Leica Glow

[x-ray]

Magus:

You and I have discussed this topic before. You and others describe the light as poetry and I take a lens and forge an image on an anvil of film and paper. Same result just different ways of looking at the process.

Have a great weekend!

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[x-ray]

I revise my statement about the leica glow. The 90mm Thambar with the center filter has the glow. Beautiful lens!

If you want to see glow research the Rodenstock Imagon. It originated around the 1920 if I remember correctly and used a perforated disc in front of the lens. The larger the outer openings the more glow around highlights. The lens retains all it's sharpness with a beautiful halation around highlights. I have one and will post a few images this week. Also Fuji made a similar lens. Both have been discontinued.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

> 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.

Okay. Ill Bulletize this so that it looks like a Powerpoint slide and not like superstition. Then I'll type real slow for those who can't read very fast.




Leica Lenses Compared with their Japanese Counterparts of the 1950's

1) Lower Contrast

2) Higher resolution

3) Better color correction

It's futile, Brian. Most have a mental block due to the word "glow". Some think that it's the haze/fog (which does make some images look "glowy"); others assert that it's all in your...err...our head. (I guess, to some Daltonics, if you see the color red, and they don't see it, red must be a figment of your imagination). Others stop listening at the word "Leica" and go stray there.

If only the word "Leica" were taken out, and "old German optics" were put in, perhaps there would be less violent allergic reactions. There still would be a lot, but less, nonetheless.

It's the High School cliquey "us vs. them" mentality that makes discussion an...uphill battle.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?

Evidently, you don't understand Quantum Physics Electrons do it all the time; it never happens. Always.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Permit those of us with good ears and open minds the ability to hear the difference, just as I'll allow you not to

Hear, hear!!

This side discussion reminds me of how my dad likes to put the 1 KHz slide control of the equalizer way above the middle, and when he converts his CD tracks to MP3s, his preferred setting is 54Kbps ::shudder:: He can't tell the difference between that and using 196Kbps or higher (which is what I use, if I convert to MP3s for my own use).

The sampling at 54Kbps is, to say the least, awful. He calls me "picky", to say the least. Incidentally, he's told me how ridiculous it is to spend so much money on audio cables (and my yet-to-be-finished project to have my components communicate via optical cable rather than the Monster stuff I have now). I love my dad, but I'm glad I didn't inherit his ear.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Some people swear they've seen aliens from outer space and ghosts and some believe in the tooth ferry and santa clause too. I think the tooth ferry is keeper of the glow.

Santa Clause and the Tooth Ferry? You are kidding, right?

 

[telenous]

Here is a ficticious story (paraphrased from the screenplay of a film I am particular keen on) with curious parallels to the kind of glow debate presently at hand:

At the time when North America was hardly explored, one of those early French trappers went westward from Montreal, and he was the first white man to set eyes on Niagara falls. When he returned, he told of waterfalls that were more vast and immense and beautiful than people had ever dreamt of.

But people didn't believe him. They laughed, they called him names, they thought he was a madman or a liar. They chided him for his preposterous story, they asked 'What is your proof?'

He was devastated, he thought perhaps he was mad after all. And then, suddenly, it dawned on him. He said: 'My proof is...that I have seen them'.


So, this is a question that should be easily corroborated by dint of empirical evidence. And yet it isn't (- or rather it is disputed that it is). I believe this is mostly down to the fact that different people mean different things with the term 'glow'. Others mean the highlights, others 'the way a subject pops', still others veiling flare, and who knows what more. For my part, I associate with glow, a particular 'look' of surfaces when they are hit from direct or reflected light. To give an example, the photos that first come to mind when I hear about Leica glow are those by Wolff and Tritschler (perhaps especially the portraits). Now, that sort of look is perfectly reproducible with some Leica lenses, if one takes care to use the main light source appropriately. It is not necessary that they are solelely reproducible by Leica lenses, but practice sometimes shows it to be sufficient.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

You are delusional, you know that, Telenous? No English history book will give credit to a Frenchman. He must be a madman.

You have to be "one of us" in order to be believed!

 

[Uwe_Nds]

Hear, hear!!

This side discussion reminds me of how my dad likes to put the 1 KHz slide control of the equalizer way above the middle, and when he converts his CD tracks to MP3s, his preferred setting is 54Kbps ::shudder:: He can't tell the difference between that and using 196Kbps or higher (which is what I use, if I convert to MP3s for my own use).

The sampling at 54Kbps is, to say the least, awful. He calls me "picky", to say the least. Incidentally, he's told me how ridiculous it is to spend so much money on audio cables (and my yet-to-be-finished project to have my components communicate via optical cable rather than the Monster stuff I have now). I love my dad, but I'm glad I didn't inherit his ear.

Gabriel,

Maybe your dad is right and he really isn't able to tell the difference.
Our hearing capabilities degrade with age, so maybe at his age you could also save the money for audio gear and invest in something else.

I don't know if the something else should be lenses, as I think that also our vision degrades with age...

Best regards,
Uwe

 

[Keith]

Glow or glare ... a shot taken in very strong sunlight with a 1930 Elmar lens?

 

[merciful]

Glare and the focus is past the feet. Both contribute to glowing effect.

Glow or glare ... a shot taken in very strong sunlight with a 1930 Elmar lens?

 

[Ororaro]

Guys, what if you change the word "Leica Glow" for "Leica Aura"?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Keith: you're confusing "glare" and "plentiful highlights" with "Glow": the properties which Brian has so slowly typed about ( ) can actually be seen on the left part of the frame, but just barely. The highlights galore are just that.

 

[Keith]

Glow or glare ... a shot taken in very strong sunlight with a 1930 Elmar lens?

Now that you mention it ... I have just noticed that the focus point is not on the feet. The camera was a 1a and scale focus is a challenge at these distances!

 

[Keith]

Keith: you're confusing "glare" and "plentiful highlights" with "Glow": the properties which Brian has so slowly typed about ( ) can actually be seen on the left part of the frame, but just barely. The highlights galore are just that.

Explain more Gab ... what part of the left part of the frame are you refering to?

 

[Wimpler]

I believe the key indeed is to replace "Leica", with "50-70s european". I can agree there is a difference between japanese and european lenses. But I am really getting tired of this glow versus no glow bull****. By leaving the definition of glow open leica users (or collectors?) seam to be free to claim it "really is there you just don't see it".

What is the point of discussing this again and again and again?

 

[Marc-A.]

The discussions on this subject on RFF are hardly new. They used to be much less bias, and a lot friendlier.

This discussion over leica glow seems to take a religious turn: belivers against non-believer. Some of us appreciate a particular effect of Leica lenses that is called "Leica glow"; some think that that glow is not peculiar to Leica lenses (I do, for many non-Leica old lenses, especially FSU lenses, seem to produce that glow, IMO). Others think there is no such thing as Leica glow, or that it is insignificant, or it's a mere defect of the lens.

There is no reason to offend, be offended or feel offended :angel:

Do all Leitz lenses deliver that typical "Leica Glow" quality? Or are there exceptions? Do all non-Leitz lenses lack that quality? Or are there exceptions?

Polleke, you opened Pandora's box Do you think you have the answer you were looking for? I guess no.