Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/24

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] It's not the "Leica" glow
From: "Steve LeHuray" <icommag@toad.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 08:40:51 -0400

> 
> 
>> 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

Replies: Reply from "Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com> (Re: [Leica] It's not the "Leica" glow)