Re: Marc Riboud Show

[ted grant <75501.3002@CompuServe.COM>]

Dan Cardish wrote:

<<<<I don't wish to sound like a s*** disturber, but I hear a lot of
unsubstantiated talk from people on the LUG that makes Leicas appear as if they
were divinely inspired and manufactured, perhaps due to the high
price, and anecdotal evidence from other Leica users,  but they are not.>>

Hi Dan,

I'm not into arguing the point unless we are sitting down with a beer and a
bunch of prints, negs and a light table to look at the negs, along with well
printed material from excellent presses. Otherwise we don't have too much to
work with to see the difference by talking about it.

The other day I received a copy of a brochure on aviation users shot by David
Almy. My first reaction was "beautiful Leica stuff!" not because I knew he used
Leica gear, but just by the look of the images.

If there is a "Leica glow" :) it sure showed in his shooting and maybe that is
what gives away the "Leica user look" from the others. I showed the brochure to
my wife and said, "How do you like this?" Her immediate response  was, "When did
you shoot that"?  I asked her what she meant as I immediately took it as a
compliment and she said," It looks just like the Leica look of your work!"
Honest injun! NO BS, that was her remark.

I realize it is much easier to look at transparencies and negs and pick the
difference, one camera/lens manufacturer to another. And without question on rag
assed newsprint or cheap mag paper stock it is almost an impossibility. But on
very fine paper stock it is possible, not always, but possible.

Now I think it has something to do the with the kind of lighting and how the
lenses react that creates the "Leica glow" look.  As you say, "Except maybe for
my non ASPH 35/1.4 Summilux at full aperture, but that isn't a glow too many
Leica owners would want to brag about. ;-) >>>>>>

But I would "brag about it":), as I have used that lens in that fashion many
many times and it produces the most marvelous looking negatives and consequently
the most interesting "glowing" 16X20 prints one would want.

Possibly I misread your comment, but for me the 35mm 1.4 Summilux non aspherical
is a great lens. I will be using the Aspherical shortly and it better "show me"
that I made a wise purchase or it's gone. :)

But back to David Almy's work, as it quite frankly has the look of what I expect
of Leica glass and it is quite distinct in this brochure. Was it his wonderful
use of available light? Or it appeared similar to how I shoot, therefore I was
influenced? Quite possibly both, but without question, the reproductions were as
Leica looking as one could get in the edges of the faces and how the light
looked on the subjects. 

I'm sure that what I have seen from other lenses in similar light situations
they do not produce the very distinct look of Leica glass as illustrated in
David's work and the brochure.

Always open for a challenge, but we have to set the rules first. We have a beer,
discuss the pros and cons, examine original negs, a beer, examine  colour
transparencies, another beer and then get down to looking at serious "printed
reproductions!" :)

By then the Leica look will kick in and you'll loose! :) That's my plan, then
there's Gods' plan! And my plan doesn't count! :)  So good buddy what's yours?
:)

You know it's too bad we all live around the world and the country, so that when
an interesting point like this comes up that we can't get 
together and truly be able to do real time comparisons. Sans beer first of
course!  But after that it's another thing, as the looser buys or if it's a tie,
we alternate rounds! :)  You on? :)

regards,

ted