Brief gallery note with sample photos on Helios-44-2 2/58 from Andreeva Elena
Photos from Andreeva Elena on Helios-44-2. increase.
Photographs in the gallery below photographer Elena Andreeva received using Canon EOS 60D and Soviet lens Helios-44-2 2/58.
Gallery
You can find more photos from Elena at the following links:
- 35photo: https://35photo.pro/svoboda/
- VK: https://vk.com/id1251683
- FB: https://www.facebook.com/svoboda.andreeva
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/svobodaluna/
Reviews for the Helios-44 2/58 lenses:
- Helios-44 2/58 [KMZ, 13 petals, M39, silver, No. 0220423]
- Helios-44 2/58 [KMZ, 8 petals, M39, silver]
- Helios-44 1: 2 F = 5,8 cm П [KMZ with replaced lenses, No. 0007220, review of the lens from the reader Radozhiva]
- HELIOS-44M 2/58 [KMZ, 8 petals, serial number 7843528]
- HELIOS-44M 2/58 [Jupiter plant, Valdai, 8 petals, serial number 8027170]
- HELIOS-44-2 2/58 [plant 'Jupiter', Valdai, 8 petals, serial number 83052779] + autofocus review
- MS Helios 44-3 2/58 [MMZ, 8 petals, 8619437, 9167912]
- MC Helios-44M-4 2/58
- Helios-44K-4 58mm 1:2 [KMZ, 6 petals, Pentax K]
- MC Helios-44M-4 58mm 1: 2 [plant 'Jupiter', Valdai, 6 petals] + autofocus review
- MC Helios-44M-5 58mm 1: 2 [Jupiter plant, Valdai, 6 petals]
- MC Helios-44M-6 58mm 1: 2 [plant 'Jupiter', Valdai, 6 petals]
- MC Helios-44M-7 58mm 1: 2 [plant 'Jupiter', Valdai, 6 petals]
- An article about most of the major modifications of the Helios-44 series
- Gallery of pictures on MC Helios-44M-4
- Look at modern the lenses 'Helios' can at this link
- A lot of Helios of all varieties can be found on ebay this link
Original 'Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 2/58 ':
- Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 1: 2 f = 5,8cm T [17 diaphragm blades, M42]
- Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 2 / 58 T [12 diaphragm blades, M42]
- A lot of Biotars of all varieties can be found on ebay this link
Look at modern the lenses 'Zenitar' и 'Helios' can at this link.
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
It would be nice if the authors, even if only a few, left comments on their work, or notes how they achieved such a result, maybe a backstage photo / originals. I understand that the site is more about technology than about the shooting process, but in my opinion such articles will nicely complement the site's content - it's just that the photos are already doing it. 🙃
One already tried - I had to close the comments ...
Not everyone is so illiterate ...
Excellent start, otherwise all lenses and lenses. The only thing I would like to see are photographs, not drawings in Photoshop. Or then position correctly - Drawings in Photoshop by the author of this and that. With all due respect…
For what you call “photography,” you have at least a full flickr or 500px. There this squalor in bulk and for every taste (more precisely, for its absence). Everything is as it should be - without processing, with a littered horizon, lack of plot, ugly models, shabby houses. And then let it be something pleasant to the eye.
You have some kind of understanding of photography. Just such pictures can be attributed to photography. About Photoshop is generally funny
I do not see strokes and strokes - it means this is not a drawing, but a photo after all
“Photographia” is light painting)))
Not aerial photography in detail.
All authors interpret the artistic process of drawing with light in their own way. After all, any painting is a reflection of the artist's vision.
Pis.
I can assure you that the files with images in the gallery presented in this note are just photographs.
I would like to see these photos without processing. At a glance, what I see is the overlay in Photoshop of a soft filter, a blur filter (imitation of bokeh), a filter with noise such as dust in the air, in addition to color and light-shadow correction of the image (with a software brush). I admit it is beautiful! wow effect achieved. The composition and lighting are top notch! But still too much Photoshop….
The light in most pictures is correctly set.
If you learn this art, then half of the post-processing in Photoshop is not needed.
Today, few people teach the setting of lighting ...
But, for example, taking three light sources, a background, flags, playing with modifiers and filters is still a photograph. Drawing with a light pen in a dark room at a slow shutter speed is still a photograph. And to fix the same flaws in lighting in Photoshop, to drive somewhere with a mask into the shadow, somewhere to raise the light - this is no longer photography. Although apologists “without processing” will say that fussing with flashes is not TRU. TRU - it came, saw, shot in JPEG.
This is just one of the opinions. For example, I have an opinion that a photograph has no borders and any graphic file pulled out of the camera, even with any manipulation, is a photograph. Also, my opinion fundamentally diverges about the admissibility of Photoshop. But, as they say, they don’t argue about tastes.
In the presence of these very tastes. Which, again, are brought up.
A photograph does not have to be processed. It can be made for anything - at least for a monocle, at least for a pinhole, at least for a mobile, at least for a silver record, even though it was retaken from the pinhole camera. But walking and methodically tedious hitting is a photoshop, give me TRUUUU!
Do not envy gentlemen and learn to process. Today at Zhuravlev from ProfileSchool a free seminar on new features of Photoshop 2020, you can come and learn. I do not work in the field of photography, and do not disdain, I spent my precious time and got used to it. Because in digital photography, digital processing is a given.
Thank you! Great photos! Good luck
Beautiful work by Elena !!! Thank you Arkady for your site and for the new authors!
Old questions for which there are no answers:
- where is the line when art photography turns into a photo-painting ...?
- how much post-processing is acceptable in art photography ...?
And so: beautiful? Yes!
Is this a photo (like technology)? Yes!
This photo? It seems to me no longer ...
Smaller scope and no obscure questions
It is now such a dispute in any genre. Actor or 3D modification. Amateur fan clip - pure editing or still animation. Cinema is pure product or special effects.
Live animation or 3D. Live frame-by-frame animation or pintule animation.
And the borders are very blurry everywhere, which is considered a pure genre.
The age of digital technology.
A photograph is not what the camera simply registers, but what the photographer wants to convey to us.
Ok, I find in the neta some photo of the leaning tower of Pisa. With the help of Photoshop I cut out all unnecessary people from it, insert myself there, insert baobab with macaques behind me, draw fireworks in the sky, throw in a bunch of different effects ... and voila! - This photo!!!
Well, I do not. Photography is what a photographer captures using photographic equipment. And what he, or not he, will then imitate in all sorts of Photoshop, this is no longer a photograph, it is at least a photo-painting. And I think you need to somehow separate these concepts.
As for the pictures above, yes, they are beautiful. But are they photographs? I think no. Because in reality it didn't look like that.
Photography as art has no boundaries. The direction of photography that you wrote about is documentary filmmaking, perhaps reportage. And this is only one facet of photography. Photoshop is a modern tool, by the way, Adobe Photoshop itself is only one of thousands of possible solutions for finalizing or manipulating a photo. If you still delve into history, then photographs were processed at the dawn of photography. At one time there was such a craving / fashion for retouching photographs of film bw photography that modern retouchers smoke on the sidelines.
Yes, for someone retouching is to cover up a pimple, but for someone to cover up the whole photo ...
Here it is still a matter of words. Someone says “cover up”, someone “tints”, someone does “artistic processing”. The task is always the same - to make a beautiful work that you want to show.
The fact is that a photograph can be beautiful without processing, and reality can be seen in it. For example: a lot of your photos in lens reviews. And it’s more pleasant to look at them than at the fabulous pictures above.
You just see the photo as a lottery. You buy a camera, you go around wandering around, looking for stellar moments, you are guided - hop, and you're in the queens. And it seems like everyone is on an equal footing, and someone is more lucky. And here it seems like someone is crawling into your field and you are deliberately losing, because no matter how hard you try, there are no such prizes in your lottery. And from here this irrational contempt for processing. And if you dig deeper - and to staged photos. Because someone is doing something, making some efforts. Gathers flowers in a bouquet, looks for snails, looks for locations, exposes light, sprays from a spray bottle. Then he searches for a frame, many attempts, frames, corrects, selects the maximum sharpness. Then another stage of processing, color search.
And you really do not want to do all this. Clicking is yes. Search. Catch and hope for freebies, for success. But to work, to make any efforts - categorically no. That's how my father treats photography. Well, over time, he at least recognized the value of color correction, but even then he got out of it - he plowed his younger brother and he does all this work for him, because he was too lazy to understand even five or six sliders. Any additional things - a polarizer, a tripod, a flash - he categorically refuses from this. It is necessary to understand this, lenses must be changed. No, I don't want to. We'd rather be in our swamp, post photos and, for lack of the opportunity to measure ourselves with anything else, we will measure ourselves by sharpness and color.
Here is even the wording itself: “I will paint in Photoshop”. Paint it. Good collage is art. As an author, I don't know how and I understand that there is room to grow. And "namalyuyu" is class hatred. This is the envy of the old woman at the entrance to the young girl: "she dressed up and twists her ass." This is the fear of losing your job due to unwillingness to study, a sense of competition. I don't see anything else here.
Both formulations are incorrect.
It all depends on the final task.
There are genres and there is a tendency for people to some genres.
Not everyone who doesn't work in Photoshop is stupid envious people. There is someone who must show life as it is. Cartier is not a freeloader. As an animal painter and photojournalist. Yes, light is also needed there, and sometimes additional light and correction. But the tasks there do not convey naturalness.
It is just like Japanese and Chinese cuisine. In the Chinese cook, in the first place, make sure that you don’t guess from what, according to what recipe.
The main thing is that the author, who chose this path for himself, should not be amusing himself with flouting atvors with other value orientations. And he did not consider his hard work more righteous than the reverse. And all that))
It's just that you don't have to make a general judgment about the whole genre by the “bad” examples.
And everyone knows that “painting” in fsh is a very laborious task.
But yes, everyone forgets that before post-processing any “natural” film photographs had an order of magnitude more.
You are not right. There is no envy. And when it is necessary I can “paint”. But I understand that this is no longer photography. And I get more buzz when I take a good, beautiful picture, and not when I paint beautiful things in programs.
And yes, just the same to find, to see the "stellar moment" is another task.
Well, it's generally a matter of taste.
I already like some ideas. Whatever, are made with processing or so.
For example - pumpkin flowers. It is necessary to be good artists to find inspiration in them and show them from such a wonderful side. Jae took notes.
I saw a photo similar to this https://radojuva.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/helios-44-2-f-2-58-mm-sample-images-8.jpg made on film and in a very similar "processing", without any photoshop. Programs are the same tool as lenses, filters, light, spray gun, etc. You know one tool better, the other worse, but why not use it if it allows you to achieve the desired result? Each author uses one or another instrument in accordance with his tasks, a sense of proportion and taste.
This is a debate about terms)
The bottom line is whether or not we get caught.
There is an idea in the product. Or is it so, PR technique. such purely technical work is also available
Thanks to the author for his wonderful work) And Arkady for his work in shaping our taste.
Cool, artistically, stylish. I strongly approve.
If we are talking about simple processing, for example, to extend the light with an underexposed frame, we see the result of a specific lens. When we look at artistically processed pictures, the information on the technique on which the shot was shot is uninformative, since with this technique without artistic processing we still will not get a similar result. And with artistic processing, if they give us information about it, and not about the equipment, we will get with another kit. That is, for someone who wants to somehow repeat these works, it is important how the image was processed, and not what was taken.
Imagine that they gave us a photo of the cake and wrote, see what kind of cake turned out using liebherr utensils on a Whirpool stove. It really looks delicious, no doubt, but what about brand names?
For example, when the owner of a site writes in his reviews: all photos are untreated, we can be enthusiastic about the pictures or consider them ordinary, consider them underexposed or overexposed, clearly or poorly cropped, etc., but we clearly see the result of the specified lens and lenses camera + lens. And when the picture is artistically processed, we don’t understand how important the fact of revealing the brand of the lens is, or can we take a whale, and then, repeating the processing follower, get a similar result?
And there is.
I publish such notes with one specific purpose and it is very simple and clear. If you noticed, the publications concern very cheap manual lenses with not the most outstanding characteristics. For example, the Helios-44-2 is the most affordable full-fledged lens on the aftermarket. So, these notes are intended to show that the technique is secondary, and the main thing is the approach to obtaining a photograph. Imagine how you can get up to modern super-technology?
Everything is correct and interesting. But it is important that readers understand that the picture is the result of artistic processing, they will not achieve the same result, shooting with such and such a lens without further photoshop. That is, the photos were taken with a bunch: Canon 70D + Helios 44 + photoshop cs5. Or, Nikon D700 + Jupiter 37 + such-and-such flash + atomizer, etc. Well, that is, not just, here are beautiful photos, let's see, but with an understanding of how these photos were obtained. Well, all the same, the mention of one lens does not give such an understanding in this case.
Once again, this is not a criticism of the shots at all, but the desire for filing. Because many people come to choose the technique, they want to understand how this photo came out. They will read, look at the photos, run to buy Helios or Canon elka, but as a result, something does not work out at all.
+1
This is a site about photography. In which the main contribution lies with the photographer, and not with the equipment. If you do not know how to cook, then neither Liebherr cookware nor the Whirpool cooker will help you (and this, in fact, is true, good kitchen appliances and cookware make the process easier, but not a substitute for the cook). If you don’t know how to shoot (and judging by the comment it is) - no other kit will help you. Neither a full frame, nor a fast lens, nor super sharpness - nothing at all.
The question "what was shot" immediately betrays the beginner. As a matter of fact, it is starkly irrelevant, just how inappropriate is the question to an artist: “what is it drawn on” or to a musician: “what is played on”. A professional indulges himself with good tools and materials, consoles the ego, perhaps makes everyday work easier. But he can and can do anything. I assure you, even without processing, these photos are better than what you shoot with the same equipment. For one simple reason - the authors of these photos know how and love to photograph.
The IMAGES presented are generally pleasant to look at. Here we must pay tribute to the author.
Yes, Photoshop isn’t just there, it is TOO MUCH.
Too much, that means: if you remove the unnecessary manipulations, then it should turn out better, cleaner, more interesting. You look and just want to pick up Photoshop in different places to see a normal picture.
And if it’s quite simple, then the first thing that should catch your eye is the picture itself, not the processing, then everything will be buzzing.
When the first thing we see is “oh, processing!”, Then the effect is achieved, but not at all what we would like to wish. The eye clings not to the picture itself, but to the “processing”. I doubt this is what the author was trying to achieve. Most likely the desire was: to put maximum effort into the image. But it is very easy to overdo it or overdo it with Photoshop. There is a certain line crossing which you start to spoil rather than improve. And even a good composition and light will not save in the end.
What I saw not particularly long considering:
- everywhere the superposition of "scratches", most likely with "brushes", can be seen in different images in different repetitions of one brush, and in one place I saw a blooper with a standard brush (like one "spit" of an airbrush), in some places there is a brush consisting of regular oblique lines, it's not clear what it is at all and why, it's funny that this only spoiled the background
- in some places a weak overlay "picture canvas", for texture so to speak
- in many places the filter is of the "art / oil paint" type
And a lot of manipulations are striking. We can say that these are digital photographs, that is, on the basis of photography in a computer, such a combined work is created. Ordinary people usually call this "designs" and "photoshop". You can, of course, say until you turn blue that this is a photograph “and that's it”. But this will only make people angry.
By the way, at 35 photos, the works are even more "indicative" in terms of processing. Is this good or bad? As I said, this is bad because it is excessive. Photoshop itself is not bad at all. Excessive Photoshop is bad. And when, due to processing, the photographs cease to resemble photographs, well-founded claims arise, disputes about whether it is a photograph, hot comments. They do not appear out of nowhere, because there really is something to find fault with, so they find fault. They did not “attack the poor girl out of envy”, but honestly say what they see: “not a photograph, but some kind of Photoshop”. This is the fault of the author, and not of those who are watching.
Maybe all the negativity to me)