V
Vivek
Guest
This should not be used as an excuse to diss the active users of this forum. No friend of Irakly should be out here to make him unpopular by doing this.
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!
The Leica Look
- Thread starter Jorgen Udvang
- Start date
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Seldom have I seen so much irony in such a short thread.
Personally, I've always found Irakly's work magnificent and disturbing. Many photographers give me the "I could do that if I worked hard and practiced for a long time" feeling. Some cause "not in a million years". Irakly is of the latter sort.
As for his equally polarizing comments about Leica (I know, that's redundant), I've seldom seen a more evenhanded attempt to explain in non-fuzzy, experimentally verifiable terms, things that have been previously treated as religion. It's also not the first time these ideas have been put forward. But, to be clear, just because Leica designs lenses a certain way does not mean other lens designers don't make similar choices, or make tradeoffs that aren't as good or better. Fuji fans, for instance, would have no cause to complain.
<sarcasm>
But why discuss his actual arguments when we can criticize his work or dismiss Leica out-of-hand?
</sarcasm>
Matt
Personally, I've always found Irakly's work magnificent and disturbing. Many photographers give me the "I could do that if I worked hard and practiced for a long time" feeling. Some cause "not in a million years". Irakly is of the latter sort.
As for his equally polarizing comments about Leica (I know, that's redundant), I've seldom seen a more evenhanded attempt to explain in non-fuzzy, experimentally verifiable terms, things that have been previously treated as religion. It's also not the first time these ideas have been put forward. But, to be clear, just because Leica designs lenses a certain way does not mean other lens designers don't make similar choices, or make tradeoffs that aren't as good or better. Fuji fans, for instance, would have no cause to complain.
<sarcasm>
But why discuss his actual arguments when we can criticize his work or dismiss Leica out-of-hand?
</sarcasm>
Matt
V
Vivek
Guest
You are joking, Matt?!
It is still a religion as proven by the article in discussion. Look at the figure #3 and tell me that it is not made up to please leica gods.
At f/16, not even this rank amateur can possibly fantasize getting that look with any lens ever made!
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
VIvek,
You're right. That was almost certainly not taken at f/16. So what? Do you think it wasn't taken with a Leica lens? Have you never had a misprint in a post? From the size of the bokeh disks, I'd guess it was nearly wide open. (Place the disk on her shoulder - that's the physical size of the aperture.) Actually, since it was taken with an SL, the camera just guesses what the aperture is - it might have recorded f/16 in the EXIF, but there's no communication between the aperture of the lens and the camera.
It detracts in no way from what he wrote.
--Matt
Last edited:
V
Vivek
Guest
Matt, As a true believer, I took things literally. 
Perhaps, I should be reading everything figuratively. :salute:
Perhaps, I should be reading everything figuratively. :salute:
Godfrey
Well-known member
I went back to the article and read it again, completely ignoring the photographs. Still a bunch of navel-gazing hooey to me. He makes more conclusions before ever even articulating the subject than anyone should, and his language indicates more about his association with Leica marketing than anything else. Much of it sounds like advertising copy.
On a separate second look, ignoring the article, one or two of the photos are okay; L1060460 (the dancers) in particular is a lovely shot. Most do very little for me. My reactions to them fall into two categories:
- Are they intended to be illustrative of what he's talking about? If so, I don't see the connection in most cases.
- And then, why should I be interested in painted up and posed women making faces at the camera? What connection to they have to the context of the photographs? They do not carry any message for me, or explicate their artifice.
You're welcome to your own opinion. I reserve the right to express mine.
G
Matt, the exif info indicates it was f/1.4 at ISO 3200 ... so it is a simple misprint. If the recorded exif is incorrect due to using a M lens on the SL, it still seems close to what the image qualities indicate.
The obsession with counter pointing any preference for a look or feel for certain lenses, in this case Leica optics, seems to be the religious zealotry. We are all free to prefer what we see, and if others can't see it there's little to discuss.
Not sure what "dissing members" means ... unless it means this is some sort of exclusive club where exalted members are exempt from manners and graciousness to visitors, or someone unwittingly invited here via a link.
It is uncharacteristic of GetDpi.
- Marc
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Im just really turned off by the bokeh balls in the one shot. I hate cats eye bokeh. Honestly I would sell that lens in 5 seconds i don't care which one it is. Trust me i have sold many because of that reason alone. But thats personal preference.
V
Vivek
Guest
Cat's eye bokeh is quite common and it takes sophisticated lenses (non leica, naturally) to overcome that.
rayyan
Well-known member
Folks, like Irakly's photography or not, is not what the article is about. At least I think not.
