View Full Version : Leica Glow
Hi folks - I almost hesitate to post this as wars have been started over less controversial subjects. So take this as an exercise in brainstorming that may illuminate an issue for me. In the spirit of that I will take "You are talking twaddle, Lush" as fair comment if that's how you feel.
So this was started by an article by Frances Schultz in the last B + W photography magazine about the glow from the early Leica lenses that some can see and some can't.
I belong in the can't camp and I really couldn't tell the difference in the test pictures in the article, although Frances's test was a very interesting effort to try and put some objectivity on a long running debate.
My question - can anyone build on the concept of glow detecting by providing some specific criteria to look for?
And secondly, can anyone explain to me why I think I can see a glow off stuff shot with a Jupiter 8 (there was a reason for putting my question in this bit of the forum)? To me glow means that the tones have a life and energy about them, especially at the lighter end.
Feel free to lob some virtual rotten tomatoes, starting now... :D
Hey Donald ~
Here's a couple of earlier threads about glow. If you've already seen them, sorry, just overlook me. I'm kinda on the run, but will check in later. You'll get some feedback from others I'm sure. So, off I glow! :rolleyes: (sorry, I know, I'm an idiot)
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12960&highlight=glow
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1020&highlight=glow
Thanks Reagan - glow away!
I have read those threads and it still feels like detecting the force...
All ideas welcome - please contribute!
Creagerj
04-05-2006, 14:28
I'm with you, I don't see it. I say it is a result of a well taken picture on a good lens, and that it is not just a fluke of early leica lenses. Not to trash leica lenses, if I could afford one I would buy one in half a heart beat (with an MP to keep it company).
Ok - to provoke things a bit - isn't it just over exposure?
wyk_penguin
04-06-2006, 01:51
Or flare from uncoated Elmars??
Brian Sweeney
04-06-2006, 02:08
Well, here is an Observation: The Infrared Index on most of my Leica Lenses, including the 5cm F1.5 Summarit, is very close to the maximum F-stop. In other words, the color correction on Leica lenses is amazing. For example, on the Summicron it is very close to F2 meaning that you do not need to refocus when using IR film. On most of my Nikkor's, the shift is somewhere close to F4 to F5.6. Now, figure that the visible range is dead-on with the highly corrected Leica lens, but drifts at the blue and red end with lenses that require a large degree of IR focus shift.
sfb_dot_com
04-06-2006, 02:44
Well, here is an Observation: The Infrared Index on most of my Leica Lenses, including the 5cm F1.5 Summarit, is very close to the maximum F-stop. In other words, the color correction on Leica lenses is amazing. For example, on the Summicron it is very close to F2 meaning that you do not need to refocus when using IR film. On most of my Nikkor's, the shift is somewhere close to F4 to F5.6. Now, figure that the visible range is dead-on with the highly corrected Leica lens, but drifts at the blue and red end with lenses that require a large degree of IR focus shift.
Er Brian, could you repost that in English please?? :confused:
Andy
I believe it when people will start pointing at the same photos each time they talk about the "glow". But there's much disagreement among those who claim to see the "glow"even when showed the same photo. So, for me, right now, there's no point in defining such a thing as the "glow".
Brian Sweeney
04-06-2006, 03:09
> Er Brian, could you repost that in English please??
> Andy
The color correction on Leica lenses is better. It is good enough that the depth-of-field at F2 covers the focus shift for Infrared Film. On most lenses you have to stop down to F5.6 or F8 for the depth-of-field to cover the focus-shift for IR film.
wyk_penguin
04-06-2006, 04:41
So err... that has to do with glow? Or is it a defense for the f/1.5 Summarit?
Just to stir things up. :D
Actually, even when I was quite young (and it's been awhile since I've been in that category) I can remember my dad used to talk about the "... occasional smoothness and tones you get in certain light on some shots taken with a Leica. They almost shine in places," he said. He was no pro; he just liked taking pictures. Since he's been dead for 25 years and didn't own a Leica after 1953, I doubt if he looked at the "same photos" as others here on RFF.
I don't know that it's any grand mystery or even that big of a deal ... at least to me. Just one of those little details that are enjoyable to discuss that in this case may even revolve mostly around semantics and the descriptive wording some choose while others don't. Emphasis is often given to details by some more than others; "sharp vs. edgy sharp vs. razor sharp vs so-sharp-it's-dangerous." Of a pennant winning home run, I believe it was once said, “He hit the ball a lot further than it went.” I get the meaning there, but the next guy may say, “Huh?” On the other hand, I've got to be honest here, so my apologies to our wives, but I've never in my whole life seen a pregnant woman, uh, "glow," as they say. Sorry. I’ll admit I’ve seen “blooming idiots, glaring imbeciles and flaming nut-balls,” but never once a “glowing mother.” However, that's the way some folks describe the rosy-cheeked healthy look of an expectant mom. And BTW, even one of Microsoft Word’s synonyms for “rosy” is “glowing” :rolleyes: so what do I know? In another thread I just read earlier someone described a nickel-plated camera as "gold." Right.
So when some see overexposure or flare or ___? I get it. I personally use [quite loosely] the term "glow" at times to describe the look of a subject taken with an uncoated lens shot at delicate light on medium contrasting tones against a darker background. All the above, when "just right" in the eye of the beholder, seem to me to create on occasion quite notably contrasted and pronounced smooth tones that are themselves, even apart from the subject, fairly eye-catching. Others may describe it in some different fashion... "nice tones" or "excellent lighting," whatever. Some see it as WOW, others as … ho-hum. I certainly wouldn’t tell someone “you MUST see what I see and you MUST call it ga-looow!” and I hope they won’t try to tell me that I DON’T see it.
Of course, the exact “just right” mechanics and processes that produce the aforementioned look that some see and describe as glow is what brings about debate as others claim the need for this film/that film/right paper/right processing, yadda, yadda... So with my own curiosity in tow, that is why I started a thread along these same lines in November to throw a challenge out there and see if those who “know what it takes” might try to produce the glow at will. Maybe some have more ideas here.
So one more thought, and I’ll shut up and try to get some real work done. I don’t know for sure that an uncoated lens is an ingredient that might improve the odds. IMHO, it’s quite plausible. And the fact that there are profusely more numbers of coated lenses in use today than uncoated lenses “back in the day” may be why glow is something that was described then more than now. Lens configurations and coatings have changed, films, chemicals, and processes. The search for glow might better be pursued in old books and photo journals rather than the net.
I guess that's about all I glow about that. ;) (I know. I just can't stop myself!)Cheers all!
Glow - a metaphor for a feeling or a way of saying I really like that picture? I would buy that. I also think, uncoated lens, old fashioned film and paper, halation etc etc. Glow may be less common thanks to improved technology.
Thanks Reagan.
Incidentally, glowing women are a sign that the local nuclear plant has finally passed its sell by date. Women expecting your child who look incredibly healthy and sexy in your eyes - that's love!
Gabriel M.A.
04-06-2006, 13:05
(...) wars have been started over less controversial subjects.
Yeah, try "is a wafer just a wafer"? :eek:
In my relative ignorance I maintain that with the correct lighting and a lens of reasonable quality, a print can be made that has "The Glow"
One of my favorite photographers is
William Mortensen (http://www.thescreamonline.com/photo/photo06-01/mortensen/index.html). A lot of his photographs will show a "Glow" and he used a SOHO graphics. :)
He writes about the concept of "Light for Plastic Quality" and shows how it can be achieved through controlling Absolute Intensity, Relative Intensity, Angle, Number of Sources and Area of Source.
In his 1947 edition of "Pictorial Lighting" He states: "Theoretically, relative intensity, (or contrast) is subject to control by development" ... "However, as we shall see, since the best photographic quality demands full development, this means of control is more hypothetical than pictorially useful." This made him kind of the Anti Ansel Adams. There by earning the rath of Ansel and Weston and the entire F64 group. Mortensen put the minimal effort required to get a technically good negative and put the greater effort into the print. The negative as raw material only. (He would have loved Photoshop and digital photography.)
Women expecting your child who look incredibly healthy and sexy in your eyes - that's love!"Women" ? Plural? Now THAT'S over-exposure! :eek:
edit: P.S. Interesting stuff kmack. Thanks.
Bertram2
04-06-2006, 17:06
My question - can anyone build on the concept of glow detecting by providing some specific criteria to look for?
There was/is a parallel a thread running "Scanning the Leica glow", where some opinions were posted about what glow could mean, microcontrast for example
Mike Johnstons understanding comes cloesest to my understanding of glow, which btw is nothing really Leica specific.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-28.shtml
Means glow may exist, a special Leica glow does not exist tho. For me it is just one of these mystifications of the Leitz marketing which shall help the uninitiated understand why the Leitz lenses do not cost 20, 30 or 50% more than a product with a comparable performance but 300% or even 500% more sometimes.How could you explain such a gap better than with myths ?
:angel:
Bertram
Bertram and Kevin - thanks for the article and the introduction to the incredible Mortensen photos. The article really says a lot about the idea of glow that makes sense to me and I especially liked the idea of getting good negatives and printing with lower contrast. That real old fashioned look - great stuff.
Keep exposing, Reagan! You'll get the glow sooner or later.
"Keep exposing, Reagan! You'll get the glow sooner or later."LOL!! I've got two granddaughters and another grand-something on the way. Any exposing from this point forward just secures me a place in the “blooming idiots, glaring imbeciles and flaming nut-balls” category... which I've earned. :cool:
We had a speaker at our staff conference last year who said "Whatever you pay attention to you get more of" so I think this glow issue has made me get working somewhere in a recess of my mind and has produced a result.
Attached is the first picture I have ever taken that I think has the glow. It's from a Leica IIIa, uncoated Elmar, Rodinal at 1 + 100, Foma 100 rated at 50 asa. In other words, I did everything I could to get that glow. And I think it does. Will anyone agree? Or more interestingly, disagree?
Incidentally, it gives me incredible pleasure to get an image of this quality from a 70 year old camera.
Here are a couple I really like
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/3001/90APO3_700H.jpg
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/3001/90APO2_700w.jpg
Hmm - lots of excited and energetic tone there for sure, especially in the first picture. Am I beginning to get a grip on this, I wonder? Thanks Jorge.
Well, here is an Observation: The Infrared Index on most of my Leica Lenses, including the 5cm F1.5 Summarit, is very close to the maximum F-stop. In other words, the color correction on Leica lenses is amazing. For example, on the Summicron it is very close to F2 meaning that you do not need to refocus when using IR film. On most of my Nikkor's, the shift is somewhere close to F4 to F5.6. Now, figure that the visible range is dead-on with the highly corrected Leica lens, but drifts at the blue and red end with lenses that require a large degree of IR focus shift.
Brian: I read this earlier today and it conflicted with what I recalled about the IR index. I checked with my Leica Manual by Morgan and Lester, and refreshed my memory. The placement of the IR index has nothing to do with the depth of field scale. It simply means that, when using IR film, one must focus as usual with the rangefinder, and then move the distance opposite the normal distance pointer so that it is alligned with the IR index. This increases the focus distance slightly to bring the IR image into focus. I will not argue with you about the improved color correction of the later Leica lenses. I am only saying that the placement of the IR index has to do with the focusing helix and has nothing to do with DOF.
Jim N.
zhang xk
04-24-2006, 00:58
Keep exposing, Reagan! You'll get the glow sooner or later.
Hi Donald,
I think my Fed 1 glows a lot. :D What do you think? Is it so called glow? :bang:
Zhang
Spyderman
04-24-2006, 01:33
the IR index has nothing to do with the depth of field scale
Sure it doesn't. But you got it wrong...
The fact that the IR index is so close to the normal focusing index means that the lens can transfer visible light in almost the same way as it can IR light. That also means it transfers all visible light very similarly, without chromatic aberation. And that is called "color correnction".
Hi Donald,
I think my Fed 1 glows a lot. :D What do you think? Is it so called glow? :bang:
Zhang
Oh - it's the camera that glows ... I get it! :D
Todd.Hanz
04-24-2006, 04:06
Some have told me this one has that Leica "glow": (taken with a 50mm summitar wide open)
http://my-expressions.com/up_media/1108/pblog/899/1136002714.jpg
I'm thinking light plays a big part as well.
Todd
Bertram2
04-24-2006, 04:28
Oh - it's the camera that glows ... I get it! :D
Watching all the many interpretations and understandings of "GLOW" I must say this is certainly one of the most funny nonsense in the amateur photogs world , even funnier than the bokeh-schmokeh or MTF charts..
It seems to be a clean empty screen on which everybody can project what ever he finds desirable and beautiful. That's a great thing and serves well for several purposes as long as nobody really and seriously tries to get it , let alone to build a definition of it. Something like a Nessie in the photographers world ? :D
If at all there is anything sure about this glow then it is that there are some photogs whose photos glow always and in general and some who obviously glow at the upper end from to much coffee ! :D :D
Regards,
Bertram
Take care folks, these snake skinned brass maitresses have driven a lot of brave men insane yet ! ;)
... a special Leica glow does not exist tho. For me it is just one of these mystifications ... which ... help the uninitiated understand why the Leitz lenses do not cost 20, 30 or 50% more than a product with a comparable performance but 300% or even 500% more sometimes. How could you explain such a gap better than with myths?
This is pretty much the way I feel about "Leica glow." True, there are some photographs that look "glowy," but they aren't limited to pictures made with Leicas and Leitz lenses. I've seen glowiness in Holga and Diana pictures too.
Here are my latest thoughts on this divisive subject:
Glow has something to do with a combination of several factors: light, lens quality, skill/luck in setting the appropriate exposure and quality of craftsmanship in producing the final print/jpeg. Someone who cares very much about the craft of photography is much more likely to pay attention to the control of these variables. He/she is also more likely to have invested in serious photographic equipment. Thus, photographers who know what they're doing with tones and contrast are more likely to own a Leica than a soccer dad shooting a DSLR.
