View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010 Posts: 574 Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 12:00 am Post subject: Got my Helios 44-2 |
|
|
revers wrote:
It is a very nice clean lens without even any dust inside. It came with the "original filter" that we were not able to figure out what it was for from the ad. So here is a shot of it hoping one of you may know from the markings.
Now I am waiting on an adapter to use the lens. _________________ Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Close up lens/filter? _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
I think it could be color filter.
"Г" letter probably stands for "Голубой" which means light blue or cyan. "1.4x" is likely intensity of the filter, the symbol (C letter in circle and triangle) means Lytharino (LZOS factory) and 49x0.75 are parameters of the thread. _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Farside
Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 6557 Location: Ireland
Expire: 2013-12-27
|
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Farside wrote:
no-x is right - the 1.4 is the Filter Factor so you know (on a totally manual non-metered camera) what exposure to use. Multiply your chosen exposure by 1.4. _________________ Dave - Moderator
Camera Fiend and Biograph Operator
If I wanted soot and whitewash I'd be a chimney sweep and house painter.
The Lenses of Farside (click)
BUY FRESH FOMAPAN TO HELP KEEP THE FACTORY ALIVE ---
Foma Campaign topic -
http://forum.mflenses.com/foma-campaign-t55443.html
FOMAPAN on forum -
http://www.mflenses.com/fs.php?sw=Fomapan
Webshop Norway
http://www.fomafoto.com/
Webshop Czech
https://fomaobchod.cz/inshop/scripts/shop.aspx?action=DoChangeLanguage&LangID=4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010 Posts: 574 Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
revers wrote:
Thanks guys.
It is definitely not a close-up as it only adds a blue colour cast.
" Multiply your chosen exposure by 1.4." I take it then you would use +5 exposure compensation. ??
I will take a couple pics today with & without the filter & post them in this thread. _________________ Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
I think +0.4 exposure compensation should be used (in fact +0.3 or +0.5, because many cameras don't allow to set 0.4 value) _________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RioRico
Joined: 12 Mar 2010 Posts: 1120 Location: California or Guatemala or somewhere
|
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RioRico wrote:
That looks like a light-blue color-correction filter, something like an 80A or 80C to correct for tungsten light. Back in pre-digital days, color film and filter choices were the "white balance" controls. Such filters are irrelevant on digital cameras... EXCEPT for a special usage I've explored a bit: spectrum slicing.
The most common spectrum-slicing involves IR-pass filters, where we block most visible light, with cutoffs at 680nm or 720nm or 780nm. A violet or blue or cyan filter works at the other end of the visible spectrum. Something like a 47B blue-violet filter might be used with a UV light source for forensics or scientific work, looking for evidence only visible within narrow slices of the visible spectrum. Or, blue filters can be used as virtual time machines -- and therein lies a tale.
The earliest photographic emulsions were only sensitive to 'actinic' light, UV-violet-blue. ALL photo emulsions only see actinic light, UNLESS dyes are added to pass other colors. Such dyes were first developed in the 1870's, for orthochromatic (green-sensitive) emulsions, and panchromatic (all-color) emulsions existed after 1900. If you've ever used a copier where yellow or orange highlighter marks are rendered as black, then you've seen orthochromatic sensitivity in action. Ortho aka 'copy' film is still available, AFAIK.
Time machines? Using a blue or violet-blue filter takes you back to the early days of photography. Look at photos of the US Civil War, and you see that tones don't look 'right' -- complexions are pale, leaves are dark, skies are washed-out. Shooting monochrome, such filters impose the same sensitivity limitations, and also subtly change focus and DOF. I first noticed these effects when I shot slow ortho film in a slow 35mm folder (50/3.5 lens) and noted thin DOF at full-body-portrait range. They looked like 1860's images.
So, a journey into the past. A dark blue or violet-blue optical filter may require a tripod; light-blue filters (like the Russian one above) are better for handheld work. I'll set my Pentax K20D to shoot RAW, then set the Capture Mode to B&W, maybe with Blue or Cyan filtration. I use those settings as the starting point for RAW development in PP. Or I may skip the optical filter and just use the in-camera digital filter to hint at what the optical filter may do -- but as with IR, that's not the same as using the optical filter. Anyway, I definitely get an ancient feel to the tones. And the images definitely need some PP work. _________________ Too many film+digi cams+lenses, oh my -- Pentax K20D, K-1000, M42s, more
The simple truth is this: There are no neutral photographs. --F-Stop Fitzgerald |
|
Back to top |
|
|
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010 Posts: 574 Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
revers wrote:
no-X wrote: |
I think +0.4 exposure compensation should be used (in fact +0.3 or +0.5, because many cameras don't allow to set 0.4 value) |
I meant .5.
Well I took some shots & all I can say is whatever it is for I wont be using it. When magnified it is clear the filter reduces image quality besides adding a colour cast.
I used a Takumar 55/1.8, Aperture priority, ISO 100 & f 5.6 for all shots. The camera selected shutter speed.
1/1. Front yard
no filter 1/200s
1/2. with filter 1/160s
2/1. Clematis
no filter 1/320s
2/2. with filter 1/250s
The above were shot in RAW, developed in Lightroom with auto tone & converted to jpeg & re-sized in PhotoScape. No other processing. _________________ Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RioRico
Joined: 12 Mar 2010 Posts: 1120 Location: California or Guatemala or somewhere
|
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RioRico wrote:
revers wrote: |
Well I took some shots & all I can say is whatever it is for I wont be using it. When magnified it is clear the filter reduces image quality besides adding a colour cast. |
Yes, it does add a color cast; that is its job. Shoot color in tungsten light and you'll see the effect. Shoot B&W in any light and see what happens to tones. Lacking Lightroom, I develop RAW in PentaxPhotoLab, which allows me to select digital filtration, so I may add Blue or Cyan or Magenta for different tonal effects with such an optical filter.
Again, for general digital color photography, this filter is quite irrelevant. If you don't shoot B&W and aren't interested in limited spectral response, you'll have no use for it. _________________ Too many film+digi cams+lenses, oh my -- Pentax K20D, K-1000, M42s, more
The simple truth is this: There are no neutral photographs. --F-Stop Fitzgerald |
|
Back to top |
|
|
revers
Joined: 13 May 2010 Posts: 574 Location: In the country just north of Toronto Canada
|
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
revers wrote:
Thanks RioRico for your detailed information. Your post must have come in when I was composing mine. _________________ Ron
Olympus OM-D E-M5, 14-42 & 45/1.8.
Panasonic G1, GF1, 14-45, 45-200 & various legacy lenses.
Canon S5, Sony 1.7 Tele-converter & Raynox DCR 150 Macro converter. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RioRico
Joined: 12 Mar 2010 Posts: 1120 Location: California or Guatemala or somewhere
|
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RioRico wrote:
You're welcome. Filters are fun to re-purpose and manipulate, especially old color-correction filters that are now unwanted and cheap. If photography is literally "drawing with light", then optical filters are like different pencils and chalks. Digital filters just don't give the same effects as colored glass and gels. _________________ Too many film+digi cams+lenses, oh my -- Pentax K20D, K-1000, M42s, more
The simple truth is this: There are no neutral photographs. --F-Stop Fitzgerald |
|
Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008 Posts: 6950 Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
FL filters I find useful for just after sunset or just adding a purple cast. _________________ Casual attendance these days |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|