This is a brief gallery note with examples of photographs of the Soviet fifty dollars MS HELIOS-77M-4 1,8 / 50 from Svetlana Stasyakova.
Magic on Helios-77m-4
Svetlana makes very nice postcard photos, sometimes with an interesting fairytale atmosphere. For work, the author uses the usual Canon EOS 750D and already mentioned above MS HELIOS-77M-4 1,8 / 50.
Small gallery
Many more Svetlana's works can be found on her Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/neb0sv0d and on the VK page: https://vk.com/id484109501.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Eh, the magic of the spray gun and post-processing) ...
Come on)
a little PR old glass does not hurt.
I liked everything except the birches. Obviously not specialized ...
but even the birch trees have a twisted background) the main thing is not to enlarge the picture
Do not be discouraged Rodion, you can also wind up a helix on Sony a7c, you try ... 10000 attempts, 900 hours of treatments and you will succeed, the main thing is to believe in yourself, we believe in you.
https://500px.com/leks-a - Ekaterina Bochkareva, now shoots at Zenitar 0.95, before that was the 77th and 40th Helios. Everything is on the level, everything is stylish, everything is post-processed, everything can be attributed to photography. And not to register images and measure aberrations.
Thanks for the link. I really liked it. It seems such a little battered subjects (whom you will surprise with a portrait with an owl), but in each work there are a lot of the author himself. And the color scheme is also author's, like a business card, and not trivial.
Very good. It emphasizes once again that it is not the lens that matters. The tool should be HABITABLE and COMFORTABLE.
A very nice selection of postcards. I like the idea of publishing a gallery too! This is more about creativity than a review, about numbers and graphs.
Colorfully. Thanks, Arkady, thanks, Svetlana.
There was such a + Sony a6000 ... ... .. The glass is shameful soap, the diaphragm must be covered for sharpness. But then the bokeh suffers !!!!!!!
This is one of the best portrait portraits, 50mm. You may need to be able to use it, or adjust the lens.
For some reason, amateurs, having published a similar comment and painted in their incompetence, are confident in raising their BSD. Surprisingly simple.
A person could write this from a pure heart, as they say. “Studied the forums”, took the “standing camera”, put the helios and whatever he did he received “soap”. Not everyone has the opportunity to try different cameras, lenses, compare. It all depends on expectations, if the expectations were too high, which is quite likely if a person has read a lot of “paid” exalted reviews and saw enough “raw” photos in which there is no living space, then the force of disappointment can have very destructive consequences.
Manuals are many times better than modern fifty dollars.
I'm not a great specialist, but even a number of views show that just the old scheme, when there is no such hellish pursuit of sharpness, has a soft pleasant volume. But modern Nikon often has such a flattened picture ...
Moreover, Nikon fifty dollars also does not shine with sharpness in the open.
What does soap mean? No sharpness or is your front lens screwed up ...?
The postcards are wonderful, and for them the lens is just right. You can't shoot a detailed landscape on it ...
Tripod and hole up to 8-11.
Washes one who is too lazy to itch. It’s easier to fasten shirik to the second carcass.
Artistic - yes, of course. And for the technological one - the edges will not reach.
Just divine photos!
It seems to me silly to argue about what is better - to shoot as it is and create a masterpiece at the same time, due to the ability to catch the moment, or painstaking work in the editor. It's like arguing: it's best for girls, with or without makeup, without specifying a specific situation.
There are only genres, or concepts of the author himself, that justify or not such an approach.
In my opinion, this is just the case of a harmonious approach.
The rest is more a matter of personal preferences, it seems to me.
Doesn't it bother anyone that the shape of the bokeh in half of the photos is identical, and not similar to the bokeh of helios (Ie, the photos are 80% colored)?
No. The main end result
The most interesting thing is, I’ve seen these effects almost directly the same more than once already, but this suggests that it’s either a plug-in or someone invented such a master class and now teaches here and there.
Maybe. Many hackneyed tricks
Zvisno, Photoshop is our fsio !!!
Great photos, super composition !!!
Nice photos, but personally I don't like "artificiality". Post-processing should be in moderation. I think that even without processing the photos would be great, the compositions are very interesting. If we look at the photos separately, then everything is great. But in the gallery you can see that the author was carried away by the template.
Well, it’s like a glass is half empty, a half full.
Someone will say "template", and someone - the author's handwriting)
Excellent photos, brought to mind, as the author wanted to convey to the viewer ... Photography is not something that the camera simply registers, but something that the photographer wants to show, convey to us. Otherwise, you just have to set the camera to time-lapse shooting, and then directly publish (by the way, many people do this, and with the advent of high-resolution video, they began to remove frames from video sequences, and in the future, when RAW video will become a standard feature of entry-level cameras, and only small video sketches will be filmed at all, and the best moments will simply be taken out in separate photographs). Look at the photographs of the “greats” - there every centimeter is processed, this is how they win, they are finished, brought to an emotional state, and in this and only this way it is possible to achieve the realism of the transmitted plot, otherwise it will almost never “sit in the photo ”The way the eye or the camera sees it. Supporters of the so-called “Clean” photography, that is, photos like “clicked and that's it” - these are just naive people, they were fueled by photographers such as Cartier-Bresson and others, for whom the rough work on super-complex image processing was done by the same great masters of image processing (even their names known) photographs, as well as analog printing (by the way, Adams himself was a master of processing and printing, like many others). If you look closely, the analog photo editing process was even more sophisticated than digital methods. One famous photographer even burned all his negatives and left only prints in a single copy (forgot his name, please remind me!), Go now and find out what and how he did. The only thing that they could not edit was the original negatives themselves, so they came up with a "fool bait" in the form of "inadmissibility" of cropping, and for this they began to stage everything and everything, which is easy to notice in almost all greats, and also slowly began to recognize and the photographers themselves, that their best creations were simple dramatizations. So, please bring your photos to your taste and experience, to such a state that you want to present to your readers, and also so that they more accurately and emotionally convey what you saw in reality, and all naive admirers of the technical process “brought shot and immediately to the reader ”(Canon will put all the colors for you at once and finally, and Nikon will lead you into yellowness!) let them continue their journey as they want. Dear Svetlana, THANKS for the wonderful photos! The 77m is a great lens, and I'm going to buy it myself as soon as my hands and wallet reach it. I wish you to try it out on a full-frame camera in the future as well, where its capabilities are revealed better, since its entire field works, and the main thing with this lens is often located just behind or not in the center of the subject being shot - its twisted bokeh. So, for me, it would be interesting to shoot such scenes in black and white, for sure, sometimes very interesting results will turn out.
But it's up to us, the audience, to choose what we like or not. Everyone has their own taste, and if it does not coincide with someone's “great”, then we should not be called naive.
I just wrote about this ...
Of course, everyone has the right to read what he likes, but some of them were made “great” by the millions who have chosen and are still choosing, because, again, the result is important, not the way to achieve it. If we digress from photography and transfer the same idea to literature, then we should value only those works that authors can write without a single correction, a straight clean version. By the way, some composers even after the publication of their works made changes to them, and Goethe wrote and corrected Faust for 40 years. On the other hand, if the result has not been achieved, then what difference does it make whether the photographer was in charge or not? Working on photography and bringing it to the final result - this is the work of the photographer, and the pursuit of ready-made frames is throwing work halfway, relying on your talent, in my opinion, of course ... But back to this article - what would it be Wouldn't the author have removed these flowers better? And would not publish it here? I am sure that if she continues in the same spirit, then in a few years she will be able to make enough wonderful photos for a whole photo album. Let's wish her creative success!
I'm just happy for her, the compositions are excellent even without processing. But is it worth getting involved in post-processing - I'm talking about that. Each individual photo is good, but when they have the same bokeh ... I think they would look great without it. For some reason, it is now considered bad form to take a photo without the processing being conspicuous.
Dear Vitaly, as if in response to this, today I came across Ansel Adams' statement that “a photograph should not be taken, but taken”. And it is right. In black and white, it is usually essentially limited to highlights and darkens, but what to do with color? I can't say this for sure, because in my life I did not shoot in color, that is, I did not leave my photographs in color, maybe because back in 1977, when I first saw the camera and printed photographs, I had black and white films and photographic paper too, but people work in color, and very successfully, see for yourself what filters they use in the shooting process, and this is also a change in reality. To recommend “not to get carried away with post-processing”, this is a paraphrase of the words of the king to Mozart “do not use (or throw away) unnecessary notes”, each author has the right and in my opinion even should process as much as it takes to achieve the final result for him. Look at some of Adams's photographs, everything is darkened, look at his famous (as everyone unanimously admits, although I personally don't see anything special in that photo) photographs of the Mexican sky, where he darkened everything in order to show the moon. What if he was in color? We would probably be horrified ... Color enhancement is the same technique as darkening or lightening in black and white photography, at least approximately. Reconsider the modern Internet, yes, I agree that there is another horror going on there, everything is simply changed beyond recognition, precisely beyond recognition, and this is certainly bad, but our author does not get to this point here and this is good. Here she will make 10000 such frames in several years, and we will receive at least one wonderful album of her selected photographs. Otherwise, she should abandon this business and lose inspiration, by the way, as many novice photographers do, when straight from the camera they do not get those photos that they often see in the “greats” ... Would it be good?
You take a look at her instagramm, there is much more and sometimes much more interesting.
I looked briefly, very beautiful photos. Instagram does not allow you to watch without registering from the phone, but I do not need it out of obsession. Can eat at 500px?
Instagram without any problems allows you to watch from anywhere and anywhere.
Come on…
You look at a few photos, and then demands to enter.
You can reset and look further. But in general, it's all the little things
You won't be able to reset, you need to open the page again after 2-3 photos. Well, so little things, you just can't see the gallery ... Therefore, I asked about the photo elsewhere.
I checked it from a PC - the same thing, the viewing page is blocked without the possibility of canceling the authorization offer. Only closing the page with reopening.
There is still a site with her photos, if anyone does not have a Facebook account https://photosight.ru/users/488171/
I’ll tell you a secret, even on a PC there is a button to switch to smartphone mode. Should work without reg.
It's like that; It’s not a camera that shoots, but a person. Capture the moment so that the viewer feels like a participant, sees how the photographer wanted.
Beautiful colors, reminiscent of my "Planar Killer" picture.
I will modestly keep silent about the “magic of the spray gun” and bakeshki: to each his own))
.
Well, if you keep silent about the magic of the atomizer and evaluate it purely stylistically, it looks like flowers from a plastic funeral wreath.
He remembered the joke: A cynic is a person who, smelling flowers, looks around for a coffin.
This is probably a joke adapted during the years of Prohibition about an optimist and a pessimist (about cognac and bedbugs), and this, in turn, is a topic with an empty glass)
A wonderful lens, but difficult, requiring a certain approach; let's just say creative. And very demanding for lighting. But with its help you can achieve interesting effects :)
I had one, but sold it (they urgently needed money).
I have the same bundles from the back-end in the review :)
This is more than cool. Now libraries with flashlights are also sold stock)
Photographic works are masterpieces!
As for the lens, I have this glass. I came across a copy quite sharp in the center already with the aperture open, with the aperture closed - sharpness comes to the edges. A good simulator for training in focusing, the zoom saves on the Sony A7. The lens is not perfect, but it has its own character.
If not sharp, then this is a marriage. It is sharp on the open, even on the Sony a6300 crop. At full frame it should be even better. Great glass. The contrast is only weak, helios 44m6 it will be better. It’s easier to focus on them because of this. At 77 focus picking had to be disabled, the sense was 0 from him.
As they write here about the masterpiece of these pictures, this is far from a controversial issue.
There are a couple of good ones, but no more, besides almost any fifty kopeck from Helios can do the same and not only Gelik, because I am familiar with the topic and have been fond of manuals for a long time.
It is possible to do something, only no one does it, because “processing is not for us, each his own, everyone has their own tastes” and a hundred other excuses.
Very good work, thanks!
In general, I prefer to watch good photos, rather than argue about the advantages and disadvantages of a particular photographic equipment. And these photos speak for themselves.
Fans of counting lines per millimeter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9-ltPsbw9g&list=RDGMEM3vRVvLY6rn_98uxOr5tY5AVMIHLZOfXn76c&index=15
Injoy!
Why !!! Whoever knows how, he will remove the bottle from the glass, and play on the shovel like God.
"So oto w" (c) :)
Competent processing by Photoshop of photographs, zroblenyh hrenova radianskoy optics - 99% success!
Usually, Photoshop is most disliked by those who do not know how to use it. And the profession of photo retoucher appeared almost immediately with the advent of photography. Half of Photoshop's techniques are directly borrowing retouching from the film era. This includes sharpening on an unsharp mask, dodge and burn, and so on. It’s just convenient “not to sweat”.
And I like the pictures. Despite some staging and post-processing. The man is a photographer, she did everything that the technique could, and that the technique could not add herself. She sees that. Try to find, shoot, get into many narrow plots of sharpness, and squirm in a difficult position. And there is no need to deploy them pixel by pixel at 2k..4k and criticize. Yes, Soviet lenses were designed for 20-50 lines per millimeter, and not all were perfect. For example, I don’t really like to watch dry, unprocessed photos from this site, because the task is to show the original image. This is the difference in perception and all the time you catch yourself wanting to process them.
Here the photos are more technical in order to show the capabilities of the lens. And the result, of course, must be brought.
And I like this glass. The picture is unique. Someone considers such a twisted bokeh a technical marriage. I’m the opposite. All pictures without processing. True, this album was shot on Olympus and speed booster, incl. hole here 1.4 rather.https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGQ5oyo
Wonder photographs of Pani Svitlani, for the first time you reconsider, you know not about the activist, but Lyudin, the photographer. Chim is pure lyudin spiritually, tim prized photographs))
Photos are simply gorgeous. Recently, there was a topic in Radozhiv in which many tried to tell, "how mobile photography will soon supersede or completely replace professional photographic equipment." Waiting for similar frames from mobile phones.