hasselblad Tue, 8 May 2001 Volume 1 : Number 1220 In this issue: Re: New MF Film Scanners Re: digital prints and backdrops Re: New MF Film Scanners The 120 Makro's RE: The 120 Makro's Re: The 120 Makro's Re: The 120 Makro's Re: 4504 flash and TTL cord...and 20x body... proshots and millers lab Re: The 120 Makro's Re: The 120 Makro's Re: proshots and millers lab Re: The 120 Makro's Re: A16 Backs RE: A16 Backs RE: The 120 Makro's Re: A16 Backs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 15:15:45 +0200 From: Michael Buchstaller To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: New MF Film Scanners Message-ID: >>What the heck is "silver fast?" >it is the name of a third party scanning software Yes, but an extremely crappy one.=20 I have it found boudled with numerous scanners that i have used over the years and always found that the original manufacturer=B4s TWAIN driver used in photoshop i *far* superior to silverfast - i cannot believe that someone will pay more for that. -Michael Buchstaller ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 11:56:31 -0400 From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video To: Subject: Re: digital prints and backdrops Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010507115545.00c5f430@bnhpop1.bhphotovideo.com> At 03:26 AM 05/06/2001, you wrote: >Second subject: backdrops. Where can I get "hand painted" (not the usual >dyed muslin) backdrops? A place called Scenic Design (I think that's the >name) makes some beautiful backdrops (and props) but at $700 each they are >out of my price range. Hand painted WILL cost more. Try http://www.backgroundsbymaheu.com/ -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 11:57:29 -0400 From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video To: Subject: Re: New MF Film Scanners Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010507115651.00b6bb30@bnhpop1.bhphotovideo.com> At 03:26 AM 05/06/2001, you wrote: >What the heck is "silver fast?" See http://www.silverfast.com/english/ Awesome software. -- regards, Henry Posner Director of Sales and Training B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:35:02 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: "hasselblad@kelvin.net" Subject: The 120 Makro's Message-ID: <3AF73126.3DB58E9A@rabiner.cncoffice.com> On the Zeiss site one can ascertain that the 120 macro for the Contax 645= is 8 thinnish elements in 5 groups. It is the APO-Makro-Planar T* f/120 and so= me of the elements are floating. The Hasselblad Makro-Planar T* 4/120 CFi which i just got has 6 elements = in 4 grounds=20 none of which are even treading water let alone floating. To cheer me up they say: "It is based on the Carl Zeiss Planar=AE lens design type, which offers v= ery good close-up potential and is therefore also chosen as the basis for the ultr= a high resolution Carl Zeiss S-Planar=AE lenses for the microchip-industry, whic= h are, in their new version, called Starlith, the most sophisticated lenses of our = day." If i am more one with Starlith i can forge the floating elements.=20 (I still think i deserve a Starlith decoder ring or get let in on some of= thier secrets!) http://www.zeiss.de/de/photo/home_e.nsf/allBySubject/Launch+-+Zeiss-engl+= NotesTemplate For Rollei 6000 Makro-Planar=AE 4/120 HFT PQS there is less info on the Z= eiss site. Go to the Rollei site and still not much. Is it the same as the Hasselblad 120? Which of the 120 macros would be the best? Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 17:16:47 -0700 From: "bradley hanson" To: , Subject: RE: The 120 Makro's Message-ID: Hi Mark- As a former Contax 645 shooter, I have owned both 120 Macros. While I found the absurdly long focus "throw" of the Contax Zeiss to be furstrating for handheld candids, I think the bokeh and sharpness of that lens was superior to my 120 Macro for the Hasselblad. Both great lenses, but the Contax version was "greater"... When I compare the results from my 120 and my 180, the 180 is clearly sharper, especially at longer distances. The 120 Makro is stunning at minimum focus (or near it), but anything over 6 feet looks comparatively soft to me, at least compared to the 180 Sonnar. b r a d l e y h a n s o n Seattle, WA http://www.hansonphotography.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Rabiner [mailto:mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 4:35 PM > To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > Subject: The 120 Makro's > > > On the Zeiss site one can ascertain that the 120 macro for the > Contax 645 is 8 > thinnish elements in 5 groups. It is the APO-Makro-Planar T* > f/120 and some of > the elements are floating. > > The Hasselblad Makro-Planar T* 4/120 CFi which i just got has 6 > elements in 4 > grounds > > none of which are even treading water let alone floating. > To cheer me up they say: > > "It is based on the Carl Zeiss PlanarŪ lens design type, which > offers very good > close-up potential and is therefore also chosen as the basis for > the ultra high > resolution Carl Zeiss S-PlanarŪ lenses for the > microchip-industry, which are, in > their new version, called Starlith, the most sophisticated lenses > of our day." > > If i am more one with Starlith i can forge the floating elements. > > (I still think i deserve a Starlith decoder ring or get let in on > some of thier secrets!) > > http://www.zeiss.de/de/photo/home_e.nsf/allBySubject/Launch+-+Zeis s-engl+NotesTemplate For Rollei 6000 Makro-PlanarŪ 4/120 HFT PQS there is less info on the Zeiss site. Go to the Rollei site and still not much. Is it the same as the Hasselblad 120? Which of the 120 macros would be the best? Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content. This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates. Please turn off HTML mail features prior to posting to this list. Use text mode only. To change your subscription status, go to: http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad Digest archives are stored at http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 20:55:29 EDT From: BLADHASS@aol.com To: bradley.hanson@home.com, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: The 120 Makro's Message-ID: <65.14000427.28289e01@aol.com> --part1_65.14000427.28289e01_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/7/01 5:32:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bradley.hanson@home.com writes: > When I compare the results from my 120 and my 180, the 180 is clearly > sharper, especially at longer distances. The 120 Makro is stunning at > minimum focus (or near it), but anything over 6 feet looks comparatively > soft to me, at least compared to the 180 Sonnar. > > b r a d l e y h a n s o n > Seattle, WA > It seems that my 180mm looks better then my 100mm. But I consider myself lucky to own both great lens. Of course I cannot afford film now. Peter --part1_65.14000427.28289e01_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/7/01 5:32:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bradley.hanson@home.com writes:


When I compare the results from my 120 and my 180, the 180 is clearly
sharper, especially at longer distances. The 120 Makro is stunning at
minimum focus (or near it), but anything over 6 feet looks comparatively
soft to me, at least compared to the 180 Sonnar.

b r a d l e y  h a n s o n
Seattle, WA
http://www.hansonphotography.com


It seems that my 180mm looks better then my 100mm. But I consider myself
lucky to own both great lens. Of course I cannot afford film now.
Peter --part1_65.14000427.28289e01_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 18:36:13 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: The 120 Makro's Message-ID: <3AF74D8E.D41ACA6F@rabiner.cncoffice.com> > In a message dated 5/7/01 5:32:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > bradley.hanson@home.com writes: > > > > When I compare the results from my 120 and my 180, the 180 is clearly > > sharper, especially at longer distances. The 120 Makro is stunning at > > minimum focus (or near it), but anything over 6 feet looks comparatively > > soft to me, at least compared to the 180 Sonnar. > > > > b r a d l e y h a n s o n > > Seattle, WA > > > > It seems that my 180mm looks better then my 100mm. But I consider myself > lucky to own both great lens. Of course I cannot afford film now. > Peter Harder to believe though as the longer a lens is the harder it is to make sharp. My money still goes to the 100 for my sharpness and general imaging vote! Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 18:52:59 -0700 From: helenadick@worldnet.att.net To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 4504 flash and TTL cord...and 20x body... Message-ID: <3AF7517B.6B1755BF@worldnet.att.net> Austin, you had better send me your address as I can't find it on my computer. Sorry I did not know much about the old magazines for the 1600F and 1000F, but I have always stayed away from them. I do have you all packed and ready to go out tomorrow. All I need is the correct address. Thanks, -- _______________________________ Dick Werner 112 South Brighton St. Burbank, Ca., 91506 (818) 845-4667 helenadick@worldnet.att.net http://home.att.net/~blackbird711/manual.txt _______________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 21:19:38 -0500 From: "Tom Miller" To: Subject: proshots and millers lab Message-ID: has any one been having problems with density on proshots since millers has moved to Columbia. thanks tom http://www.tommillerphotography.com/ Tom Miller Tom Miller Photography 3848 N. 9th Abilene, TX 79603 Office: 915-675-0935 Fax: 915-672-9670 mailto:tdmill@earthlink.