Being aware of light and exposing for it properly -- then post-process (creating the print) is a big part of this.
Interestingly, a number of Ansel Adams most successful photographs rely on having captured a specific fleeting character of light. He remarked on stopping the car because the light was so perfect for the moonrise over Hernandez (right title?) photo and racing to get it taken while the light still existed. Same for Moon and Half Dome as well as his famous image of glowing tree trunks in a forest.
I don't know what lenses Adams used. I also am not aware of any serious discussion among photo enthusiasts about the lenses he used or of people who felt that if they had the same lenses as Adams, they could replicate the technical quality of his work. (And regardless of what you think about his artistry or lack thereof, the man had inarguable technical quality).
Todd.Hanz
04-24-2006, 06:18
In my opinion, older coatings or non-coatings, haze, scratches on the elements, etc. all seem to add to the glow effect, veiling flare is often refered to as glowing. I have noticed that the effect is more prominent with soft light coming from the side or back of the subject vs. direct frontal light. Shooting at wider apertures also seems to contribute.
The glow is subjective much like the qualities of bokeh but it does seem to appear more often in older leica lenses than the later, higher contrast, modern lenses.
These thoughts are my opinions only and are based on my experiences alone, flame away if you must :)
Todd
I think the glow is a combination of contrasted tones, mostly highlights that are near or fully blown and juxtaposed to large sections of dark, shadowy tones. These are uniform. Look at Todd's picture and Jorge's second shot (I don't think his first one glows). Some people mistake it for flare.. in those cases, it is flare and not glow. Situations which cause glow are likely to cause flare as well, and can sometimes enhance the glow effect. *shrug*
It depends heavily upon lighting.. and most easily reproduced with backlighting.
zhang xk
04-24-2006, 07:11
This is pretty much the way I feel about "Leica glow." True, there are some photographs that look "glowy," but they aren't limited to pictures made with Leicas and Leitz lenses. I've seen glowiness in Holga and Diana pictures too.
I agree. Whatever the glow is, I don't believe only Leica lenses glow. If a lens is highly corrected, then it glows. Some CZJ video lenses must glow as some are corrected for 400nm-1000nm wave length so that there is no need for infrared focusing adjustment. These lenses use very heavy, high index optical glass so that they are very heavy. Here is a comparison of a very small CZJ 10/2 tevidon and a 80/2.8 CZJ Biometar for your entertainment. :D
Nikon Bob
04-24-2006, 08:56
I think that the last 6 posters have done a great job of explaining the circumstances in which a photo may appear to have a glow to it. Quite a few things contribute to it's appearance in a photo and that it is not confined to Leica lenses alone. I think it would be difficult to consistently get that quality in a photograph intentionally. I think the glow , being first visible in the printing stage, gets a reaction from the photographer similar to, isn't that interesting I wonder how that happened. Anyway, nice to see something sensible being said on this subject of the mystical Leica glow.
Nikon Bob
And a heavier lens is a better lens, right?
I am really enjoying this conversation - thank you all. I have learnt a lot and I am still not quite sure where I stand. Bokeh makes sense to me because I can see it (but not judge it so easily). As I've said elsewhere I have only ever taken one picture that I think glows. I've seen a very credible description of glow (link earlier in this thread to a very good article) and been introduced to some great pictures.
But can someone come up with something quantifiable? Is there any kind of number that says - this glows? Could such a thing be created?
Todd.Hanz
04-24-2006, 17:54
This months issue of Black and White Photography has an article by Frances Schulz (Roger Hicks better half) that discusses the phenomenon of the "Leica Glow", it is very similar to the article Bertam linked too above, good reading.
Todd
The first time I showed the image below, someone commented, "Leica Glow". Since it was posted on a Leica forum, I hated to point out that the camera was an Exa and the lens was a Steinheil Culminar 85mm f/2.8. I have the same lens now in LTM, so future shots can qualify as Leica or RF if I use it on one of my Leicas.
Jim N.
There's another school of "Leica glow" that believes the quality of many Leitz lenses and a few other top-notch lenses can produce so much detail and "micro-contrast" that images have extra "snap" as well as a radient glow in how the lenses handle non-saturated highlights. I don't use Leitz glass and have found Nikkors sufficient for my photojournalism/documentary needs. On the other hand, there are a few Nikkor lenses that do seem to produce this quality. It's easiest to sense when hand-crafting an 8x10 print, more ellusive in other imaging situations.
Jorge's first portrait of the girl (his daughter?) shows a bit of what I mean. The rendering of the skin tones has an almost 3D quality to it. On the other hand, this glow is due to many factors. Of my two daughters, one has photogenic skin that glows, the other doesn't. You can't see it in person, except perhaps in a subtle matter of complexion, but I have to take much more care with how light falls on one compared to the other.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.