As to his explanation of the ' Leica look ' and his other observations in the article, let me paraphrase a timely phrase...' fake look '. Made by imprecise lens construction and faulty lenses. He got that right.
As to his explanation of the ' Leica look ' and his other observations in the article, let me paraphrase a timely phrase...' fake look '. Made by imprecise lens construction and faulty lenses. He got that right.
Great article. I've run the gamut chasing a look with lenses that have amazing MTF graphs. Yeah, some are sharp, but most all lack character, except for the Leica,imo. So, say what you will about the author, but his compositions are very good and clearly define the points in the article with accurate interpretations. I refuse to chase tech anymore and have determined that 24 to 36 MP's is more than enough for my style and printing needs. My recently purchased Summilux 50mm 1.4 pre ASPH and MP have confirmed my suspicions about the "Leica Look". Even the Leica Q has a distinct signature with it's 28 mm 1.7. Exspensive? Well, that's subjective if you get what you paid for. Sterile? Not likely and far from mundane.
I'm not sure what navel gazing hooey is, unless you mean navel oranges, but in a forum where over saturated, over sharpened HDR landscapes images get 17 likes, I'm not sure this is the proper outlet to post this article to fully appreciate its context.
I'm not sure what navel gazing hooey is, unless you mean navel oranges, but in a forum where over saturated, over sharpened HDR landscapes images get 17 likes, I'm not sure this is the proper outlet to post this article to fully appreciate its context.
Last edited:
Godfrey
Well-known member
If you don't know what it is already, nothing I can say in a polite forum discussion is going to educate you.
I'm glad you liked the article. My opinion hasn't changed.
G
I know how the term is used, but don't understand its relevance in this discussion. There's nothing obsessive in in this article that hasn't been discussed before. It's more of a confirmation from his perspective, which imo, is valid. I think more photographers should challenge themselves in areas they're not comfortable with and perhaps broaden their views and thus hone their own skills, so others don't label them as being self indulgent.
Godfrey
Well-known member
V
Vivek
Guest
Links, please!
Robert Campbell
Well-known member
Medically speaking, it's a condition called 'omphalology'.
rayyan
Well-known member
' navel gazing.. ' is the finely crafted art, honed after years of assiduously applying
oneself and experiencing, of determining if the ' glow and micro-contrast, extends
all over. Over loses its value in the darker recesses.
It is, like this discussion, very subjective, self indulgent, pleasurable, self satisfying. Importantly, it cannot ( at least not in public ) be illustrated.
One gets/feels/tastes/sees it or not.
Suffice to say, the connoisseurs amongst us know what I might be talking about.
Others? They should get out of their familiar and comfort zones to appreciate what lies below.
p.s not forgetting to determine if there is a dimensional ' pop ' or just a fizzle.
oneself and experiencing, of determining if the ' glow and micro-contrast, extends
all over. Over loses its value in the darker recesses.
It is, like this discussion, very subjective, self indulgent, pleasurable, self satisfying. Importantly, it cannot ( at least not in public ) be illustrated.
One gets/feels/tastes/sees it or not.
Suffice to say, the connoisseurs amongst us know what I might be talking about.
Others? They should get out of their familiar and comfort zones to appreciate what lies below.
p.s not forgetting to determine if there is a dimensional ' pop ' or just a fizzle.
JohnBrew
Active member
I always felt the "Leica Look" to be generated by M film cameras with those oh-so-exquisite fast lenses in black and white. Frankly, I had never associated this look with color images. So Irakly's article lacked what I would call an essential essence of Leica - no black and white.
When I first started shooting a Leica M I was disappointed with the prints. I came from a Nikon FM2 and I really couldn't figure out what the big deal was with Leica. But I persevered and eventually learned to shoot the M to get that look and, for me anyway, I found it to be more of a technique than an inherent trait. I never had any fast glass for the Nikon and really the Leica introduced me to that. And then I saw some images shot with an Olympus OM2 which were very similar which reinforced my idea that the look was more technique based. I never had the opportunity to shoot with a Noct and never really wanted (or could afford) to put such a huge hunk of glass on one of my M's. So maybe I missed something. Oh well, just my opinion.
When I first started shooting a Leica M I was disappointed with the prints. I came from a Nikon FM2 and I really couldn't figure out what the big deal was with Leica. But I persevered and eventually learned to shoot the M to get that look and, for me anyway, I found it to be more of a technique than an inherent trait. I never had any fast glass for the Nikon and really the Leica introduced me to that. And then I saw some images shot with an Olympus OM2 which were very similar which reinforced my idea that the look was more technique based. I never had the opportunity to shoot with a Noct and never really wanted (or could afford) to put such a huge hunk of glass on one of my M's. So maybe I missed something. Oh well, just my opinion.