Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> > >> 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." > > > I don't think so. > > First of all, it's not the "Leica" glow. It has nothing to do with Leica > specifically or exclusively. > > It has to do with the look of well-made, well-crafted prints. > --Mike > Mike, I have to agree with you 100%, ITPS (It's The Print Stupid). I am in the unique position of being a fairly good photographer but do not have a clue when it comes to doing lab work. And because for the past 20 years I have been the Owner/Publisher/Editor of two monthly magazines I have had the same Master Printer under contract to do all my work. (I would be in big trouble without Dermott Hickey). I do think there is something to this Leica "Glow" thing, in part based on Dermott seeing immediately on the light box something was different (the "Glow") when a few years ago I started to shoot with Leicas in addition to my Nikons. I have talked with Dermott about this and about all he would tell me is that it is in his technique (it would be over my head anyway, so I don't need to know). From conversations with me he had picked up on what I liked, so he started making my prints with glow. Dermott has also said that with Leica lenses there really is a difference apart from every other brand he has ever printed. Dermott has started a major project of printing archival photos for the US Naval Academy. I can't wait to see some of those. Steve Annapolis