This question pre-supposes the existence of "Leica Glow."

[hendriphile]

Does the Leica Glow (whatever that term may mean to you) exist only in images made with film Leicas, or can it also be seen in images made with the M8 and M9 (and now, I suppose, the M9M)?

 

[rxmd]

Does the Leica Glow (whatever that term may mean to you) exist only in images made with film Leicas, or can it also be seen in images made with the M8 and M9 (and now, I suppose, the M9M)?

I presume that among the percentile of people who believe in Leica Glow, there is a significant subset that believes that the cold technocratic nature of digital will not allow Leica Glow to manifest itself.

 

[Moriturii]

Show me an example of what 'Leica Glow' is that isn't simply highlight bloom from a un-coated lens or similar.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Show me an example of what 'Leica Glow' is that isn't simply highlight bloom from a un-coated lens or similar.

You've nailed it!

 

[srtiwari]

To the OP-
Whatever Leica "Glow" may be, it DOES show up in the Leica M9 images as well. This is particularly so in my 35 and 50 Summilux (non-asph) images shot wide open, and gradually disappears as the aperture is closed down. I hjave not seen it in later lenses.
I will be home later, and if this is of great interest to you, I'll be happy to post/send images demonstrating this.
I find the "Glow" at f1.4 way too much, but can deal with a bit of it by f4. Also, it seems to have nothing to do with the direction of light, relative to the camera/lens.

 

[hendriphile]

To the OP-
Whatever Leica "Glow" may be, it DOES show up in the Leica M9 images as well. This is particularly so in my 35 and 50 Summilux (non-asph) images shot wide open, and gradually disappears as the aperture is closed down. I hjave not seen it in later lenses.
I will be home later, and if this is of great interest to you, I'll be happy to post/send images demonstrating this.
I find the "Glow" at f1.4 way too much, but can deal with a bit of it by f4. Also, it seems to have nothing to do with the direction of light, relative to the camera/lens.

Yes, by all means!

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Show me an example of what 'Leica Glow' is that isn't simply highlight bloom from a un-coated lens or similar.

As cults go, this is pretty harmless. I doubt the Supreme Leicaphile will order the burning of those heretics who put Ukrainian lenses on their M3s.

😀

 

[BobYIL]

What we refer as "glow" is nothing but the spherical aberrations exhibited along the edges of the subjects rather at large apertures. The 35/1.4 Summilux pre shows (only at wide apertures) such "glow" due to uncorrected focusing capability of the lens; it "defines" or renders image edges by focusing all light rays coming to a point onto a larger area than the point. On the 35 Summilux at 1.4 the majority of the rays come onto the point to be defined, to render it somewhat sharply and then the rest of the rays scatter around it to provide with us a rather sharp appearing center with wooly, fluffy appearing surrounding, then we see the point as if "glowing".

"Glow" occurs always on highlighted edges, spots or patches. By stopping down the rays become more "concentrated" (focused) onto that specific point so less "glow" is observed. Around f2.8 it usually disappears.

Summicron 35/2 V.1 shows a sweet glow at f2.0 but almost none at f2.8. Summaron 35/2.8 shows a tiny glow at wide open and larger enlargements however none at f4.

Do the other lenses too show glow? Yes.. (Uncoated ones show a ton of glow) Only at large apertures with the condition that the point of focus will be somewhat sharply defined first and the rest of the lights will disperse around the point.

Technically it's rather the dispersion characteristics of a lens due to residual spherical aberrations and with some Leica lenses this characteristic displays some fine appearing "glow" but with some others not so fine appearing one. The new formulas are far better corrected than the older ones so with them only the chromatic aberrations are to be dealt with.

 

[hendriphile]

Technically it's rather the dispersion characteristics of a lens due to residual spherical aberrations and with some Leica lenses this characteristic displays some fine appearing "glow" but with some others not so fine appearing one. The new formulas are far better corrected than the older ones so with them only the chromatic aberrations are to be dealt with.

All right then, is seems that what has been referred to as "glow" is a function of lens design and physics of light. May it be assumed then that this will appear in the final image regardless of whether the medium is film or a digital sensor?

 

[BobYIL]

All right then, is seems that what has been referred to as "glow" is a function of lens design and physics of light. May it be assumed then that this will appear in the final image regardless of whether the medium is film or a digital sensor?

Actually it's not an intended function but a despite-all-efforts-remained-as-uncorrected fault of a design.

It appears regardless of the medium. Hah, but do not take it as a desired characteristics for all cases; come circumstances and it may make you curse when you see the results. It's not a user-adjustable feature other than the option to stop down.

 

[awbphotog]

"Glow" from a Summarit 1.5. Just a couple of [huge] examples. Apologies for the sizes.

Both are wide open. Film is Ektachrome 1600.

 

[Sparrow]

One overexposed and one miss-focused ... why would one want a lens that did that?

 

[135format]

could it be that glow is because leica lenses aren't IR filtered well enough so there is some IR halation. I know films have anti halation dyes in them but they only work to a point. I don't think digi sensors get halation.
So if that glow is what you like, try some IR film which has little if any anti halation dye in it.

 

[Austerby]

Is this it? 1936 Summar on 1936 IIIa.


Summar glow by Vidwatts, on Flickr

 

[Teuthida]

"Glow" from a Summarit 1.5. Just a couple of [huge] examples. Apologies for the sizes.

Both are wide open. Film is Ektachrome 1600.

Oh boy.......

 

[hendriphile]

So it seems that this phenomenon, whatever you wish to call it (design flaw, coating deficiency, "glow", etc.) will, depending on the lens being used, manifest in images taken with any M-mount camera, film or digital.

Thanks, everyone, for your informative (and sometimes funny!) responses.

 

[srtiwari]

Here are 2 images taken one after the other, with a Summarit 50mm f1.5 M lens- one at F1.7, and the other at f6.7

 

[Cyriljay]

"Leica Glow" is the radiant smile seen on the faces of Leicaphiles when they parade down the street wearing their Leica proudly around their neck.

I think I must add few cents to this. As an analog Camera user, I understood there is a different negatives quality produced by Leica and the other lenses and learned about this glowing thing related to Leica . I used to have all different Camera systems from the begining and at the end I stopped at M6 Leica as it has become my favourite in all ways. So whenever I did my own printing ,I have seen a great different print quality from Leica Negatives and the other negatives related to the other cameras produced.

This is existing and nothing to do anything as the above statement but I have noticed my M8 produces better quality and very clean images than M6 some times. The lenses I use is 50mm Cron , 35mm asp and 90mm asp. And
according to my knowledge and experience I believe THIS GLORE OR WHATEVER and it is mostly associated with Leica. I don't know anything specially about Digital.😀