I hope they won’t try to tell me that I DON’T see it.

Of course, the exact “just right” mechanics and processes that produce the aforementioned look that some see and describe as glow is what brings about debate as others claim the need for this film/that film/right paper/right processing, yadda, yadda... So with my own curiosity in tow, that is why I started a thread along these same lines in November to throw a challenge out there and see if those who “know what it takes” might try to produce the glow at will. Maybe some have more ideas here.

So one more thought, and I’ll shut up and try to get some real work done. I don’t know for sure that an uncoated lens is an ingredient that might improve the odds. IMHO, it’s quite plausible. And the fact that there are profusely more numbers of coated lenses in use today than uncoated lenses “back in the day” may be why glow is something that was described then more than now. Lens configurations and coatings have changed, films, chemicals, and processes. The search for glow might better be pursued in old books and photo journals rather than the net.

I guess that's about all I glow about that. ;) (I know. I just can't stop myself!)Cheers all!
 
Glow - a metaphor for a feeling or a way of saying I really like that picture? I would buy that. I also think, uncoated lens, old fashioned film and paper, halation etc etc. Glow may be less common thanks to improved technology.

Thanks Reagan.

Incidentally, glowing women are a sign that the local nuclear plant has finally passed its sell by date. Women expecting your child who look incredibly healthy and sexy in your eyes - that's love!
 
In my relative ignorance I maintain that with the correct lighting and a lens of reasonable quality, a print can be made that has "The Glow"

One of my favorite photographers is
William Mortensen. A lot of his photographs will show a "Glow" and he used a SOHO graphics. :)

He writes about the concept of "Light for Plastic Quality" and shows how it can be achieved through controlling Absolute Intensity, Relative Intensity, Angle, Number of Sources and Area of Source.

In his 1947 edition of "Pictorial Lighting" He states: "Theoretically, relative intensity, (or contrast) is subject to control by development" ... "However, as we shall see, since the best photographic quality demands full development, this means of control is more hypothetical than pictorially useful." This made him kind of the Anti Ansel Adams. There by earning the rath of Ansel and Weston and the entire F64 group. Mortensen put the minimal effort required to get a technically good negative and put the greater effort into the print. The negative as raw material only. (He would have loved Photoshop and digital photography.)
 
lushd said:
Women expecting your child who look incredibly healthy and sexy in your eyes - that's love!
Click to expand...
"Women" ? Plural? Now THAT'S over-exposure! :eek:



edit: P.S. Interesting stuff kmack. Thanks.
 
lushd said:
My question - can anyone build on the concept of glow detecting by providing some specific criteria to look for?
Click to expand...

There was/is a parallel a thread running "Scanning the Leica glow", where some opinions were posted about what glow could mean, microcontrast for example

Mike Johnstons understanding comes cloesest to my understanding of glow, which btw is nothing really Leica specific.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-28.shtml

Means glow may exist, a special Leica glow does not exist tho. For me it is just one of these mystifications of the Leitz marketing which shall help the uninitiated understand why the Leitz lenses do not cost 20, 30 or 50% more than a product with a comparable performance but 300% or even 500% more sometimes.How could you explain such a gap better than with myths ?
:angel:
Bertram
 
Bertram and Kevin - thanks for the article and the introduction to the incredible Mortensen photos. The article really says a lot about the idea of glow that makes sense to me and I especially liked the idea of getting good negatives and printing with lower contrast. That real old fashioned look - great stuff.

Keep exposing, Reagan! You'll get the glow sooner or later.
 
lushd said:
"Keep exposing, Reagan! You'll get the glow sooner or later."
Click to expand...
LOL!! I've got two granddaughters and another grand-something on the way. Any exposing from this point forward just secures me a place in the “blooming idiots, glaring imbeciles and flaming nut-balls” category... which I've earned. :cool:
 
We had a speaker at our staff conference last year who said "Whatever you pay attention to you get more of" so I think this glow issue has made me get working somewhere in a recess of my mind and has produced a result.

Attached is the first picture I have ever taken that I think has the glow. It's from a Leica IIIa, uncoated Elmar, Rodinal at 1 + 100, Foma 100 rated at 50 asa. In other words, I did everything I could to get that glow. And I think it does. Will anyone agree? Or more interestingly, disagree?

Incidentally, it gives me incredible pleasure to get an image of this quality from a 70 year old camera.
 

Attachments

  • bl5.jpg
    bl5.jpg
    146 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom