Leica Glow

[merciful]

The differences between various lenses really matters very little to me, I've discovered. As long as I have the focal length and maximum aperture I need to frame and expose the shot as I want it, I almost don't care.

For these shots, I used a non-Leitz 35mm lens. Would it have made a quantifiable difference had I used the latest 35/1.4, or whatever that King of Bokeh 35mm is supposed to be? I don't think so: to me it's so very nearly all about timing and light rather than optics as to render the optics an insignificant factor in the equation.

This isn't to suggest that this thread is not worthwhile: my way of thinking about things isn't necessarily the right way; and there's plenty of room for others to like and enjoy their own spin on things. I've just managed to stop caring, and the lack of GAS has done wonders for my financial life!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

i bought into the leica hype and now i know the "glow" is just bs. I kept my leica around because I love its built quality and it's a solid compact film solution for me.

All the wonderful images I see in this thread are good because of the content, composition etc.. not how the lens renders the edge detail or the bokeh.

Ah, the skeptic. Can't convince a color-blind dog that color exists. That's ok: we both know what our realities are.

But you can't say that an image is good because of a lens. The lens helps, just like a pen helps a calligrapher. You don't have to have a "good" pen in order to write, but if you want to be a good calligrapher, you must understand your pens.

 

[ywenz]

"I want that pre-war 5cm summi-(fill in the blank) with serial starting 354xxx as I've heard they have the best (fill in the blank) performance!"

Sound like the words of a mad man?

 

[ywenz]

That's ok: we both know what our realities are.

I agree with this statement

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

"I want that pre-war 5cm summi-(fill in the blank) with serial starting 354xxx as I've heard they have the best (fill in the blank) performance!"

Sound like the words of a mad man?

Yes, if you don't know what he's talking about.

If you had the context, in his eyes, perhaps your words to him would make you sound not in the best of regards.

"I'm out to shoot people!". Does it sound like the words of a maniac?

 

[Kameran Kashani]

Fingerprints

Fingerprints

i bought into the leica hype and now i know the "glow" is just bs. I kept my leica around because I love its built quality and it's a solid compact film solution for me.

All the wonderful images I see in this thread are good because of the content, composition etc.. not how the lens renders the edge detail or the bokeh.

All "interesting" lenses, regardless of manufacturer, have unique
fingerprints that add to the image. You're right that composition,
use of light, decisive moment, and so forth are more important in
making a great image. Also, looking at images on a
computer monitor is not the same as seeing physical prints.

When I was thinking about buying a Leica, I rented an M6 and
35mm Summilux for a week and shot a bunch of rolls of Tri-X
through it. In the darkroom, I printed the keepers along with some
frames from another camera+lens combo (also Tri-X)
and took them home to mull over the results.

At home, my wife wound up leafing through the pile of photos
and, without any prompting or guidance from me, she asked
"These photos were taken with different cameras,
weren't they?"

When I told her which ones were made with the M6/Summilux
combination, she said, without missing a beat, "You should
get a Leica."

Kameran

 

[ywenz]

When I was thinking about buying a Leica, I rented an M6 and
35mm Summilux for a week and shot a bunch of rolls of Tri-X
through it. In the darkroom, I printed the keepers along with some
frames from another camera+lens combo (also Tri-X)
and took them home to mull over the results.

At home, my wife wound up leafing through the pile of photos
and, without any prompting or guidance from me, she asked
"These photos were taken with different cameras,
weren't they?"

When I told her which ones were made with the M6/Summilux
combination, she said, without missing a beat, "You should
get a Leica."

Kameran

Are you sure it wasn't simply because the 35 lux gives you shallow DOF at a fairly wide FOV, which is a pretty unique combination of specs. Any images shot with a fully opened wide lens catches my attention for a little bit. What lens were the other pictures shot with? If you showed your wife a pile of pictures taken with the 35mm Nokton and 35mm Lux, would the Leica images still pop out to her?

 

[foto_fool]

When I told her which ones were made with the M6/Summilux
combination, she said, without missing a beat, "You should
get a Leica."

Similar experience - "Why do these look so good?" and she is the naturally talented one. Now she is developing what passes for GAS with her, and wants "better" lenses for her preferred kit. She still doesn't get the advantages of RF over SLR. But she does get "glow" and appreciates the artistic vision we can express with the ZM Sonnar and Canon 0.95.

- John

 

[motosacto]

What if we called it "Takumar Glow" ?

What if we called it "Takumar Glow" ?

As Michael Johnston pointed out, you can get a wonderful glow if you deploy a Pentax Spotmatic with a 50mm Takumar properly. Would it be the subject of such controversy if we called it the "Takumar Glow" ?

 

[ywenz]

> Schneider Xenon 50/1.9 on the Retina IIIS. Of course, Leitz also licensed the Xenon formula. It evolved into the Summarit, and later into the early Summilux. This lens was $10 at a camera show.

Oh so if it's just low contrast you're looking for, my Canon EF lens does that too, courtesy of photoshop..

 

[x-ray]

Never any glow in 39 years of Leica. All myth unless you're talking about internal lens haze, scratched front elements from cleaning or flare.

 

[merciful]

Oh-oh, you're gonna get it now, DD!

