Here are a couple I really like
lushd
Donald
Hmm - lots of excited and energetic tone there for sure, especially in the first picture. Am I beginning to get a grip on this, I wonder? Thanks Jorge.
OldNick
Well-known
Brian Sweeney said:
Brian: I read this earlier today and it conflicted with what I recalled about the IR index. I checked with my Leica Manual by Morgan and Lester, and refreshed my memory. The placement of the IR index has nothing to do with the depth of field scale. It simply means that, when using IR film, one must focus as usual with the rangefinder, and then move the distance opposite the normal distance pointer so that it is alligned with the IR index. This increases the focus distance slightly to bring the IR image into focus. I will not argue with you about the improved color correction of the later Leica lenses. I am only saying that the placement of the IR index has to do with the focusing helix and has nothing to do with DOF.
Jim N.
zhang xk
Well-known
Spyderman
Well-known
Sure it doesn't. But you got it wrong...
The fact that the IR index is so close to the normal focusing index means that the lens can transfer visible light in almost the same way as it can IR light. That also means it transfers all visible light very similarly, without chromatic aberation. And that is called "color correnction".
lushd
Donald
Oh - it's the camera that glows ... I get it!zhang xk said:Hi Donald,
I think my Fed 1 glows a lot.What do you think? Is it so called glow? :bang:
Zhang
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
Some have told me this one has that Leica "glow": (taken with a 50mm summitar wide open)
I'm thinking light plays a big part as well.
Todd
I'm thinking light plays a big part as well.
Todd
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
lushd said:Oh - it's the camera that glows ... I get it!
Watching all the many interpretations and understandings of "GLOW" I must say this is certainly one of the most funny nonsense in the amateur photogs world , even funnier than the bokeh-schmokeh or MTF charts..
It seems to be a clean empty screen on which everybody can project what ever he finds desirable and beautiful. That's a great thing and serves well for several purposes as long as nobody really and seriously tries to get it , let alone to build a definition of it. Something like a Nessie in the photographers world ?
If at all there is anything sure about this glow then it is that there are some photogs whose photos glow always and in general and some who obviously glow at the upper end from to much coffee !
Regards,
Bertram
Take care folks, these snake skinned brass maitresses have driven a lot of brave men insane yet !
O
Oldprof
Guest
Bertram2 said:
This is pretty much the way I feel about "Leica glow." True, there are some photographs that look "glowy," but they aren't limited to pictures made with Leicas and Leitz lenses. I've seen glowiness in Holga and Diana pictures too.
VinceC
Veteran
Here are my latest thoughts on this divisive subject:
Glow has something to do with a combination of several factors: light, lens quality, skill/luck in setting the appropriate exposure and quality of craftsmanship in producing the final print/jpeg. Someone who cares very much about the craft of photography is much more likely to pay attention to the control of these variables. He/she is also more likely to have invested in serious photographic equipment. Thus, photographers who know what they're doing with tones and contrast are more likely to own a Leica than a soccer dad shooting a DSLR.
Being aware of light and exposing for it properly -- then post-process (creating the print) is a big part of this.
Interestingly, a number of Ansel Adams most successful photographs rely on having captured a specific fleeting character of light. He remarked on stopping the car because the light was so perfect for the moonrise over Hernandez (right title?) photo and racing to get it taken while the light still existed. Same for Moon and Half Dome as well as his famous image of glowing tree trunks in a forest.
I don't know what lenses Adams used. I also am not aware of any serious discussion among photo enthusiasts about the lenses he used or of people who felt that if they had the same lenses as Adams, they could replicate the technical quality of his work. (And regardless of what you think about his artistry or lack thereof, the man had inarguable technical quality).
Glow has something to do with a combination of several factors: light, lens quality, skill/luck in setting the appropriate exposure and quality of craftsmanship in producing the final print/jpeg. Someone who cares very much about the craft of photography is much more likely to pay attention to the control of these variables. He/she is also more likely to have invested in serious photographic equipment. Thus, photographers who know what they're doing with tones and contrast are more likely to own a Leica than a soccer dad shooting a DSLR.
Being aware of light and exposing for it properly -- then post-process (creating the print) is a big part of this.
Interestingly, a number of Ansel Adams most successful photographs rely on having captured a specific fleeting character of light. He remarked on stopping the car because the light was so perfect for the moonrise over Hernandez (right title?) photo and racing to get it taken while the light still existed. Same for Moon and Half Dome as well as his famous image of glowing tree trunks in a forest.
I don't know what lenses Adams used. I also am not aware of any serious discussion among photo enthusiasts about the lenses he used or of people who felt that if they had the same lenses as Adams, they could replicate the technical quality of his work. (And regardless of what you think about his artistry or lack thereof, the man had inarguable technical quality).
