How to achieve the look?

Roger Hicks · Jul 16, 2007

Dave Krueger said:
Anyway, I'm thinking "the look" can be different when looking at a reproduction of the photograph instead of the actual photograph.

Dear Dave,

It seems unlikely, but some way from impossible. I do know that often, the prints I have seen in books have been better than what I have seen in repro, often as a result of over-enlargement (Ansel Adams Hasselblad, Karsh 4x5) but sometimes tonally as well: Bill Brandt, Aleksandr Rodchenko, half the photographers who were in Camera Work -- I haven't seen original prints by the other half (all right, that's an exaggeration, but even so). Sometimes the original prints were poorly spotted as well (Frantisek Drticol).

Cheers,

Roger

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jul 16, 2007

Antonov said:
I think that the majority of look people are searching for is from documentary photography.Just my opinion, because as I look at myself, I most of the look seek through that photography.

And most people are notoriously divergent and/or unclear as to what "the look" is. It's like the Leica glow: you only see it if you cannot show it to someone else!

jmal · Jul 16, 2007

Dave--I like too like the look of Ralph Gibson's work.

mhv--The look that prompted my initial post is, specifically, the look of the Marker photo that I posted. We have all gone on tangents about various looks, but the referenced photo was my primary interest. And, I'm certainly not subscribing to a Leica glow. I just happen to like the style and look of CHris Marker's stuff.

Roger Hicks · Jul 17, 2007

mhv said:
And most people are notoriously divergent and/or unclear as to what "the look" is. It's like the Leica glow: you only see it if you cannot show it to someone else!

Not entirely. Frances and I collaborated on an article a year or so ago in Black and White, with some thoughts on possible causes for a widespread belief in a 'Leica glow'.

Ray Heath · Jul 17, 2007

g'day all
maybe some want to believe in 'the look' and 'the Leica glow'

try good subjects, exposed and printed well rather then some magic bullet

Roger Hicks · Jul 17, 2007

Ray Heath said:
g'day all
maybe some want to believe in 'the look' and 'the Leica glow'

try good subjects, exposed and printed well rather then some magic bullet

Dear Ray,

It's not a 'magic bullet', nor is it a question of 'exposed and printed well'. Prints from the past do often look different from those of the present, and this is also true of prints in repro, so it's not 'wanting to believe' either. This thread is a genuine attempt at trying to analyze what the difference is, so 'a good subject, exposed and printed well' does not actually advance the argument.

My own belief is that 'the look' was due to some or all of the following:

1 Uncoated lenses leading to more veiling flare (and hence higher effective film speed)

2 Longer developent to regain the contrast caused by the above (hence completely different tonality)

3 The widespead use of fast lenses to compensate for low film speeds

4 Focus shift with those fast lenses when stopped down: typically, d-o-f increased a lot faster behind the point of focus than in front of it

5 Different bokeh

6 Grainier films...

7 ...which were more likely to be pushed...

8 ...and had less efficient anti-halation backing than modern films

9 Lower Dmax on printing papers of the 50s

10 Uncoated enlarging lenses (see also above)

11 Less use of exposure meters, leading to an automatic tendency among most skilled photographers to over-expose by way of insurance, which really does tend to give a 'glow' around the highlights thanks to halation

and in repro

12 Coarse screens...

13 ...which were non-stochastic (I think that's the correct term)...

14 ...and were obtained with a process camera rather than scanning...

15 ...then printed by letterpress, not offset

More occur to me as I sit here: often longer exposure times, coarser paper without titox and whiteners in the magazines...

Now, it would be quite surprising if this didn't result in a different look.

Cheers,

Roger

juan · Jul 17, 2007

Dear Roger,
I'd add to your list printing with a condenser enlarger on Grade 3 (or higher) paper, which was a common recommendation at the time - particularly for 35mm, but also for roll films.
juan

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jul 17, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Not entirely. Frances and I collaborated on an article a year or so ago in Black and White, with some thoughts on possible causes for a widespread belief in a 'Leica glow'.

Well, I'd like to read it, because most of the time I only saw people saying they see a "glow" in a banal photography, without any demonstration of which image features contribute to it.

I want a side-by-side comparison of a "leica glow" shot with a similar shot taken with a razor-sharp multicoated modern lens!