Never any glow in 39 years of Leica. All myth unless you're talking about internal lens haze, scratched front elements from cleaning or flare.

 

[mcgrattan]

There's certainly a 'glow' that comes with certain lenses, exposure situations, lighting and film --- particularly when shot into the light but when the lens itself is shielded from the worst flare.

I don't own any Leica gear, but some of my FSU lenses definitely give me that look in certain circumstances.

Both the Industar-61 L/D and my Jupiter-8 (which is uncoated) do it. I have a collapsible Elmar copy that does it too, but way too much -- most of the images are almost ruined by flare.

 

[Edward Felcher]

All this foolishness and conjecture by people who do not comprehend technology and instead believe in superstition remind me of the "high end audio" crowd.

When I read serious discussions on audio forums about the "sonic properties" of $12,000 AC MAINS WIRES (scout's honor, this is for real), or $4,000 RCA cables, then it's perfectly plausible that people believe all sorts of things induced by camera marketing or self perpetuating myths reinforced by mutual delusional posting on internet forums.

It's interesting how people who do not understand how things work create a latter day witch doctor/voodo mythos for themselves by ascribing mystical properties to inanimate objects.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Oh so if it's just low contrast you're looking for, my Canon EF lens does that too, courtesy of photoshop...

Never any glow in 39 years of Leica. All myth unless you're talking about internal lens haze, scratched front elements from cleaning or flare.

It's interesting how people who do not understand how things work create a latter day witch doctor/voodo mythos for themselves by ascribing mystical properties to inanimate objects.

Whenever this "discussion" comes up, interestingly there are people who will swear that something doesn't exist, simply by the fact that they don't see it.

Others get confused in logical short-circuits: if you were to say that butterflies are beautiful, and somebody pointed out that most of their beauty lies in their wings, you'd inevitably have somebody cry out that birds must be beautiful too because they have wings, when birds are not the subject of the discussion, but butterflies.

I'm also reminded of Smeagol, from "Lord of the Rings"; when Sam cooked a rabbit that Smeagol had caught, Smeagol was outraged by the travesty. You don't spoil such tender meat with fire! I imagine Smeagol then throwing charred coal, burnt leather, burning down the Amazons, as arguments that "cooking with fire" spoils everything.

Difficult to argue with such dedicated Kafkaesque rationale.

So I submit to you: if you think that all meat tastes like chicken, then chicken to you it tastes; I'll keep on savoring my tajine d'angeau.

 

[motosacto]

Whenever this "discussion" comes up, interestingly there are people who will swear that something doesn't exist, simply by the fact that they don't see it.

Others get confused in logical short-circuits: if you were to say that butterflies are beautiful, and somebody pointed out that most of their beauty lies in their wings, you'd inevitably have somebody cry out that birds must be beautiful too because they have wings, when birds are not the subject of the discussion, but butterflies.

I'm also reminded of Smeagol, from "Lord of the Rings"; when Sam cooked a rabbit that Smeagol had caught, Smeagol was outraged by the travesty. You don't spoil such tender meat with fire! I imagine Smeagol then throwing charred coal, burnt leather, burning down the Amazons, as arguments that "cooking with fire" spoils everything.

Difficult to argue with such dedicated Kafkaesque rationale.

So I submit to you: if you think that all meat tastes like chicken, then chicken to you it tastes; I'll keep on savoring my tajine d'angeau.

Makes sense to me. Be sure, however, that some Leica enthusiasts display a similar "logical short-circuit" when they jump from "Leica lenses create images that 'glow'" to "Only Leica lenses create images that 'glow'".

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Makes sense to me. Be sure, however, that some Leica enthusiasts display a similar "logical short-circuit" when they jump from "Leica lenses create images that 'glow'" to "Only Leica lenses create images that 'glow'".

Unfortunately, that is true. There are rabid brand fans, for every brand. Even diet Shasta Cola! ::shudder::

 

[Edward Felcher]

Yes, certain lenses and image processing techniques produce a clearly apparent "glow" for lack of a better term. I can plainly see what you're talking about in some of your example photos.

I also know the difference between eggrolls and sweet and sour pork from a suburban New Jersey shopping mall Cantonese takeout joint and a genuine Chinese meal served in Guangzhou.

And whether you spell your meal tajine d'angeau or your lens Summilux (or 'lux to prove your superiority in an elite clique), it doesn't automatically make the food taste better or your photos "glow".

I submit that in a double blind (no pun intended) test of several hundred prints made with many different brands of cameras and lenses, you would not be able to pick out the Leica shots with any statistical accuracy, despite your anecdotal accounts about the matter.

You'll always get some beautilful "glowing" shots and you'll always get some stinkers, even if you use $50,000 worth of old and new Leica lenses or $10 thrift store Tarons.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

And whether you spell your meal tajine d'angeau or your lens Summilux (or 'lux to prove your superiority in an elite clique), it doesn't automatically make the food taste better or your photos "glow".

I hadn't thought about that...that is a very deep philosophical question: does spelling make food taste better or photos "glow"?

I shall call my shaman first thing in the morning and consult with him. Or her. It's a big mystery.

 

[Edward Felcher]

Food always tastes better if the meal is stolen or you're starving.