What's the "leica look"?

TP wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:


Deceitful TP. Instead of turning your attacks on me, it would
behoove you to show and prove that you have any talent at all.



First of all TP, stop editing out the uncomfortable bits.



I have no need, or intention, ever to show or prove anything to you.

Others are curious too.


You are a nothing, a nobody who thinks he is somebody, someone who
cannot take a single decent photo or (as the SI has so conclusively
proved) follow a simple brief ... and who offers the same old duff
advice to anyone who is naive enough to listen.

Sorry, that's your songsheet.



So why would I be in the slightest bit interested in what you think?

Why should we believe you have any of the talent you so often
imply if we cannot see the evidence?

As for personal attacks, I am surprised that you claim I am attacking
you, when the reverse is the case. You waste *so* much effort on
pointless personal attacks on me. One tenth of the time you waste on
here would pay great dividends if you spent it wisely, learning the
basic photographic techniques that so signally elude you.

Wrong TP. Whenever you put in a post to somebody language along
the lines of "You obviously know nothing..." you are attacking
all the good people for the group. When you do that, you can be
sure that I will comment on both your pompous insulting tone as
well as the lack of evidence of any talent whatsoever. As some
point out, once upon a time you DID post images and they were SO
terrible and people said so and you immediately took them off the
web. I'm willing to believe in the meantime that you accidently
got at least one photo right at a rate of 50 rolls per average
*week*,


Does your stubborn pride really prevent you from seeing your own
severe inadequacies as a photographer? Heavens, even Dallas Dahms
could show you the way to improve your snapshots!

I always see my photos for what they are, and when others see
flaws (or gems) that I didn't see, I listen. I recently did
photos for a local pro, and he was very pleased (he keeps asking
me back) but also pointed out things he wished improved. He
paid, and he keeps calling.

Again TP, you're trying to raise yourself by deflection and
attack. You posture yourself as an expert on this NG, yet you
present no credentials, no proof, no evidence. The only
credential of any consequence here is a demonstration of talent
through photos.

You refer to the SI, I present the following photos as having
some merit and certainly meeting the briefs:

http://www.pbase.com/image/21112529
http://www.pbase.com/image/21527561
http://www.pbase.com/image/21711441
http://www.pbase.com/image/22166131
http://www.pbase.com/image/23362147
http://www.pbase.com/image/23534028
http://www.pbase.com/image/23707346
http://www.pbase.com/image/25049065
http://www.pbase.com/image/27848866/original
http://www.pbase.com/image/25250889/original
http://www.pbase.com/image/28317361

But what do we ever see of your photos TP? NOTHING.

That is the only way, and whether you agree with it or not is
hardly proof to the contrary. think of a courtroom setting, only
evidence presented is useful and heresay is not admissable (esp.
your own wrt yourself). So stop claiming and put up the proof.

Show some images TP. Otherwise you remain the pompous bag of hot
air that you obviously are and your talent as a photographer is
no better than the images you hastilly tore down a few years ago.



--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Mxsmanic wrote:

Alan Browne writes:


And out of 220,000 visitors/month, how many useful inquiries?


Currently about a dozen.


Thanks. I should have added "How many 'useless' enquiries?"

so?


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan Browne wrote:

Why should we believe you have any of the talent you so often
imply if we cannot see the evidence?


I don't care what you believe - you are a nonentity devoid of any
recognisable talent or ability, except that you could bore for your
country in any international competition, and win gold every time.

However I *do* care what my customers believe. They seem to have
enough faith in my ability to do the job to pay me good money - and
they keep coming back. Repeat business and recommendations mean that I
have no need to advertise, and I regularly turn down work.

It is truly a joy to be able to make a business out of what was a
hobby, and to be paid handsomely for the privilege.

But you can have the last word, Alan ...

Go on, bore everyone to death ... again!

Show us another of your archive shots!!!

ROTFL!!!!

Subject: What's the "leica look"?
From: Roger
Date: Mon, Jun 14, 2004 9:31 AM
Message-id:

On 09 Jun 2004 22:34:16 GMT, ospam (Lewis Lang)
wrote:

Subject: What's the "leica look"?
From: Roger
Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2004 7:16 AM
Message-id:
SNIP
It's difficult for me to be definitive about the "look" because it's
something you need to work with to begin to understand. None of my
traditional Nikkors have "it", however my 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 G ED IF
lens has some elements. Great color contrast, reasonable flare
handling, improving bokeh for a Nikkor but it looks more like a modern
ASPH Leica than a pre ASPH. It's difficult to describe, because IMO it
is multifeatured and in my experience, no other line of lenses really
repeats it and the recent "imitators" like my Nikkor zoom are
imitating the modern look and not the "traditional" look.

SNIP

Hi Rodger:

When you say that "no other line of lenses really
repeats it" are you talking about the ASPH or the pre-asph 35mm?

Lewis,

Please excuse my delay in answering. I was computerless for a while.

I had my "prose engine" a bit over-stoked when I said "no other line".
I can really only speak from direct experience with Nikkors, my Contax
T3 and Rolleiflex and plus observations on a few others. I think my
writing reflects my frustration with trying to find a Nikkor that will
get me closer to the pre-aspheric "look". I've actually given up the
quest for the pre-asph "look", e.g. something that will match my 50mm
Summilux.

For the asph look, I'm using the 24-85mm AFG f3.5-4.5 much more and it
seems to capture the color contrast, definition with
better-than-average-Nikkor bokeh for that "asph look". Note: it fails
in the geometric distortion and fine edge detail department. While I
find it handy for general use and travel it really closes out the
available light f1.4 option.

For the 35mm focal length, my Contax T3 (35mm f2.8) comes very close
to the "asph look" except in the flare suppression department. It's
very good mind you, but the 35mm f2.0 ASPH sets a high bar and the
Leica at f2.0 beats the Contax at f2.8. However, it's the Contax that
is in my daily bag, not the M6. My 11x14's from the Contax are good
enough.

If I qualified my original statement with the restriction of the
"Leica look at f1.4/2.0", then I think the hyperbole would ring a bit
higher on the "truth" scale.

Regards,
Roger


Hi Rodger/thanks :-):

I think you'd be better off with Contax manual focus gear (unless you need AF)
or Pentax manual focus and AF gear for that pre-asph look.

My 28/2.8 Distagon does an excellent pre-asph look but it is 28mm and not f/1.4
or f/2 (although there is an f/2 version of this lens I have not tried out). My
28/2.8 DIstagon has pillowy bokeh both fore and aft of the plane of focus and
great sharpness, contrast, _color satuaration and rendition_ and microcontrast
to boot. Have you tried out the (manual focus) Zeiss 50/1.4 Zeiss Planar? My
50/1.8 Series E Nikkor has wonderful bokeh, especially slightly stopped down
but the highlight roll off is a bit harsh which makes it better for overcast
conditions unless you really like contrasty flesh hilights (owrks wonderful for
popping white horese's coats though ;-)). The perfect pre-asph lenses for you
would be either the:

a) 105/2.5 AIS (and probably older versions of this lens too) - but its long
for a normal lens being a telephoto ;-) but has excellent bokeh.

b) 75/150/3.5 Series E (same comments as above)

c) have heard good things about the 45/2.8 (newest) pancake-type P lens but its
only an f/2.8.

d) get a cheap Pentax and stick either the 50/1.7 A lens or the 50/1.4 A or FA
(and probably K and M versions too) and you'll have sharpness and bokeh up your
yin yang (I've owned the 50/1.7 A lens and it is close to Leica in pre-asph
bokeh/look as you can get without going to the...)

e) 31mm f/1.8 Ltd. lens (microcontrast, actually, clarity on the level of a
Leica M lens and SHARPPPPPPPP WIDE OPEN). Downside - it is the wrong brand and
too expesive for most people (about $800? or so USD). Bokeh is pillowy soft
indoors, have not tested it for highlights outdoors. And its an AF lens though
with metal helicoids and built to near Leica/Zeiss mechanical and optical
standards.

f) 43mm f/1.9 Pentax Ltd. Same comments above. This lens is supposed to have a
3D look (micronctrast/dimensionality) stopped down though its a bit soft wide
open (or so I hear, I don't own it but have seen b&w and color shots in the
past on the web from it, I don't have the URLS handy for examples so you'll
have to do some searching on Yahoo!/etc.).

I hear Pentax's 24mm f/2 FA (autofocus lens) is contrasty but that its not in
the same league as the other Pentax lenses I've mentioned, a shame, as my
favorite focal lengths are 24mm and Pentax already has great 31/43/50mm lenses
and I also hear good things about their most recent 35/2 FA L lens for bokeh
and look (also probably very similar to the Leica pre-asph look - do some
searching for each of these lenses under multiple quoted terms like "Pentax"
"35mm" (and/or whichever focal length) and "bokeh" and you might come up with
some interesting samples/examples/images. I know this doesn't help you much if
you're into Nikon, but at least its worth looking at. :-)

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Alan Browne wrote:

But what do we ever see of your photos TP? NOTHING.


Get used to it.

TP wrote:


Get used to it.


Get used to be called out as a fake.


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan Browne writes:

Thanks. I should have added "How many 'useless' enquiries?"

Essentially all the inquiries I receive are useful inquiries.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Jerry McG writes:

What's the "Leica Look"?

A myth, mostly. The "Leica look" is the look of a photo taken with a
very good lens. All Leica lenses are very good lenses; the company does
not produce a "bargain-brand" line of lenses, so cheap, bad Leica lenses
don't exist. Thus, all photos taken with Leicas are photos taken with
good lenses, and so that probably has led to the myth of a "Leica look."

Why, antiquated technology and a low bank balance, of course!

There's nothing antiquated about Leica technology. The process of
taking pictures has not changed in decades, and the same technology that
worked so well decades ago works just as well today. Calling it
antiquated is rather like criticizing any modern oil painting because it
wasn't painted with acrylics.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Essentially all the inquiries I receive are useful inquiries.


That's like saying essentially all your
postings to this newsgroup are informed.

TP writes:

That's like saying essentially all your
postings to this newsgroup are informed.

I agree.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.