Roger Hicks · Jul 17, 2007

juan said:
Dear Roger,
I'd add to your list printing with a condenser enlarger on Grade 3 (or higher) paper, which was a common recommendation at the time - particularly for 35mm, but also for roll films.
juan

Dear Juan,

No question!

Cheers,

R.

Ray Heath · Jul 17, 2007

mhv said:
Well, I'd like to read it, because most of the time I only saw people saying they see a "glow" in a banal photography, without any demonstration of which image features contribute to it.

I want a side-by-side comparison of a "leica glow" shot with a similar shot taken with a razor-sharp multicoated modern lens!

yeh, come on, give us examples, if so many variables contribute to the glow and the look they shouldn't be hard to replicate

Roger Hicks · Jul 17, 2007

mhv said:
I want a side-by-side comparison of a "leica glow" shot with a similar shot taken with a razor-sharp multicoated modern lens!

That's the point, really: it doesn't work that way. It's not so much about Leicas or Leica lenses, including 'razor-sharp muticoated modern lenses', which must surely include all Leica's current output. Rather, it's about the way people use them. Here's the premise for the piece (Frances speaking).

A lot of people talk about the 'Leica glow' as one of the reasons
for using Leica cameras and lenses. I have always been somewhat
suspicious of this. It sounds too much like people who are trying
to justify (to themselves as much as to anyone else) the purchase
of something very expensive.

Just recently, though, I printed a lot of negatives that
really did seem to have some sort of special glow to them. My
husband Roger Hicks shot them in China with a Leica M4P and
Summilux 35/1.4 pre-aspheric,

and part of the conclusions

So, as far as we can tell, at least in black and white, the
'Leica glow' mainly comes down to contrasty subjects with bright
backgrounds, generously exposed (often as a consequence of using
unmetered Leicas), using a sharp, contrasty lens that lets you
get away with a certain amount of sloppiness.

and here's a test

We chose six pictures, three of his that we thought had the
'glow', and three of mine that we thought didn't. We then showed
all six pictures to two people, a retired photo-magazine editor
and his wife. We told them what we were looking for -- the 'Leica
glow' -- but we did not tell them which pictures were which.

Both of them picked the same two out of three Leica pictures
as having the 'glow', but they chose different pictures as the
third, one on Tri-X and the other on XP2. Both negatives had been
slightly over-exposed: another argument for the exposure theory.

and some more conclusion

The 'glow' may or may not be visible in reproduction, and
I'm not convinced that it is necessarily a good thing: I'm as
happy with my shots as Roger is with his. But I'm pretty sure
that it exists, and that is recognizable, and that our
observations above are valid.

There's more -- film choice, development, etc. -- but I think this gives a reasonable flavour of the arguments.

Cheers,

Roger

Dave Krueger · Jul 17, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
My own belief is that 'the look' was due to some or all of the following:

1 Uncoated lenses leading to more veiling flare (and hence higher effective film speed)

2 Longer developent to regain the contrast caused by the above (hence completely different tonality)

3 The widespead use of fast lenses to compensate for low film speeds

4 Focus shift with those fast lenses when stopped down: typically, d-o-f increased a lot faster behind the point of focus than in front of it

5 Different bokeh

6 Grainier films...

7 ...which were more likely to be pushed...

8 ...and had less efficient anti-halation backing than modern films

9 Lower Dmax on printing papers of the 50s

10 Uncoated enlarging lenses (see also above)

11 Less use of exposure meters, leading to an automatic tendency among most skilled photographers to over-expose by way of insurance, which really does tend to give a 'glow' around the highlights thanks to halation

and in repro

12 Coarse screens...

13 ...which were non-stochastic (I think that's the correct term)...

14 ...and were obtained with a process camera rather than scanning...

15 ...then printed by letterpress, not offset

That's a very well thought out list. It's amazing how much has changed to improve the medium since "the good ol' days".

If it's possible to identify all the technical factors that contribute to "the look", it should be possible to specifically identify the chararacteristics of a picture that has "the look" versus an ordinary picture.

It roughly sounds lke we're talking about some manner of lens diffusion combined with some compensatory high contrast developing and printing.

For my interest in Ralph Gibson, I was primarily interested in finding a way to adapt his high contrast grainy image style to my own subject matter and then improve my skills at increasing the drama of an image by printing manipulations (as he did).