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
In my opinion, older coatings or non-coatings, haze, scratches on the elements, etc. all seem to add to the glow effect, veiling flare is often refered to as glowing. I have noticed that the effect is more prominent with soft light coming from the side or back of the subject vs. direct frontal light. Shooting at wider apertures also seems to contribute.
The glow is subjective much like the qualities of bokeh but it does seem to appear more often in older leica lenses than the later, higher contrast, modern lenses.
These thoughts are my opinions only and are based on my experiences alone, flame away if you must
Todd
The glow is subjective much like the qualities of bokeh but it does seem to appear more often in older leica lenses than the later, higher contrast, modern lenses.
These thoughts are my opinions only and are based on my experiences alone, flame away if you must
Todd
jano
Evil Bokeh
I think the glow is a combination of contrasted tones, mostly highlights that are near or fully blown and juxtaposed to large sections of dark, shadowy tones. These are uniform. Look at Todd's picture and Jorge's second shot (I don't think his first one glows). Some people mistake it for flare.. in those cases, it is flare and not glow. Situations which cause glow are likely to cause flare as well, and can sometimes enhance the glow effect. *shrug*
It depends heavily upon lighting.. and most easily reproduced with backlighting.
It depends heavily upon lighting.. and most easily reproduced with backlighting.
zhang xk
Well-known
Oldprof said:
I agree. Whatever the glow is, I don't believe only Leica lenses glow. If a lens is highly corrected, then it glows. Some CZJ video lenses must glow as some are corrected for 400nm-1000nm wave length so that there is no need for infrared focusing adjustment. These lenses use very heavy, high index optical glass so that they are very heavy. Here is a comparison of a very small CZJ 10/2 tevidon and a 80/2.8 CZJ Biometar for your entertainment.
Attachments
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I think that the last 6 posters have done a great job of explaining the circumstances in which a photo may appear to have a glow to it. Quite a few things contribute to it's appearance in a photo and that it is not confined to Leica lenses alone. I think it would be difficult to consistently get that quality in a photograph intentionally. I think the glow , being first visible in the printing stage, gets a reaction from the photographer similar to, isn't that interesting I wonder how that happened. Anyway, nice to see something sensible being said on this subject of the mystical Leica glow.
Nikon Bob
Nikon Bob
lushd
Donald
And a heavier lens is a better lens, right?
I am really enjoying this conversation - thank you all. I have learnt a lot and I am still not quite sure where I stand. Bokeh makes sense to me because I can see it (but not judge it so easily). As I've said elsewhere I have only ever taken one picture that I think glows. I've seen a very credible description of glow (link earlier in this thread to a very good article) and been introduced to some great pictures.
But can someone come up with something quantifiable? Is there any kind of number that says - this glows? Could such a thing be created?
I am really enjoying this conversation - thank you all. I have learnt a lot and I am still not quite sure where I stand. Bokeh makes sense to me because I can see it (but not judge it so easily). As I've said elsewhere I have only ever taken one picture that I think glows. I've seen a very credible description of glow (link earlier in this thread to a very good article) and been introduced to some great pictures.
But can someone come up with something quantifiable? Is there any kind of number that says - this glows? Could such a thing be created?
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
This months issue of Black and White Photography has an article by Frances Schulz (Roger Hicks better half) that discusses the phenomenon of the "Leica Glow", it is very similar to the article Bertam linked too above, good reading.
Todd
Todd
OldNick
Well-known
The first time I showed the image below, someone commented, "Leica Glow". Since it was posted on a Leica forum, I hated to point out that the camera was an Exa and the lens was a Steinheil Culminar 85mm f/2.8. I have the same lens now in LTM, so future shots can qualify as Leica or RF if I use it on one of my Leicas.
Jim N.
Jim N.
Attachments
VinceC
Veteran
There's another school of "Leica glow" that believes the quality of many Leitz lenses and a few other top-notch lenses can produce so much detail and "micro-contrast" that images have extra "snap" as well as a radient glow in how the lenses handle non-saturated highlights. I don't use Leitz glass and have found Nikkors sufficient for my photojournalism/documentary needs. On the other hand, there are a few Nikkor lenses that do seem to produce this quality. It's easiest to sense when hand-crafting an 8x10 print, more ellusive in other imaging situations.
Jorge's first portrait of the girl (his daughter?) shows a bit of what I mean. The rendering of the skin tones has an almost 3D quality to it. On the other hand, this glow is due to many factors. Of my two daughters, one has photogenic skin that glows, the other doesn't. You can't see it in person, except perhaps in a subtle matter of complexion, but I have to take much more care with how light falls on one compared to the other.
Jorge's first portrait of the girl (his daughter?) shows a bit of what I mean. The rendering of the skin tones has an almost 3D quality to it. On the other hand, this glow is due to many factors. Of my two daughters, one has photogenic skin that glows, the other doesn't. You can't see it in person, except perhaps in a subtle matter of complexion, but I have to take much more care with how light falls on one compared to the other.
Last edited: