Iskra-3 from Mirfoto Camera Book

Ok Now for comparison, Zhang send these Shanghai pictures.
Shanghai were the forerunner of Seagull cameras,



Now it is possible to compare lever and shutter buttons
LP

Hey!!!
A careful examination proves the origins od Iskra 3 lever:
- Clearly came from Shanghai 203....As also the holding screw. .... But the camera top cover? We call it the Capot, Like the French indeed.
LP

I've been looking at it all morning and couple of more people here as well that I asked just to look at the picture.. A lot of of this perceived distortion on the photograph I and whoever I showed it to believe is from extreme lighting from the left which does create some shadows on the camera that create optical illusions... the differences in the ellipses of the left and right hubs can be in opinion attributed to the slight rotation of the camera counter-clockwise as well as the distortion of lens and the harsh left lighting creating optical illusion... the top cover and rangefinder frame line parallelism is also optical illusion IMHO, the gradient shadow emphasize these lines and create non-existing curvature since the camera is slightly rotated to the right.

To Luiz - yes the levers look almost identical but center screw seems different..

Please go easy on me ,
Vlad

Vlad!
Observe again! The light effect disguises reality! Enlarge the picture! At first I thought there were a button in its center like Zenit E but the screws on the Iskra 3 lever go up to the two holes in the center!
The camera exists it is not a photo montage but it can be results of a Dream of a Summer Night!
Now two recent cameras from Zhang (our Chinese consultant) the Seagull 203 (rare) and similar Tahiu.






These have complete different levers.
I love these investigations!!!!!
LP

quote:

---

Originally posted by nightphoto

Hello Aidas,

Thanks for the story and opinion from Viktor about the origins and what he knows about it. It sounds a bit unusual that Igor would want to be so anonymous in every way. Possibly this story is true, however it sounds strange and could also just be a story given for some other reason. For example, if it is known that Igor's father was a KMZ worker, then it must be known who this KMZ worker was ... unless that is just what Igor has said...
I am not in Viktor's position, but if I had all these photos from Igor and was planning to use them in a book, I would examine all of them very carefully to see if others had details that looked unusual or if the photographs themselves had things that looked like they may have been doctored, etc.

Regards, Bill

---

Hello Bill,

If I rememeber correctly, Viktor possess material about 1700 soviet cameras (including variations either ...) right now. He did a great job to collect this huge information, but ... ... beeing an artistic nature, sometimes he's not concentrated enough to the pragmatic studies of camera origin, i could say ... That's why I'm afraid to find a lot of inaccuracies in his new book ...

Best Regards,
Aidas

Dear Vlad,

I have carefully considered all of the points in your last post and have referred back to the photo from Aidas to consider each of your points. As gently as I can say it ... in my opinion you are wrong about both the shape of the elipse (comparing the shapes of the film advance wind knob, the release button, and the rewind knob), as well as the fact that the viewfinder-rangefinder-meter frame is not parallel with the top edge of the top plate.
Although there is a senario where a lens can distort elipses, this is not one of them. If it was, the release button would have the same shape as the film advance knob, or very close to it, since they are next to each other.
As far as the frame being not parallel, you can see, by looking at the non reflective black edges of the window, that this is not a case of an optical illusion.
Of course, the longer you look at the photo the more right it becomes as this is a function of the brain making visual images correct to our expectations.
Yes the lighting is from one side, but many photos are like this and do not show these distortion. IMHO something is either wrong with the photo or the camera ... or maybe both.
Many good reasons to send photos of fantasy cameras anonymously, saying they are real, to an author who may publish them in a book, and who has put out a call for unusual cameras in a public way! Much money to possibly be made by forgers when the book comes out! I have been photoshopping photographs for ten years so I know it is not so hard to do this type of thing.

Regards, Bill

and the good news is ... Viktor have decided finally to participate in Bievre Fair next year, so many interesting stories will be told about origins of his book ... and much more as he said recently ...


Aidas

Bill,

I'm not claiming anything, just merely stating my perception, it may be very well wrong and the opinion of people who I showed it to got group-polarized.. you do have a good point with the release button, the ellipses are off... my first thought was that since the winding knob is in the top left corner of the lens of the camera that took this photograph, this may be some odd corner distortion... but yes, very very strange and I will probably go with your expert opinion since I know you have much better eyes at these kind of things than me ... just also trying to play devils advocate here to further develop the discussion and maybe get to the root cause...

