In the help it says "You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face."

I think that as written the question fails "answerable" and is just soliciting opinions.

The questioner cites no studies where it has been shown that people can distinguish Leica photos from others on a blind basis, ergo there can be no answer that is not an opinion.

| |

We get a lot of "look" type questions. People are often very interested in how to achieve certain looks with their photography. Calling something the "Leica" look is just giving a name to a particular look that someone recognizes (consciously or subconsciously). I don't think it is necessary to get scientific about whether the "Leica look" is literal, verifiable, and scientifically proven...that's not what's important.

I think what's important is that many people DO seem to recognize "something" in Leica photographs that they call the Leica Look, enough people that there are big articles on the subject online. (Do a search for "Leica Look", "Leica Feel", and "Leica Style"...this is a very common topic in the photography world, with some well-written posts, blogs, and articles on the subject). If there are resources that can be referenced regarding a named photographic look, then that means the question is answerable. The question is clearly "on topic" given that it is about photography. Therefor, instead of debating whether it's a real question, we should simply be answering.

That's what we are here for. To provide answers.

| |

There doesn't need to be undeniable scientific proof that a quantifiable "Leica Look" exists in order for it to be a valid question. The fact that much of the worldwide photography community refers to the "Leica Look" as a point of reference is enough.

It's like saying there should be no Wikipedia article for the "Loch Ness Monster" because it has never been proved to exist. But because of the vast number of people on the planet who have heard of it, and the countless number of references to it in available writings, it is appropriate to publish such an article describing what it is people are referring to when they use the term Loch Ness Monster.

| |
  • However the entry for the LNM does not assume that it exists. Whether or hot the Leica Look exists, it is testable. Another point is that research has shown that the more wine costs, the better the people think it is. – JenSCDC Nov 7 '14 at 11:22
  • 2
    You are missing the point. The question doesn't ask if the Leica Look exists. Look at it this way: If someone is reading an article that mentions the Leica Look and they have no idea what that means, then this question answers that for them. – Michael C Nov 7 '14 at 12:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .