Scanning the "Leica Glow".

[VinceC]

Wonderful photos and scans from Brian.

Also, this brings up a whole other subject -- the negative versus the final print/scan. I would submit that a significant element of "glow" involves good printing technique. Ansel Adams' view-camera photos usually look a bit flat when contact printed. He likened the negative to writing a musical score and printing the final image to conducting a symphony -- choosing correct exposure/contrast balance, burning and dodging, type of paper; in short, interpreting the image and presenting it to the public.

I not long ago shot some gorgeous glow-filled black-and-white cotillion photos of a neighbor's daughter using a 3-megapix digital point-and-shoot.

 

[VinceC]

I also forgot to mention differences in film and developing.

 

[RML]

Ah, the elusive "glow" is claiming more victims! 🙂 See, no one can come to an understanding about what "the glow" is. No one can properly explain it. And it turns out that "the glow" is not just restricted to Leica/Leitz lenses. Leica glow is even more elusive and personal than good or bad bokeh. 😀

 

[VinceC]

All things being equal, I think a mark of a great lens is that it can produce eye-popping images more consistently than near-great lenses. Leitz doesn't hold a monopoly here. But a whole lot of photographers for several generations have found a little extra "zing" in Leitz glass. There are simply too many of them to write it off as a consipiracy or hallucination. I know when I started hand-printing images with a couple of my very best Nikkor RF lenses, I could see and feel a tonal difference, even if it was hard to quantify.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I have always been interested in this Leica glow thing and have not personally seen it in my photos with Leica lense as opposed to other lenses I have used. That is not to say it does not exist if someone else thinks they see it. If it is too difficult to pin down exactly what something is or isn't you really have to question if it exists. You would also think that if it is in the print or neg that a scan would include it if it exists in a material way.

Nikon Bob

 

[SteveM(PA)]

The big red negative sign on my bank account always has a nice glow to it. 🙂

 

[Gman]

Can someone recommend a good film scanner, and what is the price range for these gizmos?
I have a flat bed that's just adequate.

 

[Trius]

When I had my Leitz glass, I saw a different quality that some may describe as the Leica glow. The 90 Summicron showed a great balance, IMO, between resolution and micro contrast. Same with the 50 DR, though they were somehow different.

My Zuiko 100/2.8 is the closest in terms of the "glow", and in some ways I prefer it.

Glow is just a word; if one preceives differences, then they are there no matter the words used.

 

[Honus]

I usually don't join in on discussions such as these, because I usually don't have anything additional to add. That being said, let me add my opinion to the matter.

I have always believed that the Leica glow was just another way of describing the performance of Leitz glass at (or near) full aperture. Leica designs lenses expecting them to be used wide open. Leica certainly does not have a monopoly on glow, or wide-open performance, but more often than not you have a better chance of finding it with Leitz glass than with any other lens designer. When a lens can exhibit sharpness and contrast within the narrow focus range, and handle the transition to out of focus area smoothly and with clarity (both resolution and contrast), you get the 3D-like isolation of the subject, or glow.

To generalize, if you want razor sharpness, you shoot Zeiss glass at f8. If you want the glow, you shoot Leitz glass at f2.

Now, feel free to tell me I'm full of BS 😀

 

[VinceC]

I think Honus is onto something.
Here's one of those shots I was telling you about with a Canon Powershot G1, the only camera that was at hand. For what it's worth, I shoot it through the viewfinder, so that it handles very much like an RF.

 

[amateriat]

Still, given that I am, for the moment, flatbed-bound, what other tricks are there apart from scanning at the highest resolution?

Ralph Gibson likes to wet-scan his prints straight from the wash, the idea being that a wet print yields more information in a scan than a dry one (I think I know what he means), and the scans are the better for this. Of course, he's talking about prints hot-off-the-press, as it were. This is the way he makes scans for repro in books such as Ex Libris ad the like. Can't say I argue with his results (although he contends that scanning prints is preferable to scanning film...I would say that depends on the equipment at hand, as well as one's particular expertise).


- Barrett

 

[john neal]

OK, here's my contribution from my IIIf with uncoated 50mm f3.5 Elmar (1935) on Kodak HD400, 100/sec at f16.

There may just be a hint of flare as well - there shouldn't be as the sun was just behind the lens, but there was a lot of light scatter from the snow. Anyhoo, just look at the way the gate has been rendered.

I think this is more "dreamy" than similar shots taken with later Canon lenses, and beats my Nikon SLR for atmosphere.

Oh yes, this was taken last weekend about 100 yards from my front door.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[VinceC]

Magus,
I sometimes write long posts too, and the RFF interface is, shall we say, perhaps 85 percent reliable at any given time, with no email-like mechanism for saving a draft post or post in progress. After having a couple of my more noble messages wiped out upon hitting the submit button, I've learned:
A - To quickly do a CONTROL-A CONTROL-C to save the text into computer memory (assuming a Windows machine interface) before submitting.
B - Hitting the BACK button can SOMETIMES but not always rescue you if the message vanishes.
C - This problem won't go away given the sites speed and performance slow-downs due to popularity.

Cheers,

 

[sircarl]

Sorry -- where?

 

[VinceC]

Brian's images of his daughter were about 10-15 posts back in the thread.

 

[Trius]

I have NO scanner, so I shouldn't be one to talk, but I'm not sure how scanning a 2nd generation image is really going to translate the "real" image. I've always subscribed to the conventional wisdom that successive generations always lose something. So if you scan a print with the "Leica glow", are what exactly are we getting? The quality of the print or of the original negative or slide?

This doesn't negate, in my mind, the validity of Gibson's technique and results, it's just a bit of musing. I suspect Gibson may be more comfortable with his wet darkroom skills than PS, which is certainly true with me.

Earl

 

[VinceC]

The very act of printing an image off the negative makes the print or scan a second-generation image. I would argue that projecting a slide also makes the projected image a second-generation image that will be degraded by the surface it is projected on.

If you make a darkroom print, then scan it, you've got a third-generation image. However, it's much easier to do a high-quality, high resolution scan of an 7x10 print than of a 1x1.4 negative. My flatbed can do 3200 dpi, which would make a monumental print scan that utterly preserves the qualities of the original print.

Most of my photography until a couple of years ago was centered around newspaper publication. Talk about third and fourth-generation image loss ... take a magnificent print and then screen it at 100-lpi in dull gray ink and cheap pulp paper for a typical newsprint halftone. For that reason, I appreciate lenses that can glow, but lens character is just one of many, many variables in successful photography.

 

[OtherHalf]

Regarding the "Leica glow": yes, as Brian points out, it's an expression to describe micro-contrast. I really played devil's advocate before making the leap and selling my photographic soul to Leica/Leitz. I was hard on myself. Testing "blind", with the help of a friend, I spotted 'the glow' nineteen times out of twenty. It exists. 'The glow' was one of three factors that drove me to my M6. (The other two were true framing as opposed to tunnel vision and mirror blackout, which was beginning to bother me so much that photography just wasn't fun anymore: What you don't see is what you get .)

Thanks for the post we will be looking forward to your pictures and further posts.

Salutations
TOH