Brief gallery note on MC HELIOS-44M-6 58mm 1: 2, photographer Victoria Gurtovaya.
I have been doing photography for about 3 years, at one time I was very inspired by the work of Pavel Apalkin and began to develop in the genre of female portrait. Lens HELIOS-44M-6 became for me the first worthy glass compared to whale glass. I didn’t think that I would stay on it for a long time, because I bought it just for testing, but over time I realized that it was on it, in the process of unhurried shooting, that I get the best result. I like to think that my Helios has a soul, as happens with old things ... Or it is made with a soul with skillful hands. Sometimes they ask me why this particular model? It was just a lucky break :)
All pictures were taken with the MC HELIOS-44M-6 58mm 1: 2 (this one) and camera Canon EOS 50D.
Victoria’s much more interesting works can be found at the following links:
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.
* sighs * You can just close the comments here and refer to the previous topic. Wang the same.
And the caravan is coming for us
That's for sure)))
Photos are not bad, models too, but with game processing)
Colleagues, did anyone see the difference on the figure, between m4 and m6 ??
I did not feel, although I tried quite a lot. Everything is very dependent on the instance.
Portraits are wonderful! Models are super! The handling is great! Respect !!
It’s scary to set a pond when a person picks up a decent copy of German optics from 85 mm how many emotions will be !!!!.
Very beautiful photos!
The processing is, of course, strongly expressed, but at least not in "tons", as in the last post: D
With all due respect to the author of the pictures, but the processing of faces is simply brute force, the faces are similar to the faces of toy dolls. It would seem that digital technologies give us tremendous opportunities for editing / correction, and they often do not benefit. Photos turn into pictures.
A photograph is a picture, especially since it’s not a passport
I disagree: photography is not a picture. In this case, I have the feeling that these girls were drawn, drawn uninterestingly: no emotions, character traits, lifestyle - this is not a portrait, but a photo for a magazine or portfolio. And over-processing turned these not very successful portraits into just "pictures".
Here you can see what was shot on Helios.
But when processing faces it would be nice if it (the face) somehow corresponded to hands, for example.
With “skillful hands” - about Helios? ... cough ... :))))
So, dvchina dvchin bach from afar .... :) Portraits of tsіkavі, I want deіnde to try to reconcile the denunciations. Ale tsilkovito garni photo
it is surprising that many people and even photographers have not yet understood the obvious thing - the world has entered the era of photoshop! Enough buzzing against him! There will always be exactly as much processing as the authors need to bring the raw information about the scene being shot from the cameras to the desired (!!!) result. Remember that in the days of analog photography, the most famous masters left nothing to originals, analog processing was even worse than digital processing now! Photography is not what the photographer sees, but what he wants to show to others! It's very nice that with a technique that costs about $ 200 (at the moment) the photographer gets excellent results. Yes, personally, I would also recommend her to slightly reduce the twisted sharpness, she simply is not required, especially for portraits, but this is to the taste of the author and from this her photos do not lose anything. Thanks! Continue in the same spirit!
Many people are mistaken: I am not against Photoshop, but excessiveness can kill everything beautiful / good. Once one well-known actor said: "Overkill, even in cards - bad."
On my own I will give an example simpler and understandable to everyone: if you drink a little, it turns out very mentally, but if you drink too much, it usually makes you sick.
Those who look at them and think strongly like retouched photographs: I wonder how they retouched, I want to retouch as well, as well as photoshop.
Who likes natural shots, they look at them and think: I wonder what technique they used, will my equipment pull, were reflectors used, flashes ... how were they placed?
Naturally, amateurs of retouched shots will not see anything interesting for themselves in natural shots, there is no retouching, and lovers “without Photoshop” are not interested in shots with strong retouching, because they do not see the lens drawing, do not see the flash pattern. So it turns out, some are interested and they admire the skills of a retoucher, others are interested and they admire the skills of a photographer. Whoever likes what he admires.
In general, as soon as I started doing photography, I did not process the photo at all. My canon 300d was so slow that I shot in jpeg. Then my acquaintance, a professional photographer, taught me first simple processing in the lightroom, and then a deeper retouch.
Then I am convinced that the opponents of the treatment do not know how to do this. And they don't want to study. I was like that myself. He poured comments about “the work of Jupiter” and then when he himself learned, he understood what he could achieve and what kind of work it was, he decided to be more modest and respect other people's work, and keep his negative opinion to himself. So learn to respect the work of your colleagues.
PS the author is well done, portraits are simply gorgeous.
PSS Thank you to Arkady for the new section. We are waiting for new posts about other people's work on the old optics. You look and understand that it is not glass. And in direct hands, experience, and imagination)
Good to all)
I completely agree with you, right with every word!
Such claims do not come down to the fact (or not only to the fact, depending on who has what), that there is a lot of Photoshop, but to the fact that this is not indicated, there are few original pictures. Such works are well under the tag “how to retouch”, and then a person who wants to also look for relevant information. And a person who wants to understand what kind of pictures he will receive from such and such a lens in the initial state does not see anything for himself, or, not realizing that this is retouching, and not a lens, he is misled.
So a person chooses a car, say, a VAZ 2109, watches videos, and then they do this! Dashing drifts, a set of speed at the level of BMW-M and all that. He is delighted - we must take! But the VAZ 2109 actually cannot do this, in the videos that he watched, tuned cars, with reinforced suspensions, forced engines, and so on. He must understand that what he sees is not the work of the VAZ 2109, as such, it is the work of the tuning master who made the VAZ so. And if he wants to also, he should take tuning lessons, and not run to buy a VAZ. Because driving skills won't help him - he needs more tuning skills.
Why am I writing this, because many people are looking for a lens, especially inexpensive ones, they don’t know these subtleties, they look at retouched photos, at color correction and think that they will get the same result if they choose the same lens. Naive? Can. But if they get a photo without a corresponding comment, they go the wrong way, being mistaken about the capabilities of the lens.
The same goes for any technique. And beginners, in principle, are sure that they just bought the equipment and they can immediately take wonderful photos. Therefore, you need to leave them with your desires and delusions alone
It’s immediately obvious that a person is engaged in commercial photography, the glamor of the pictures just rolls over :) Here, little remains of Helios, the nature of the lens does not appear. But the girls like that.
Three times went to watch. On the third, I understood. The first impression is a lot of makeup. Second - A lot of processing. And finally, the third. The author managed to take not just glamorous photos, but to reflect the characters, the inner essence of the models. Therefore, it seems to me, through the efforts of various technologies and people, it was possible to create something ceremonially artistic, but artistic. The lens itself played a secondary role, as the favorite brush of a portrait painter
Still would. Soviet Helios is a copy of the old Zeiss. Why so cool
I also have 1. I really appreciate it ... True, you need to buy an adapter, otherwise it takes pictures very close
An adapter with a lens (do you want to put on Nikon?) Will spoil the quality. It’s better to cut it, there’s nothing complicated, and it will cost several times cheaper than buying an adapter.