I think maybe the same could be done for "the look" in terms of identifying specific characteristics which can be recreated by methods that may or may not include some of the factors you have listed. Surely some aspects of "the look" can be recreated without having to revert to equipment and materials of the past. The more you manage to duplicate the specific characteristics that comprise "the look" the closer you will be to achieving "the look" (or some personalized variation on it).

I'm not trying to clone Ralph Gibson, but I certainly don't mind learning techniques of his that I can incorporate into my work when I wish. The same could be said for "the look", which is comprised of elements which might be adopted in total or in part as needed. Just thinking outloud again...

Roger Hicks · Jul 17, 2007

Dave Krueger said:
The more you manage to duplicate the specific characteristics that comprise "the look" the closer you will be to achieving "the look" (or some personalized variation on it).

I'm not trying to clone Ralph Gibson, but I certainly don't mind learning techniques of his that I can incorporate into my work when I wish. The same could be said for "the look", which is comprised of elements which might be adopted in total or in part as needed. Just thinking outloud again...

Dear Dave,

Except that things are further complicated by interactions, and by the 'alchemical' aspect of black and white -- the well-known phenomenon whereby you prefer (and get better pictures with) Film A, while if I try to duplicate your results, they look like sh*t, so I use (and get better results from) Film B, which if you try to duplicate...

There's also the point that often, it is much quicker and easier to replicate the effects of the past by using as much of the original equipment and materials as possible. For example, I never took a 'Hollywood' style portrait that I liked until I went to an 8x10 inch camera and an uncoated lens.

I completely agree with your thinking about learning what you can, but I think that in monochrome one surprisingly rapidly reaches a point where theory runs out and the only possibility is experiment. Using my list will make it better-informed experiment, and should lead to faster results, but it's still experiment.

Cheers,

Roger

Dave Krueger · Jul 17, 2007

Well, now that I've gone back to page 2 about twenty times to have a look at the picture from Jetee that jmal posted, I'm starting to develop a attraction to it as well...

On "the look" in general, I'm probably as susceptible to the nostalgia influence as much as the technical aspects of a picture. Hell, I'd probably see "the look" in any black and white picture of a drive-in theater.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jul 17, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
That's the point, really: it doesn't work that way. It's not so much about Leicas or Leica lenses, including 'razor-sharp muticoated modern lenses', which must surely include all Leica's current output. Rather, it's about the way people use them.

I think I might have read that piece somewhere but I can't recall. I would like however to clarify two things:

* I think you make, as I do, a distinction between "the look" and the "Leica glow." At least from your list on the previous page, you (and I) seem to associate the look with vintage 35mm equipment and procedure, whereas the glow is more related to the particular use of lenses.

* Are you making any strong correlation between the Leica lenses and the glow, or are you proposing that in fact many good lenses could give that effect in a particular lighting situation?

Yeah, I know, I don't have that many important things to care about today...

Antonov · Jul 17, 2007

Nobody answered me on simple practical question in my last post.

What do you think about these photos, when where they taken and with what, and what do you say about look?

http://zeljeznice.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5159

Regards, Anton

Please comment it.I'm really interested what do you think how old are those photos, and with which lens are they taken.Leave aside now, theory, here is practical use.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jul 17, 2007

Antonov said:
Nobody answered me on simple practical question in my last post.

What do you think about these photos, when where they taken and with what, and what do you say about look?

http://zeljeznice.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5159

Regards, Anton

Please comment it.I'm really interested what do you think how old are those photos, and with which lens are they taken.Leave aside now, theory, here is practical use.

They look over-developed, using a traditional grain emulsion and something like D-76. Could have been taken at any time since the sixties. Some are very good, many are just ordinary.

Don't worry about being ignored, it's a natural condition here.

Antonov · Jul 17, 2007

mhv said:
They look over-developed, using a traditional grain emulsion and something like D-76. Could have been taken at any time since the sixties. Some are very good, many are just ordinary.

Don't worry about being ignored, it's a natural condition here.

OK, next one.

This is documentary photography, aesthetics and art are not important much here, but thanks for comment.

Roger Hicks · Jul 17, 2007

mhv said:
I think I might have read that piece somewhere but I can't recall. I would like however to clarify two things:

* I think you make, as I do, a distinction between "the look" and the "Leica glow." At least from your list on the previous page, you (and I) seem to associate the look with vintage 35mm equipment and procedure, whereas the glow is more related to the particular use of lenses.

