The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Space around objects; the leica look

gogopix

Subscriber
I will likely get into trouble for a few comments on the Nikon thresds :confused: but I still wonder why I (and many others) lika' Leica Look. What is it? We say it is there. and we post truely great images, and we keep buying and showing [And I am the first to demure blind wine,(I prefer French, red and Bordeaux!) and audio tests (tubes of course!) in line with Leica glass.

I submit that the closest I see (and it has relevance in optical performance) to what I would call "space around the objects in an image" We sometimes say "3-D" sometimes "presence, life....etc." We struggle as much as the audiomaniacs (moi aussi!) to describe why record, tubes etc. have more 'presence' 'life' etc.

Is this getting close?

SUre the Canon train image (albeit against a black sky) has a 3-D quality and some of the low ISO D3 images are pretty 'airy' but with Leica, it is easy (needed for the likes of me)

So, unless you are all defecting to Canikon, let's see those images that make Leica DIFFERENT (and to us, BETTER)

Victor

PS: Saying they ALL are is an acceptable answer! :ROTFL:
 
Last edited:

ecliffordsmith

New member
Hi Victor,

Well as fan a French red wine too I am game.

I cannot think of relevant words to describe the look you mention. Sometimes things seem to have a certain clarity and luminance (very bad works as they have specific meanings I know).

Here are a few that have that certain thing in my opinion.

Please excuse the dirty lens!
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Guys - if you see something you like about the Leica files, thats great. However my eyes can 'see' a definite Leica Look when I shoot B&W film or transparencies on my MP - but whilst I am a big fan of the leica digi output it doesnt give me the 'pop' that I get from film - digi in 35mm doesn't give me the instant dimensionality I can get with B&W or transparency and good light. I get better sharpness/resolution/colourcontrol etc etc and a great raw file - but not the film look which I think is definately Leica..
 

gogopix

Subscriber
Guys - if you see something you like about the Leica files, thats great. However my eyes can 'see' a definite Leica Look when I shoot B&W film or transparencies on my MP - but whilst I am a big fan of the leica digi output it doesnt give me the 'pop' that I get from film - digi in 35mm doesn't give me the instant dimensionality I can get with B&W or transparency and good light. I get better sharpness/resolution/colourcontrol etc etc and a great raw file - but not the film look which I think is definately Leica..
The 'pop' may be due a bit to the color contrast in film, esp Velvia. I too find digital too 'analytical' (can I say?)

Peter you do MF as well, and I think the newer backs are starting to get there in terms of capturing the best 'raw' data. HOWEVER, as I look at film, I think of the difference between video and movies. Same thing. Film is actually a somewhat artificial medium; it is not very 'real life like' as digital and video. The grain and the method of exposure are very different. Also grains are random, not alligned. This leads to a visual 'dithering" that produces a different image in the brain (much as impressionist colors have a look)

What underlies it all is what I am after, the leica-look, and cliffords images show it too; a kind of dimensionality that separates the items in an image.

I actually think digital is bringing it out more, but the 'look' from film is certainly more pleasing to my eye, but that has more to the age of my eyes and what I grew up with (and having an aunt in a photo processing plant!)

Good thoughts. Bottom line is that 'we' whoever the 'we' is, see something in Leica images and although we may not be able to pick it out in a blind test when we see it we like it

Regards
Victor
 

gogopix

Subscriber
again a simple image, no DOF fuzzy focus for 3-D here. But you can feel this is a space, not a flat image.
 
Last edited:

s.agar

Member
This thread reminds me the discussions in the Hi-end audio forums.

Yes, I agree that the last photo has a lot of Leica type 3-D effect. For me the other ones were not the best representatives though. I will try to post a few pics myself, with similar shots from Canon 5D, which lacks it (in my opinion of course).

But there are 2 thing which was not possible for me to agree totally.

1. Tube sound has a lot of distortions as well, which sometimes gives the "airy affect" and I think that the recent digital systems (as close as they can get to analog) may have started to be more representative of the original sounds.

2. Film + scanning loses a lot of the original feelings. But a good slide projector may still give the magic touch of the Leica systems better than present digital Leica. But similarly exaggerated films also have their signature as in the case of tubes in audio.

Therefore, I think the next generation Leica digital may just be perfect as the developments in Hi-end audio has shown.

Please don't shoot me for the above thoughts. I know that this debate can go on forever.

Best regards

Seyhun
 

gogopix

Subscriber
Dear Sehyun

As a card carrying 'audiomaniac" (LOts of Audio research, all tube, incl C79 for high freq) and infinity Beta IRS with Linn at from end, Valhalla'ed etc) and TONNES of vintage REAL shaded dog (S1) and Mercury) I can tell you all the pops, scratches and surface noice do not hurt and I am not sure help the airiness.

WHen Pearson (Absolute Sound) and the other maniacs use terms likje 'grunge' dirt, haze etc. I think of how many Canikon images look like they need a window cleaning.

The Leica yes has 3-D but the clean image may be due to a simple fact; Leica (and Zeiss) pay a lot for glass that has the right dispersion properties, but nit scattering.

But I like you thinking; not many of us here who apply the same maniacal fervor to pix as to 'bels'.

Regards
Victor
 

s.agar

Member
I knew I was in the wrong audio camp, but just couldn't resist writing.

I still have the Krell's BUT, I also still have the Audible Illusions Modulus 3A preamplifier. So I'm not totally lost in the wrong direction :)

Anyway, one important aspect of hi-end audio is actually the excellent air (silence?- relaxed mood) between the notes, and in Photography, Leica has it. I always wondered if that is because of the less losses (not exactly= higher contrast alone) of the Leica lenses, or similarly whether it has a better tonal gradation, or both, plus a few other ingredients.

But certainly Leica has it and that's how it still stands against harsh competition from very high technical specs (albeit sometimes used quite in the wrong direction) of the Nikon/Canon cameras.

Enjoy your tubes/Leica's.

Seyhun

Dear Sehyun

As a card carrying 'audiomaniac" (LOts of Audio research, all tube, incl C79 for high freq) and infinity Beta IRS with Linn at from end, Valhalla'ed etc) and TONNES of vintage REAL shaded dog (S1) and Mercury) I can tell you all the pops, scratches and surface noice do not hurt and I am not sure help the airiness.

WHen Pearson (Absolute Sound) and the other maniacs use terms likje 'grunge' dirt, haze etc. I think of how many Canikon images look like they need a window cleaning.

The Leica yes has 3-D but the clean image may be due to a simple fact; Leica (and Zeiss) pay a lot for glass that has the right dispersion properties, but nit scattering.

But I like you thinking; not many of us here who apply the same maniacal fervor to pix as to 'bels'.

Regards
Victor
 

Tony C.

New member
Well, as we are veering off-topic in an interesting direction, I'll simply add that I have no tubes in my stereo system, yet the sound it produces is remarkably warm and rich.

Jeff Rowland Concentra Integrated Amplifier (a fantastic piece of equipment)
Green Mountain Audio Callisto Monitors
Electrocompaniet EMC-1 (modified)
Accuphase T-100 Tuner
Virtual Dynamics David Interconnects
Virtual Dynamics David Speaker cable
JPS Labs Digital Power cord
 

PeterA

Well-known member
first one shot with H1 ad TRX ...second with MP ..sorry about scans - haven't got my Imacon yet...LOL
 

gogopix

Subscriber
Well, as we are veering off-topic in an interesting direction, I'll simply add that I have no tubes in my stereo system, yet the sound it produces is remarkably warm and rich.

Jeff Rowland Concentra Integrated Amplifier (a fantastic piece of equipment)
Green Mountain Audio Callisto Monitors
Electrocompaniet EMC-1 (modified)
Accuphase T-100 Tuner
Virtual Dynamics David Interconnects
Virtual Dynamics David Speaker cable
JPS Labs Digital Power cord
Many routes to
..........musical truths:salute:
 

4season

Well-known member
Vacuum tube electronics are great until you have to move them up a few flights of stairs :cussing:

Last year, as I was moving my Sondek, McIntosh tuner, preamps, 4x single-ended tube monoblocks, LPs, and what-not, down the stairs and into temporary storage, I would have seriously considered trading the lot for one of those fancy new Meridian table radios with the Ferrari logo, and maybe I would have even offered some additional cash! Heck, maybe I'll do that anyway.

Fortunately, the Leica M8 isn't too bad in that regard: A person can do an awful lot of damage and still have a system that fits neatly in an ordinary shoebox.
 

woodyspedden

New member
Vacuum tube electronics are great until you have to move them up a few flights of stairs :cussing:

Last year, as I was moving my Sondek, McIntosh tuner, preamps, 4x single-ended tube monoblocks, LPs, and what-not, down the stairs and into temporary storage, I would have seriously considered trading the lot for one of those fancy new Meridian table radios with the Ferrari logo, and maybe I would have even offered some additional cash! Heck, maybe I'll do that anyway.

Fortunately, the Leica M8 isn't too bad in that regard: A person can do an awful lot of damage and still have a system that fits neatly in an ordinary shoebox.
Since we are now totally off thread and it is clear that us Leica folks (many of) are also audiophiles I offer the following:

Over the past 50 years I have owned many many systems, both solid state and tube. Included was a complete Mark Levinsson Cello system whose prices make Leicas look cheap. The more into solid state i got, the less I listened.

Current system

Wavestream Kinetics Phono preamp and linestage (not known very well but one of the best I have ever heard.)

Air Tight 311 Monoblocks

SME 30 table with Koetsu Jade cartridge

Sonus Faber AMati heritage loudspeakers

Now i listen a lot

Woody
 

gogopix

Subscriber
Since we are now totally off thread and it is clear that us Leica folks (many of) are also audiophiles I offer the following:

Over the past 50 years I have owned many many systems, both solid state and tube. Included was a complete Mark Levinsson Cello system whose prices make Leicas look cheap. The more into solid state i got, the less I listened.

Current system

Wavestream Kinetics Phono preamp and linestage (not known very well but one of the best I have ever heard.)

Air Tight 311 Monoblocks

SME 30 table with Koetsu Jade cartridge

Sonus Faber AMati heritage loudspeakers

Now i listen a lot

Woody
evr move a D250??
:scry:
 

4season

Well-known member
I don't know about it having any special "Leica look", especially not as a JPEG image only 1024 pixels across, but it makes me hungry just thinking about it:


 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
It's all about macro and micro contrast, and I think the analogy holds for audio...

Leica glass, especially the Mandler era designs, all have lower than normal MACRO contrast coupled with higher than normal MICRO contrast. Micro contrast is what generates acutance, or fine detail, macro contrast is what we normal think of when somebody says contrast; it is what you adjust when you use the contrast slider in Lightroom or Photoshop.

So, older M lenses had "soft" contrast (at least relative to Zeiss and the typical Japanese glass of the time) and higher acutance or ability to resolve detail: Note that higher macro contrast will increase the PERCEPTION of resolution, but does not increase the actual baseline resolution...

This also explains why many films always looked "better" through M lenses, since it is a relatively high contrast capture medium to begin with and the longer tonal range of the M glass allowed more information onto the film. And this is still true with digital sensors, but one needs to process them properly to optimize this trait, a main focus of our workflow workshops!

I'll let you audiophiles draw the relevant comparison to sound, but I suspect the general idea is the same: a broader TOTAL range of data (sound or light) with better definition on the subtleties contained within...

Cheers,
 

gogopix

Subscriber
Jack, Guy et al

Audio had the 'prophet' and Harry Pearson of the ORIGINAL Absolute Sound and his followers who coined a vocabulary for audio; 'grunge', 'veiled' etc to describe what got between the real sound (i guess they meant what would be heard if you were 'there') and what electronics did. Others then looked at voltage (tubes) vs current (solid state) devices and a lot of other ways to explain.

We are way behind. We need the "Harry Pearson" of photo to at least start the process. Over time it led to the appreciation of vinyl, tubes etc, and actually forwarded the SOTA even in CDs and SS.

We are seeing a similar transition in film?>digital with all the technical attempts to advance, while we still don't know, or know how to describe what we like and don't like and what we think is 'better'

Taste aside, there is no doubt history has decides some things; Van Gogh is better than resort art and Leica, for a while, along with Zeiss, Hasselblad are better than alternative brands. Why?

Guy's comparisons, though good, remind me of the THD is <<<<.00001% " discussions, yet the sound was 'flat' Curves, and a few images, though helpful will not help us understand what is, if anything better. We need to have a vocabulary for the whole image, maybe words like:

clarity, unveiled, airy, one I really like is the "reach in effect"

maybe you can't see it, but it is not 3-d or perspective or selected focus; on my screen this image just seems as if you can "reach in"

I also see it in some of the Nikon images here (I will not say what it is, cause it dont matter; however, if you can see it, I propose the "reach-in" effect as a singular photographic charateristic, and I LIKE IT:D

Victor
 
Last edited:

PeterA

Well-known member
Victor - if you like the 3D 'look' - then you will naturally be drawn to stereo-photography, the problem with this genre is viewing..but the effect is awesome..

I think you make some very sensible points regarding the poor vocabulary we have for describing what we like to see in photographs...makes useful discussion difficult.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack, Guy et al

Audio had the 'prophet' and Harry Pearson of the ORIGINAL Absolute Sound and his followers who coined a vocabulary for audio; 'grunge', 'veiled' etc to describe what got between the real sound (i guess they meant what would be heard if you were 'there') and what electronics did. Others then looked at voltage (tubes) vs current (solid state) devices and a lot of other ways to explain.
Hmmm. I guess differences in individual human sensory perceptions play no part?

We are way behind. We need the "Harry Pearson" of photo to at least start the process. Over time it led to the appreciation of vinyl, tubes etc, and actually forwarded the SOTA even in CDs and SS.
I don't think so at all. We have plenty of Harry's, they just don't all agree :D

We are seeing a similar transition in film?>digital with all the technical attempts to advance, while we still don't know, or know how to describe what we like and don't like and what we think is 'better'
I disagree with the proposition that we don't know what it is we like; I certainly know it when I see it. OTOH, I agree that we may have difficulty defining a visual experience using words...

Taste aside, there is no doubt history has decides some things; Van Gogh is better than resort art and Leica, for a while, along with Zeiss, Hasselblad are better than alternative brands. Why?
Because a majority agrees :D

SNIP

maybe you can't see it, but it is not 3-d or perspective or selected focus; on my screen this image just seems as if you can "reach in"

I also see it in some of the Nikon images here (I will not say what it is, cause it dont matter; however, if you can see it, I propose the "reach-in" effect as a singular photographic charateristic, and I LIKE IT:D
All I see is haze, and more of it as I look further into this image; it separates the closer subjects form the further ones. However, this is a commonly accepted "tactic" for rendering the effect of increased distance in 2-D art...

Cheers,
 
Top