Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Changing Helios 44 to ultra low contrast lens
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:13 am    Post subject: Changing Helios 44 to ultra low contrast lens Reply with quote

Hello,

Dog Schidt Optiks offers lenses that show "ultra low contrast" pictures can be seen here: http://www.eoshd.com/content/9840/digital-goes-back-to-the-70s-1st-impressions-of-dog-schnit-optiks-flare-factory-58-lens-and-sample-photos

My question is: Can I do the same to the Helios 44? I mean he must change something to the lens and I hope someone here can help me with that. I really like the 70s look of the ultra low contrast pictures.

Best regards, Florentin

Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OMG, he's destroying perfectly good lenses!

You can do the same in PP without destroying your lens.

I think he named his company appropriately, dog schidt indeed.

Evil or Very Mad


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the only good reason for doing that is video, where maybe postprocessing takes long times and you cannot know in advance the overall result. For static pictures, PP is much less destructive (try instagram, to tell one) Wink

However, if you read the article, you could discover that the modified lens is indeed an Helios 44.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
You can do the same in PP without destroying your lens.


For HD video it's much, much quicker to use a modified lens. It's not as if they're using up the precious last stocks of ultra-rare lenses. Unless you've an insanely fast PC, rendering the output from HD footage is extremely processor intensive and takes a lot of time. What you can achieve with a still image in moments, has to be repeated for every frame to output at 24/50 fps.

If it's the effect you want, then get it anyway you want. The rest of the world doesn't have to like it or the way you got to it. I suspect that the people that like this sort of effect would be secretly pleased that most of the people on this forum wouldn't like it.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree, if that low contrast is what you are looking for, is much better (and more controlled) to do it in PP, almost any imaging software can allow you to do that. This way you will have a perfectly normal helios 44 if you need it later.

But if you want to experiment with your lenses, I don't know how he makes it but maybe he is removing the coating of the lens in some way (acid treatment???). If you want to go this way hope anyone in here could be of more help.

edit:

"I have a stretched oval effect in mine, which gives a quasi-anamorphic look to bokeh. Wide open is how the lens achieves the glorious flare, dreamy low contrast and tint (the edges of the glass elements are painted) which is created by internal reflection. I find this creates a lower contrast and a softer image at the edges whilst usually remaining pin sharp in the centre"

There you have it.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GeorgeSalt wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
You can do the same in PP without destroying your lens.


For HD video it's much, much quicker to use a modified lens. It's not as if they're using up the precious last stocks of ultra-rare lenses. Unless you've an insanely fast PC, rendering the output from HD footage is extremely processor intensive and takes a lot of time. What you can achieve with a still image in moments, has to be repeated for every frame to output at 24/50 fps.

If it's the effect you want, then get it anyway you want. The rest of the world doesn't have to like it or the way you got to it. I suspect that the people that like this sort of effect would be secretly pleased that most of the people on this forum wouldn't like it.



+1


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
OMG, he's destroying perfectly good lenses!

You can do the same in PP without destroying your lens.

I think he named his company appropriately, dog schidt indeed.

Evil or Very Mad


totally agreed, poor old lenses Evil or Very Mad


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
OMG, he's destroying perfectly good lenses!

You can do the same in PP without destroying your lens.

I think he named his company appropriately, dog schidt indeed.

Evil or Very Mad


+1


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A helios with cleaning marks should not be hard to find.
I have a zebra style Helios 44-2 with cleaning marks, it is still sharp but has very low contrast, and some glow around the higlights.
I'll take it out to see if I can make it flare like he does.
btw the page shows an old style helios 44 on a 5d but these hit the mirror usually, so I read.
Of course you can shave a little off the lens barrel.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You could try to get a lens that has damaged coatings, it will be cheap because of it Smile
I have a Canon LTM 1.8/50mm, one inner element has damaged coatings, and results ( after adding a lot of contrast in PP! Smile) ) look like this:





PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Internal reflections give you flare like that, I imagine that's why he chose the Helios 44 - it's all metal so you can polish the inside to make it shiny.

Perhaps try painting the inside of an old cheapo lens with white paint?


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hello,

thanks for all your replies!

i was looking on ebay for an old defect lens. habent for one yet! i got a hexanon 40mm for 17€ - but that stays the way it is! im working on getting a helios! whoch one do you guys prefere? the 44M2?

thanks for helping:-)


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don´t think it is a sin to modify a Helios 44. It is not a rare lens.

Every picture could be created in Photoshop, one even does not need a image to start with, but can "paint" each pixel with a bit of imagination. I do not have that much imagination, and not that time, so I try to get the pictures as good as possible out of the camera.
A bit of Lightroom use should make it a good image.

Furthermore I think not every effect of a special lens could be made with Photoshop and some simple filters - it is most likely much work to get real Trioplan 100 wideopen bokeh.
Or to create softness and glow of a soft focus lens.

This is part of the reason why I like manual lenses - they are sometimes special - for me better than Photoshop.
And this + my studies as image engineer are the reason why I like to modify lenses.
I think these dog schidt lenses help people with no love to thinker to get images they want - not a bad thing.
I am happy about photographers who learn that perfect lenses are not the single possible way to get good images.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:14 am    Post subject: Re: Changing Helios 44 to ultra low contrast lens Reply with quote

florentin77 wrote:
My question is: Can I do the same to the Helios 44? I mean he must change something to the lens and I hope someone here can help me with that.


Get a Helios 44-2 which is uncoated and shine a light into the lens as you take the picture Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All Helios 44s are coated.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

florentin77 wrote:
hello,

thanks for all your replies!

i was looking on ebay for an old defect lens. habent for one yet! i got a hexanon 40mm for 17€ - but that stays the way it is! im working on getting a helios! whoch one do you guys prefere? the 44M2?

thanks for helping:-)


take the cheapest you find - you are going to ruin it, no need for the best one (and differences are minimal).


PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
All Helios 44s are coated.


OK, I meant a Helios that has a crappy coating and flares up easily Smile


PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having work in film and TV for 20 years we have a saying.
Shit in, shit out.

You must be 100% on this, because when you change your mind, that footage isn't ever going to be rescued.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:01 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alternate Internet ID wrote:
Having work in film and TV for 20 years we have a saying.
Shit in, shit out.

You must be 100% on this, because when you change your mind, that footage isn't ever going to be rescued.



Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Confused I am a little surprised by some of these critiques - Personally I like manual glass is because the images are unique - some of my lenses are slightly soft, some glowy - some with crazy bokeh, none technically quite as good as modern AF glass. But once I get to know each lens's idiosyncrasies I feel I can use them to create images with slightly more depth than what I can get with technically better glass... Maybe with a lot of careful thought and planning you can add some of that depth in post, but a lot of the time you can't - I don't see how this is any different.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alternate Internet ID wrote:
Having work in film and TV for 20 years we have a saying.
Shit in, shit out.

You must be 100% on this, because when you change your mind, that footage isn't ever going to be rescued.


Exactly, my degree is in film & TV production and one thing they always drummed into us was to record things in 'the clear' because you can always add an effect later, but you can't take it off.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's also probably not that hard to find lenses in bad shape. I have an ISCO Westar with an abraded front element if anybody wants a special effect haze/soft focus lens. Very Happy I also had a moldy Helios once that gave a soft contrast effect.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you would be better off looking for lenses with low contrast that haven't been butchered, then charged double what they are worth.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From what I can find on the web, there seems to be a number of different alterations they're making to these lenses.

The front element is being stripped of its coating, and sometimes re-coated - I've found a "red flare" version on the web made by someone else, and whatever they're using as the coating does seem to be influencing the colour of flare under some circumstances. Somewhere in front of the rear element a cats-eye insert is being added. This gives a bokeh shape similar to the characteristic anamorphic look.

And as I said, most of this forum wouldn't be expected to understand this. And the responses to this thread are pretty much what I expected here.