The Leica look

Presuming the film workflow is kept purely silver to the print, yes, it would be easy to tell the difference. This is not to say that the digital image might not be a superior image in a number of ways--I would argue that it might well be--but telling the difference should not be difficult.

kirkt wrote in post #11738898
This might get you closer. In the attached image, the variant on the right is the original, rendered with the 5D profile; left is a variant of the image rendered with the Leica M9 profile.

Kirk

Attached image is from Valley Forge Park? Yes?

I was up there a little while ago

http://www.davehoffman​photography.com …882_Pmy77#75696​3444_QS5FB

Lemme know what ya think, having been there yourself. But via PM or mail as to not hijack this thread

RDKirk wrote in post #11751205
Presuming the film workflow is kept purely silver to the print, yes, it would be easy to tell the difference. This is not to say that the digital image might not be a superior image in a number of ways--I would argue that it might well be--but telling the difference should not be difficult.

How do you think the digital might be superior?

Back in the analog days I owned leicas and the studio had Nikons and Hassys.
I loved, and wish I had kept my Leica lenses but the reality is that it comes down to the film, processing and print making.
Now, in digital times, it comes down to the post processing and printing.

This is an interesting discussion but the reality is, that someone with enough time and interest can create a preset for Lightroom that will make an image shot with a point and shoot look like a leica image.

Just to kept this discussion in perspective; an associate related an interesting story - there was a class on photographing flowers at the local botanical garden. Nationally known photographer was the teacher. A lot of participants and at the end of the day they all submitted their images for class review.
Image after image from DSLR, even some MF digital. All, as described, boring close ups of flowers.
Then an image came onto the screen. It literally jumped off the screen and delighted the participants.
The instructor asked who's image it was, and an elderly lady raised her hand.
He then asked how did you get the shot. She relied, I just pointed my camera and pushed the button.
He then asked, what kind of camera? She held up a point and shot that cost about $125.00.

We all love our cameras, but the bottom line is its the whole process. Not just the lens and shutter/sensor device.
Starting with the pre-visualization.

dmward wrote in post #11753858
Back in the analog days I owned leicas and the studio had Nikons and Hassys.
I loved, and wish I had kept my Leica lenses but the reality is that it comes down to the film, processing and print making.
Now, in digital times, it comes down to the post processing and printing.

This is an interesting discussion but the reality is, that someone with enough time and interest can create a preset for Lightroom that will make an image shot with a point and shoot look like a leica image.

Just to kept this discussion in perspective; an associate related an interesting story - there was a class on photographing flowers at the local botanical garden. Nationally known photographer was the teacher. A lot of participants and at the end of the day they all submitted their images for class review.
Image after image from DSLR, even some MF digital. All, as described, boring close ups of flowers.
Then an image came onto the screen. It literally jumped off the screen and delighted the participants.
The instructor asked who's image it was, and an elderly lady raised her hand.
He then asked how did you get the shot. She relied, I just pointed my camera and pushed the button.
He then asked, what kind of camera? She held up a point and shot that cost about $125.00.

We all love our cameras, but the bottom line is its the whole process. Not just the lens and shutter/sensor device.
Starting with the pre-visualization.

Great story, and hats off to David for stating so eloquently what I was trying to say earlier.
Yearning for/buying/using an expensive piece of gear isn't going to guarantee any "look" from our images. Pre-seeing the shot, and maybe walking away could actually improve what we do end up shooting/printing/disp​laying.
More power to NOT shooting off frame-after-frame of dross, irrespective of what we're using!!!!!!!

I use a Leica, and I don't even know what the "Leica look" is; I guess I place more emphasis on the film, Tri-X versus Ilford for example. Anyway, my lens is ancient, technically, a real atrocity---soft, MTF charts that looks like the Alps, prone to flaring, muted shadow detail, blah, blah, blah…but I do like the way it renders.

Anyway, I have seen original Ansel Adam prints, and I am not convinced that inkjet is superior, at least not yet (fully recognizing that I'm speaking in completely subjective terms). That said, I've seen my share of prints where I could not definitively state if it was silver halide or inkjet; other times, though, the differences were more visually overt…as with most aspects of photography, such distinctions are generally conditional: how many times will that 85 L really stand out compared with an 85 1.8?

What I do know is that after having converted hundreds and hundreds of RAW color files to black & white, I generally prefer the 'look' of film (EVEN WHEN SCANNED!!!), although sometimes, admittedly, the differences are largely imperceptible.

I print using an inkjet, so I am rooting for the inkjet to produce prints equal if not superior to those produced in the darkroom, but I am not convinced this is the case yet.

In the end, as noted, if the photos are boring, nothing else matters.

sjones wrote in post #11754774
I use a Leica, and I don't even know what the "Leica look" is; I guess I place more emphasis on the film, Tri-X versus Ilford for example. Anyway, my lens is ancient, technically, a real atrocity---soft, MTF charts that looks like the Alps, prone to flaring, muted shadow detail, blah, blah, blah…but I do like the way it renders.

Anyway, I have seen original Ansel Adam prints, and I am not convinced that inkjet is superior, at least not yet (fully recognizing that I'm speaking in completely subjective terms). That said, I've seen my share of prints where I could not definitively state if it was silver halide or inkjet; other times, though, the differences were more visually overt…as with most aspects of photography, such distinctions are generally conditional: how many times will that 85 L really stand out compared with an 85 1.8?

What I do know is that after having converted hundreds and hundreds of RAW color files to black & white, I generally prefer the 'look' of film (EVEN WHEN SCANNED!!!), although sometimes, admittedly, the differences are largely imperceptible.

I print using an inkjet, so I am rooting for the inkjet to produce prints equal if not superior to those produced in the darkroom, but I am not convinced this is the case yet.

In the end, as noted, if the photos are boring, nothing else matters.

I wouldn't be surprised if your lens, being as "atrocious" as you say, is at least in part the "why" you can produce great shots. Having character automatically in a shot from the lens' "bad" MTF, etc. is probably a bonus to creativity!!!!
Quite funny really, when you think about it.
Maybe I'll bury my 50mm for a month in the garden and then see if I can take better shots....

skygod44 wrote in post #11754851
I wouldn't be surprised if your lens, being as "atrocious" as you say, is at least in part the "why" you can produce great shots. Having character automatically in a shot from the lens' "bad" MTF, etc. is probably a bonus to creativity!!!!
Quite funny really, when you think about it.
Maybe I'll bury my 50mm for a month in the garden and then see if I can take better shots....

Yeah, it's an old, uncoated Summar, which, due to its 'deficiencies' produces, in some cases, a certain look (notably the flare when used right), that some find pleasant, others hate. Actually, the glass is very soft (physically, not referring to sharpness), and most of these lenses are essentially coated in micro-scratches, which results in a 'dreamlike' rendering. Ironically, my lens is too clean for this, and because I scan the negatives, I can use Photoshop to compensate for the lens' traditionally low contrast; unless the low contrast actually adds to the tone.

And yes, the lens contributes to a "look," but I've never met a lens that I didn't like; I've never taken a photograph with one lens and wished I had used another, because, ultimately, it is the broader elements of the photographs that matter, whether using the Summar, an old Nikon 50 1.4 manual, or a Canon 20mm-35mm L. Yes, some lenses excel at others in different aspects; I love the way my Zeiss 50mm (M-mount) handles contrast (other folks find it excessive), and I will try to use the characteristics of a particular lens to best exploit its attributes (the 'glow', i.e. flare, of the Summar), but for most photos, any lens will do (as long as its between 28mm and 50mm).

sjones wrote in post #11754970
Yeah, it's an old, uncoated Summar, which, due to its 'deficiencies' produces, in some cases, a certain look (notably the flare when used right), that some find pleasant, others hate. Actually, the glass is very soft (physically, not referring to sharpness), and most of these lenses are essentially coated in micro-scratches, which results in a 'dreamlike' rendering. Ironically, my lens is too clean for this, and because I scan the negatives, I can use Photoshop to compensate for the lens' traditionally low contrast; unless the low contrast actually adds to the tone.

And yes, the lens contributes to a "look," but I've never met a lens that I didn't like; I've never taken a photograph with one lens and wished I had used another, because, ultimately, it is the broader elements of the photographs that matter, whether using the Summar, an old Nikon 50 1.4 manual, or a Canon 20mm-35mm L. Yes, some lenses excel at others in different aspects; I love the way my Zeiss 50mm (M-mount) handles contrast (other folks find it excessive), and I will try to use the characteristics of a particular lens to best exploit its attributes (the 'glow', i.e. flare, of the Summar), but for most photos, any lens will do (as long as its between 28mm and 50mm).

Very interesting read.
Do you a link to any shots? I'd love to see some examples taken with the "beat up old lens"....

skygod44 wrote in post #11758746
Very interesting read.
Do you a link to any shots? I'd love to see some examples taken with the "beat up old lens"....

All photos in the link in my signature below are taken with the Summar, which was built in 1934. Should stress that my lens is actually in very descent shape, and as noted, largely void of the scrim-like cleaning marks that are usually present.

All photos in this link also taken with the Summar:

http://sjones.smugmug.​com …2010/13559617_K​pA9D#P-1-9

sjones wrote in post #11761679
All photos in the link in my signature below are taken with the Summar, which was built in 1934. Should stress that my lens is actually in very descent shape, and as noted, largely void of the scrim-like cleaning marks that are usually present.

All photos in this link also taken with the Summar:

http://sjones.smugmug.​com …2010/13559617_K​pA9D#P-1-9

Love the shot of the woman by the mail-box.
That could almost have been taken when your lens was just out of its box!
Keep 'em coming!!!
Regards for now,
Simon

RDKirk wrote in post #11737522
I'm not saying this to be snarky, but I'd suggest going to a Leica forum and see what--if anything--they're having to do to make the digital Leicas have "the Leica look."

Back in the film days, discussions of different looks tended to revolve around the fact that Leicas had noticeably more crispness and contrast. Part of that is because the rangefinder camera induces very little of the subtle vibration that you get in any SLR image without locking up the mirror. Part of that was because Leitz lenses are designed to be more contrasty than Canon designs their lenses. And part of that is most visible in shorter lenses because a rangefinder doesn't require the complex, element-laden lens design that an SLR requires.

Part of the Leica look is also a matter of how one adjusts one's style to the tool. The size, the quietness, the rangefinder-viewfinder all add up to a different photographic experience that has an affect in how the photographer sees.

Actually I think you have that the wrong way around. Leica lenses were known for actual resolution and sharpness versus Japanese lenses that achieved apparent sharpness due to increased image contrast.

Back in my lab days it was easy to tell an image from a Leica when viewed through a grain magnifier, the detail was superior to any of the top of the line Japanese cameras. It was also easy to see in a finished print when the magnification was equal.

Images viewed on the internet are for the most part sadly lacking and it becomes more difficult to tell the difference. A full resolution image from a Leica and from a Japanese camera would be a fair comparison but as mentioned, post processing plays a role too.