Vlad

Another Shanghai from Zhang


Now you can see copy of the light meter that now is only an indicator.
LP

Vlad
About distortion:
See this picture from http://www.zenitcamera.com/mans/iskra-2/iskra-2.html

This is a drawing , but obtained from a picture.
regards
LP

Maybe I was too subtle beforehand. Whilst the shapes and elipses are all indicators of a problem, clearly the photo is an optical impossibility. There is a step in the left hand side of the front of top plate where the lever/knob is. Even though the photo tries to convey that there is a step on the rear edge, it defies the laws of perspective. Hold up any camera at the same angle with a step and not only will there be a step down at the front, there will be an obvious step down at the back (here the two edges are in line - impossible except in circumstances noted in my first post). Whether the Iskra 3 exists or not is not for me to say but this is a 100% certain manipulated photo.
Regards,
Paul

Hi Paul, and by the way ... Welcome to the forum from me too!

You are exactly correct and the photo is an optical impossibility for just the reason you stated. As you say ... no way can the back part of the lowered step appear to be even with the back edge of the higher part of the top plate.

I think that this photo is made up of about three photos ... probably of Iskra-2 and a Shanghai-203 or possibly an Agfa model, as Luiz brought up. Here is the photo with some red arrows added where I thought it looks doctored or separate photos joined together with. To me the red logo also looks weird, with little or no depth to it. All of this would be easy to do because of the bright lighting and flat planes ... but it could have been done better.





Regards, Bill

Here is the photo with arrows:




Regards, Bill

Thanks Bill. You certainly have an eye for subtle detail! As Zoom and you discussed before, the lever wind and shutter button are obvious issues too. The very sharp top left (looking at the camera)corner of the viewfinder frame could be a production problem but looks unnatural to me compared to the other three as does the rest of the top plane of the frame and I am largely persuaded by the other anomalys as at least something to analyse further.

However in all fairness, the image has been extracted from its original background (which can be seen through the right hand strap lug) and some of the edge uneveness, such as near the accessory shoe, could be due to that. Or not. Removing the background would make manipulation easier but it may be innocently done for effect as well.

Personally, I think your theories about how the composite was achieved and its purpose are very logical although no one of course can know for sure. As we agree, a genuine image and proof of the Iskra 3 it is not.

I hope it gains no credibility through Victor's book which in other regards certainly seems to promise an interesting addition to our knowledge base. I guess that if there are too many inaccuracies as Aidas fears, it will not be a reference work as such but will become an alternate source of information engendering many hours of discussion about the more perplexing entries. Whilst that would be amusing and perhaps informative, there are also dangers in perpetuating myths which may not have real substance.
Regards,
Paul

huuuhuu hhhuu...
I confirm :
checking my chinese cameras collection : some parts came from china cameras (top from seagull, lever too (or shangai or hongmei ....)
lever came from seagull 203 etc.
may be this camera never exist : it's only a pictures assembly as you wrote...
very sharp eyes guys !!! ((zorki's evindently )
Alain

I humbly yield the floor. . You guys obviously know what you are talking about here much more than me. All I can say if it weren't for your catches, I would've passed this image...

Hi,
I copied the image from the site to the local drive and zoomed in to the Iskra inscription. The pixalization around the edges of the name does not blend smoothly into the silver surface of the camera. It could be inserted from another location or it could be JPEG artifact can't tell for sure.
imcphoto

Hello Bill
Perfect explanation! true photo montage!
regards
LP

What you say about the Zenit 66?
see Perspective distortion on ellipses!



LP

Luiz, I don't want to get a reputation as a naysayer here but I think that you are correct about the knobs. Also a couple of other points that cause me some concern.

Whilst I know nothing about what the 66 should look like, the fold in the prism that goes up one side, across the top and down the other looks like a groove to me - surely it can't be a real reflection on a simple angled edge?

Also the right hand end of the top plate (left on the photo) has a nice metallic look and a radiused edge as expected from stamping. However, the front is completely flat in both tone and edge shaping -its as if the front has been filed flat. Related to this is that the top edge is a bit wonky and the shadow from the knob ends unnaturally at the line without any gradation. May simply be blown highlights but it doesn't look right to me and the lighting is too flat in any case.

With due acknowledgement of imcphoto's assessment of the Iskra 3, the name and model text both have significant pixelation artefacts. Testing several photos of Zorki 4s, this can happen around characters but usually similar effects can be found near other hard edge contrast areas too. Here, the artefats appear to be inconsistant with other areas other than the viewfinder trim. I am sure there are other issues as well but somebody else can look for those.

I think it was said in the original post that the sources of the photos were the same. If that is the case, then my suspicions would be even greater. The Iskra 3 image is an impossibility, this one is more subtle but my personal opinion is that it also is a fake. Others may think differently and have good reason to do so.
Regards,
Paul