Scanning the "Leica Glow".

Hmmm, Leica glow.... I'll keep silent about that. Suffice to say I don't believe in it, and I shoot Leica myself.
 
kmack--

I've seen this article. It talks about how to use older lenses and certain shooting and printing techniques to achieve a "rich, soft, pearly look " in photographic prints. It doesn't say that there is a distinctive glow to Leica lenses.
 
Here's my favorite "glow" photo. Scanned from print with an Epson flatbed. Also a 1950s classic Nikkor at 1.4, not Leitz glass.
 
I get more faithful scans when I scan at lower contrast, then adjust contrast and levels in PhotoShop or another equivalent software. Using "Unsharp mask" is essential to replicating the sharpness and tone in the original print, but it involves obscure wizardry. Trick is to use your eyes to match to screen to the print.
 
I know what you're talking about with the Leitz "look," versus diffusion from antiquated designs. My Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 (attached photo) produces that kind of rich tone and detail in some situations. Otherwise, the old Nikkors tend toward clinical sharpness at the expense of deep rich textures.
 
Last edited:
Coming from a digital world I just heard about the "Leica Glow" so far. Never seen.

Is it about local contrast that makes the picture pop and more 3-Dimensional, like explained here?

Or is it about an artsy glamour soft-focus glow, like explained here?

😕
 
>>Is it about local contrast that makes the picture pop and more 3-Dimensional<<

That's it, according to my understanding.
 
OK, guys, so help me here. Some of you say the Leica glow is "micro-contrast, or the ability to capture subtle changes in light." That I can understand. But then others of you say Leica lenses aren't like those bad old [insert name here] lenses that are "too sharp." Is "sharp," for you, another way of saying those lenses are too contrasty? Or if you mean instead lens resolution, are you saying there an inherent conflict between trying to design a lens for sharpness as opposed to designing a lens that captures subtle contrast? Does the Leica glow therefore mean a more diffused image? I'm not denying you're onto something with this Leica glow. Just trying to pin it down!
 
sircarl said:
Or if you mean instead lens resolution, are you saying there an inherent conflict between trying to design a lens for sharpness as opposed to designing a lens that captures subtle contrast?
AFAIK there are indeed some design decisions in lens-design, that trade-off between resolution and local contrast.

Maybe "Leica Glow" means that the design of "glowing" Leica lenses tried to keep it balanced with a preference to local contrast. While the design of Zeisses and Nikkors - when in doubt - took the resolution route.

Both resolution and local contrast increase apparent sharpness, but they do it in different ways.

Guess high resolution lenses "bite", while high local contrast lenses "pop". Which one's more pleasing - as Bertram allready said - depends.
 
Last edited:
I'm no expert, but I understand there are multiple tradeoffsin lens design that create a large number of variations. And, along with design variations, there are also considerations of the type of glass and the optical coatings.

Obviously, once you reach a certain level of sharpness and contrast, you're just fine-tuning to personal taste. Think of it as having lots of ways to brew a pefectly good cup of coffee (or cask of beer or wine).
 
I may not be as eloquent in describing the Leica glow as you guys have been, but to me it is the fine contrast, wide tonal ranges, and great texture. It always seem very easy to spot a shot which I took with my Leica vs. Nikon.

When I scan on my flatbed (Epson 4990) I use Vuescan and do all the contrast or sharpness work in Photoshop.

Best,

Ray
 
Back
Top Bottom