Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Lens signatures, old and new
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:18:34 -0400
References: <200010231815.OAA28562@sushi.toad.net>

Okay, I'll take my life in mind hands and...

This whole "old glow" thing is really pretty funny...On the one hand we have
Erwin, judging lens quality on the basis of scientific formulae and the number of
threads visible in a 1" square of silk photographed with  ASA 2.3 film at 100
yards with the latest Leica optic, and on the other we have a bunch of guys who
call the flare and veiling of the old, optically inferior lenses, the "classic
leica glow."

Yes, as Buzz and some others have pointed out there were papers available 50 years
ago which are no longer available - and some of them probably would produce
superior prints. But the bottom line, folks, is that that glow which so captivates
you is the glow of nostalgia; nostalgia for a long-gone world and way of life
captured in the "glowing" photos of the greats, nostalgia for the days when
photography really "mattered," nostalgia for the days when we were all a good deal
younger and full of promise than we are now.

But that's only my theory...

And, by the way, some things, such as wooden stringed instruments, DO get better
with age...Give me a 1966 Martin D28 over its "new" clone any day...

B. D.

Steve LeHuray wrote:

> > I suspect this is it, Buzz.  The prints are simply unique to that era.  I
> > have b&w snaps my father took with his Retina IIa when I was a kid that have
> > a good bit of this glow and this depth--and they are just snapshots!  But
> > they put my snaps made with a Stylus Epic (good as that fixed 35/2.8 is) to
> > shame.
> >
> > It's like the difference between an old cabinet you discover in an antique
> > shop and a new one that's made with the same wood and with the same design.
> > The older stuff has a quality to it that is hard to describe but readily
> > discernible, while the newer stuff seems somehow flimsy or two-dimensional
> > by comparison.
>
> Sort of like my 40 year old sailboat built from 1" thick Honduras Mahogany.
>
> Steve
> Annapolis
> >
> > I'm not really a Luddite, honest--nor do I mean to start the old debates
> > over zeiss vs. leica, ad infinitum.  I guess I really just want to express
> > my appreciation for the quality of these prints, and my strong desire to be
> > participate in something of such great beauty, even if it is a desire that
> > can perhaps no longer be fulfilled.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >> I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that
> >> H.C.-B.'s pictures from that era were printed by the genius Henri Gassman
> >> who, sadly, is no longer with us on papers which, sadly, are no
> >> longer with
> >> us.  These prints may or may not have exhibited a "Leica Glow" or the glow
> >> of some other maker's lens...about which we will now argue ad nauseum.
> >>
> >>  Buzz Hausner
> >

Replies: Reply from Lucien <director@ubi.edu> ([Leica] MAGNUM MILLENIUM exhibition is in Brussels)
In reply to: Message from "Steve LeHuray" <icommag@toad.net> (Re: [Leica] Lens signatures, old and new)