Leader election is one of the fundamental problems in distributed computing: a single node, called the leader, must be specified. This task can be formulated either in a weak way, where one node outputs 'leader' and all other nodes output 'non-leader', or in a strong way, where all nodes must also learn which node is the leader. If the nodes of the network have distinct identifiers, then such an agreement means that all nodes have to output the identifier of the elected leader. For anonymous networks, the strong version of leader election requires that all nodes must be able to find a path to the leader, as this is the only way to identify it. For any network in which leader election (weak or strong) is possible knowing the map of the network, there is a minimum time in which this can be done. We consider four formulations of leader election discussed in the literature in the context of anonymous networks : one is the weak formulation, and the three others specify three different ways of finding the path to the leader in the strong formulation. Our aim is to compare the amount of initial information needed to accomplish each of these "four shades" of leader election in minimum time. We show that the amount of information required to accomplish leader election in the weak formulation in minimum time is exponentially smaller than that needed for any of the strong formulations. Thus, if the required amount of advice is used as a measure of the difficulty of the task, the weakest version of leader election in minimum time is drastically easier than any version of the strong formulation in minimum time.