View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
florentin77
Joined: 16 Jul 2013 Posts: 4
|
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:13 am Post subject: Changing Helios 44 to ultra low contrast lens |
|
|
florentin77 wrote:
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
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010 Posts: 350 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
enzodm wrote:
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)
However, if you read the article, you could discover that the modified lens is indeed an Helios 44. _________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
GeorgeSalt
Joined: 09 Feb 2013 Posts: 336 Location: Norfolk, UK
|
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
inombrable
Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 545 Location: Salamanca, Mexico
|
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
inombrable wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
inombrable
Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 545 Location: Salamanca, Mexico
|
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
inombrable wrote:
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rick1779
Joined: 17 May 2013 Posts: 1207 Location: Italy
Expire: 2014-06-06
|
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rick1779 wrote:
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.
|
totally agreed, poor old lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57849 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
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.
|
+1 _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultron
Joined: 22 Aug 2012 Posts: 60 Location: Amsterdam
|
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultron wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4572 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
You could try to get a lens that has damaged coatings, it will be cheap because of it
I have a Canon LTM 1.8/50mm, one inner element has damaged coatings, and results ( after adding a lot of contrast in PP! ) ) look like this:
_________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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? _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
florentin77
Joined: 16 Jul 2013 Posts: 4
|
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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:-) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ZoneV
Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 1633 Location: Germany
Expire: 2011-12-02
|
Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ZoneV wrote:
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. _________________ Camera modification, repair and DIY - some links to look through: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/index-en.html
I AM A LENS NERD!
Epis, Elmaron, Emerald, Ernostar, Helioplan and Heidosmat.
Epiotar, Kameraobjektiv, Anastigmat, Epis, Meganast, Magnagon, Quinar, Culmigon, Novotrinast, Novflexar, Colorplan, Sekor, Kinon, Talon, Telemegor, Xenon, Xenar, Ultra, Ultra Star. Tessar, Janar, Visionar, Kiptar, Kipronar and Rotelar.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
wuxiekeji
Joined: 15 Aug 2012 Posts: 213
|
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:14 am Post subject: Re: Changing Helios 44 to ultra low contrast lens |
|
|
wuxiekeji wrote:
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 _________________ Canon EOS 6D | Canon EOS 60D | Canon EOS-M | Voigtlander Nokton 1.4/35 | Zeiss Distagon C-Y 4/18 | Zeiss Distagon ZF 2/28 | Samyang 1.4/35 | Zeiss Planar C-Y 1.4/50 | Zeiss Planar C-Y 1.4/85 | Zeiss Makro-Planar C-Y 2.8/100 | Zeiss Sonnar C-Y 2.8/135 | Nikkor ED Ai-S 2.8/180 | Canon FD SSC Fluorite 2.8/300 | Tair-3S 4.5/300 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
All Helios 44s are coated. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010 Posts: 350 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
enzodm wrote:
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). _________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
wuxiekeji
Joined: 15 Aug 2012 Posts: 213
|
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wuxiekeji wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
All Helios 44s are coated. |
OK, I meant a Helios that has a crappy coating and flares up easily _________________ Canon EOS 6D | Canon EOS 60D | Canon EOS-M | Voigtlander Nokton 1.4/35 | Zeiss Distagon C-Y 4/18 | Zeiss Distagon ZF 2/28 | Samyang 1.4/35 | Zeiss Planar C-Y 1.4/50 | Zeiss Planar C-Y 1.4/85 | Zeiss Makro-Planar C-Y 2.8/100 | Zeiss Sonnar C-Y 2.8/135 | Nikkor ED Ai-S 2.8/180 | Canon FD SSC Fluorite 2.8/300 | Tair-3S 4.5/300 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alternate Internet ID
Joined: 30 Mar 2011 Posts: 253 Location: UK
|
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________
“Most things in life are moments of pleasure and a lifetime of embarrassment; photography is a moment of embarrassment and a lifetime of pleasure.”
Tony Benn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma: Macro HSM 2.8-4/17-70mm
Sigma: 1.4/50mm EX DG HSM
Samsung: 3.5-5.6/20-50mm
Samsung: 2/30mm
CZJ: MC Flektogon 2.4/35mm
Tamron SP: 2.5/90mm
Helios 44M: 2/58mm
Canon FL: 1.4/50mm
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
bernhardas
Joined: 01 Jan 2013 Posts: 1437
Expire: 2017-05-23
|
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bernhardas wrote:
edited
Last edited by bernhardas on Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:01 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57849 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
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. |
_________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
TSherman
Joined: 20 Apr 2013 Posts: 9 Location: BC, Canada
|
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
TSherman wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mos6502
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 Posts: 961 Location: Austin
|
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mos6502 wrote:
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. I also had a moldy Helios once that gave a soft contrast effect. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
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. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GeorgeSalt
Joined: 09 Feb 2013 Posts: 336 Location: Norfolk, UK
|
Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
GeorgeSalt wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|