* Are you making any strong correlation between the Leica lenses and the glow, or are you proposing that in fact many good lenses could give that effect in a particular lighting situation?

Yeah, I know, I don't have that many important things to care about today...

If you read it anywhere, it would be B+W (UK), as it's not been published elsewhere.

1 Yes, no doubt.

2 Strong but not conclusive correlation. Simple (non-retrofocus) designs give more contrast, as do RF bodies (smaller, better baffled dark chambers) so I'd expect to see the 'glow' in many RF lenses (Zeiss, Voigtlander and Leica) before I'd see it in reflex lenses. And indeed the 'mirror up' 21/4 Nikkor does seem to me to have more 'glow' than any other reflex lens I've used.

Cheers,

Roger

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jul 17, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
2 Strong but not conclusive correlation. Simple (non-retrofocus) designs give more contrast, as do RF bodies (smaller, better baffled dark chambers) so I'd expect to see the 'glow' in many RF lenses (Zeiss, Voigtlander and Leica) before I'd see it in reflex lenses. And indeed the 'mirror up' 21/4 Nikkor does seem to me to have more 'glow' than any other reflex lens I've used.

Thanks, I'm sure the Leica fanboys are foaming at the mouth because they are not part of an exclusive club anymore

Roger Hicks · Jul 18, 2007

mhv said:
Thanks, I'm sure the Leica fanboys are foaming at the mouth because they are not part of an exclusive club anymore

Yeah. I have very mixed feelings about some Leica users, but as long as they go on buying cameras and keeping Leica in business, I'm basically grateful for 'em.

At Leica (I was in Solms a few weeks ago) they reckon that about 50% of Leica users 'baby' their cameras -- like the ones who wouldn't take their Leicas to the beach because they're afraid of the sand -- and the other half just use 'em.

Ray Heath · Jul 18, 2007

Antonov said:
OK, next one.

This is documentary photography, aesthetics and art are not important much here, but thanks for comment.

what?

of course they are important

an image doesn't 'work' just because it supposedly has the look

Videbaek · Jul 18, 2007

Brilliant list, Roger, on "the glow" and "the look", thanks for that. I wish I could find the book now to post a scan, can't, but the photograph that glows the most to my eye was made by Horst P Horst in the late 30s -- for an advertisement, a corsette. Even reproduced in a book with middling print quality, this picture glows forth with great vitality. Famous picture, fabulous blonde model (Grace Kelly-like) seen from behind wearing the corsette, half-reclining on a phony balustrade, light falling from upper right-hand quadrant across her shoulders, strongly defining her shoulder blades and spine in a most delicious fashion. To think that such pictures were once actually made for advertisements. Definitely not made with a Leica.

Roger Hicks · Jul 19, 2007

Dear Svend,

Another intriging thing is 'sparkle', which Ilford and Zeiss independently ascribe to very high MTF values at relatively low frequencies. It would be interesting to know if 'glow' and 'sparkle' are related. Thinking of advertising pictures from the 30s, where both 'glow' and 'sparkle' were surprisingly often seen, but never to my recollection in the same picture, I suspect that they may in fact be mutually exclusive.

Cheers,

Roger

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Feb 12, 2008

jmal said:
mhv--The look that prompted my initial post is, specifically, the look of the Marker photo that I posted. We have all gone on tangents about various looks, but the referenced photo was my primary interest. And, I'm certainly not subscribing to a Leica glow. I just happen to like the style and look of CHris Marker's stuff.

Reviving an old thread here, because I've been watching a few Chris Marker documentaries lately, and read his books Staring Back and Commentaires, the latter being a collection of voice-over commentaries from his docs, illustrated copiously.

I find it interesting that one of the few portraits of Marker himself have that 'look'

How to achieve the look?

Roger Hicks

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

jmal

Roger Hicks

Ray Heath

Roger Hicks

juan

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Roger Hicks

Ray Heath

Roger Hicks

Dave Krueger

Roger Hicks

Dave Krueger

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Antonov

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Antonov

Roger Hicks

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Roger Hicks

Ray Heath

Videbaek

Roger Hicks

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

How to achieve the look?

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency