Scanning the "Leica Glow".

[Trius]

Vince: I understand and agree. I think some people prefer to work in the digital domain, some in the analog (darkroom) domain to get the same result. I'm in the latter domain, but I wouldn't claim to be master of my domain.

Earl

 

[ClayH]

Wanted to wait to show the scans

Wanted to wait to show the scans

OK, I saw this thread last Sunday, right when I was printing the results of some developer tests I was running. I shot this image with an M2 and the old 35 summilux, wide open. This lens is not as sharp as the ASPH, it flares worse, yada yada yada. But it has 'the glow', which i believe to be just some high-quality, carefully controlled flare. So here are two images scanned from my silver prints. One is the full 6x9 inch image, and the other is the crop over the area that shows the glow.

This is the computer graveyard that we probably all have somewhere on our premises.

For those interested, this is Eastman 5222 Double X cine film stock developed in FX-1. It is a very nice combination that looks like the old tri-x before it became the super duper film it is today. The print is on Oriental Warmtone sepia and selenium toned.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Clay: a most interesting combination, through and through. I like the photo; I like, I like! I think with this you show one important thing: it's the whole process. In order to exploit the "qualities" or character of the lens, it is important to make it come through throughout the process. Things can get lost along the way into making the picture.

Thanks.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Chaser]

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.

Between digital and Film i get two different looks...
Different and not unequal although i have my preferences.
First is a Summitar on a Minolta CLE
while the second is a Kodak Aero Ektar on a Canon 10d...

 

[john neal]

Interestingly, there is an article on the "glow" in the just published April edition of Black & White Photography (the UK one) by Frances Schultz.

It shows some of Roger Hicks' shots taken with a M4-P and a 35mm f1.4 Summilux (non-asph). Some beautiful shots and a decent discussion on what causes the glow.

If you are lurking here Roger, perhaps we could take the debate on a bit from the mag, like does developer make much difference to glow? I see from the article that film emulsion does seem to.

 

[scigeek]

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?

Hi, I posted this picture elsewhere on the forum.

Really, I took it to show the camera, but I think it also shows the "glow".
Bear in mind that this is a point-and-shoot digital image, so it's at least third-hand....

Original taking lens was a 3.5cm f3.5 uncoated pre-war Elmar.
Cheers,
scigeek.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Here's an example of the 35/1.4 lux (pre ASPH) wide open in very poor light with strong sun outside. TX 400
nothing done in PS except dust removal

Simon

 

[bmattock]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21394

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Lecia Magus
i might be missing the point here regarding "micro contrast" but
you might want to browse thru Erwin Puts' reports on the Leica lenses
pages 9 and 35 seemed interesting.

http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/msystem/49.pdf

I'm sure everyone knows this already that flare and glow tend to be regarded subjectedly when making it comes to making images images and we all interperate them in our own ways. For me a soft veiled light is "glow", whereas "flare" shows itself when one shoots into bright light and you can see the reflections of the lens elements in the shot, or the light bleeds off the image into the rebate of the film.


PNet and the Leica Forum have often discussed the pro's and con's of various lenses and their various versions and compared them to other brands.

What counts in the end, for me anyway, is the way photographers chose to use these particular "qualities" to enhance the subject matter of their images

maybe i'm getting OT but i like to read these sorts of threads.

Simon

 

[Bertram2]

H
Have you any suggestions for an optimum way to scan my Leica prints within the limits imposed for posting here, keeping in mind that 99% of my work is in black and white (as to size, percentage, resolution, B&W or colour scanning, etc.)?; I'd certainly like to share some of me new work with you, as well as optimally scan some older, non-Leica images.

Many thanks in advance for any assistance on this and again, thanks for the warm welcome.

Gong back to the starter question , which was a scanning question but turned into a "glow" discussion after three posts, I'd like to add some more remarks.

Actually each good film scanner like a minolta 5400 for example is able to capture the "footprint" of a lens quite decently, tho a inkjet print from the scanfiel will maybe differ from an enlarger print.
Most important tho is that the postprocessing is done carefully enuff to get the jepg close to the neg or slide. Still there are folks who think the scanner output is the final product and that's it. The scanners output is an digital and thus altered something, it isn't more than a raw basis for the postprocessing.
The better the scanner the better this raw basis will be tho, no question. But as I said, even a KM 5400 or Nikon Coolscan V can catch a special footprint (microcontrast) very well in principle., even my Epson 4490 faltbed can do that in a limited way.

Concerning the glow I'd like to say that (like for bokeh) I have read in the www and heard so much incompetent nonsense that I just refuse to use this word.
You speak about microcontrast and tho I am not sure if this is not one of those ingenious inventions of EP, it is at least describing a real optical effect . So let's say glow=microcontrast, as it is your understanding too.

This article in Luminous Landscape

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-28.shtml

sums up perfectly my own understanding of glow.

Conclusion tho must be, that the whole production chain contributes to the glow-effect, lens, light, film, dev., enlarger and paper.
Summa summmarum it is the esthetical effect of a technical environment of former times, let's say before 1955-60 and it is the reproduction of a style which was based on the technical conditions of those days.
Micro contrast is just one contributing element and tho even modern asph. Leica lenses undoubtedly have a different "look" concerning the microcontrast, different for example from the Zeiss look, they won't ever achieve the glow effect Mike Johnston describes in the above mentioned article and for which you do not need special Leica lenses but lenses of a certain age and design in general.
There are even old Zeiss lenses which you can make "glow"., not to speak of older
6X6 and 6X9 cameras.

Amazing to see how much people still like that look today and the question appeals if the engineers haven't overdone it on their search for 35mm film perfection, which was driven from the very beginning on by the intention to make 35mm cameras beeing an almost full replacement of 120 film.

bertram



.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Bertram2]

Bertram,

First of all, let me say that I find your posting ingenious.

I am not aware of what the 'glow effect' that 'Mike Johnston describes in the above mentioned article'

Thanks, but too much honour for a simple mind 😱 I am one of those who try to find out how things really are , looking behind the scenes, lifting skirts..... 😀

What I meant, in other words, is that the modern lenses are simply too "good" in the sense of technical progress to get the full classical glow - look M. Johnston speaks about. Because THIS kinda glow is based on a technical perormance which we would consider nowadays, related to a new product, as insufficient.


And focused on the micro contrast issue I'd say that technical progress was a kind of equalizer. A modern 50mm Summilux, a 50mm a Zeiss M (or CV Nokton) may still look different today, but their look is MUCH closer than it was decades ago .

I've seen 1;4/50 asph Summilux and CV 50mm Nokton shots on the monitor, side by side, perfectly exposed, developed and scanned , could not keep them apart on the monitor in a blind test. With two 50yo old competitors it would be much easier.
Regards,
Bertram

 

[VinceC]

>>And edited to add: No matter what you do to a NIkon SLR lens, you can't make it "glow", except perhaps for the AF 85mm f/1.4D IF.<<

Kind of a sweeping statement, don't you think?

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[VinceC]

I certainly admire your passion for Leica and, by extension, photographs of the highest quality.

Off topic: It reminds me of a couple of wonderful magazine ads that Harley Davidson put out about 20 years ago ... one showed some extremely tough looking guys in front of their motorcycles (I think they were actually part of a gang called Bikers for Jesus) with text to the effect of "Would you try selling these guys a lousy motorcycle?" The other ad, my favorite, showed a muscular man with a full Harley Davidson logo tattooed across his unclothed back, spanning both shoulder blades. The text simply read "When was the last time you felt this strongly about ANYTHING?"

EDIT: Back on topic, I still think darkroom/post-processing is an important element that makes or breaks the technical quality of the final image.

Cheers,

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Bertram2]

And edited to add: No matter what you do to a NIkon SLR lens, you can't make it "glow",

Well, leaving aside the principle difference of RF and SLR design I'd say comparing Nikon SLR lenses to Leica M lenses does not make too much sense.
These lenses were designed for a certain purpose, they should deliver a maximum of sharpness, because in those days , as I said already, it was all about proving the practical performance of a 35mm system. The early Nikon F cameras concurred with Rolleiflex and Graflex , and nobody wasted a thought how one could a AI lens make "glow".
Pressphotogs wanted RAZOR SHARP lenses, and lenses which worked fine even under difficult light conditions . For them it counted more that Nikons were much less prone to flare than for Leica lenses were for example.

So if we talk about lens concepts we should compare RF lenses with RF lenses, best always lenses of the same period.

A bit you sometimes sound as if you had found "den Stein der Weisen " with the
Leica lens concept . If that is what blows back your hair it's o.k., but for you personally only . It is not good for all purposes tho, other, different concepts are on par with Leica and sometimes work much better for the result then Leica lens could do. And not everybody likes that glow concept focused on micro contrast ,
I know folks who even went back from Leica M to Nikon FM and AI lenses ,

So if you speak about micro contrast make sure that it is understood as YOUR final solution and not as THE final solution.
And don't forget, among all the friends who sourround you here are a lot of Nikonians, RF an SLR . Real multi-kulti here ! 😀

bertram

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request