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 22:15:23 EDT From: Digiratidoc@aol.com To: bradley.hanson@home.com, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: The 120 Makro's Message-ID: Speaking of Makros (or Macros in this case), has anyone seen the new Pentax 100mm f/4 macro? A friend of mine has one and it does 1:2 alone and 1:1 with the (supplied) converter. The converter is a supplementary lens I guess because it screws into the front of the lens under the (supplied) cone-shaped recessed lens hood. The pictures he showed me he took with it looked superb and the darn thing only set him back $1200.00! Why can't Zeiss give us a Makro lens that'll do 1:2 or even (gasp) 1:1? Surely they have the technology to do it. Of course the Pentax has no shutter, on the other hand it will cover 6X7. I wouldn't even care if it cost more, but $1200 would be nice;) Jim Laird ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 22:46:44 -0400 From: "LEO WOLK" To: Subject: Re: The 120 Makro's Message-ID: <01c0d769$1e029ec0$2465570c@fofyplfq> They Have! Check out the 135 + Variable Extension Tube. Best, Leo. -----Original Message----- From: Digiratidoc@aol.com To: bradley.hanson@home.com ; hasselblad@kelvin.net Date: Monday, May 07, 2001 10:18 PM Subject: Re: The 120 Makro's Why can't Zeiss give us a Makro lens that'll do 1:2 or even (gasp) 1:1? Jim Laird ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 23:23:37 EDT From: BLADHASS@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: proshots and millers lab Message-ID: --part1_ba.1388ce20.2828c0b9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tom How many people do you think use Millers on this newsgroup. I know Millers is a great lab. I became a customer about a year ago and love the lab, so I hope they do not have any problems. I have not used any of the new features yet, not sure that they have it going yet. Peter --part1_ba.1388ce20.2828c0b9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tom
How many people do you think use Millers on this newsgroup. I know Millers is
a great lab. I became a customer about a year ago and love the lab, so I hope
they do not have any problems. I have not used any of the new features yet,
not sure that they have it going yet.
Peter --part1_ba.1388ce20.2828c0b9_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 20:27:01 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: The 120 Makro's Message-ID: <3AF76784.5F219EF8@rabiner.cncoffice.com> Digiratidoc@aol.com wrote: > > Speaking of Makros (or Macros in this case), has anyone seen the new Pentax > 100mm f/4 macro? A friend of mine has one and it does 1:2 alone and 1:1 with > the (supplied) converter. The converter is a supplementary lens I guess > because it screws into the front of the lens under the (supplied) cone-shaped > recessed lens hood. The pictures he showed me he took with it looked superb > and the darn thing only set him back $1200.00! Why can't Zeiss give us a > Makro lens that'll do 1:2 or even (gasp) 1:1? Surely they have the technology > to do it. Of course the Pentax has no shutter, on the other hand it will > cover 6X7. I wouldn't even care if it cost more, but $1200 would be nice;) > > Jim Laird They say the added tubes "reminds us" about bellows factor. Mark Rabiner so we don't forget Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 23:36:33 EDT From: BLADHASS@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: A16 Backs Message-ID: <99.146c93d4.2828c3c1@aol.com> --part1_99.146c93d4.2828c3c1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just bought a A16 back and it was cheap and the insert does not match, but no big deal to me. My question of the group is this, I have a 1964 A16 back and the rollers measure 2 3/4" from top to bottom, on my A32 backs they measure 2 1/2", plus my 1994 A16 also measures 2 1/2". So what's going on? Did Hassy in the early days of the 16 back just use the insert from the 6x6 backs? The guy I bought the back from does have the matching shell to my mismatched insert, this dates to 1969, and this insert measures 2 3/4". Of course I think he may have a problem if using a 645 insert that measures 2 1/2" in a 6x6 back. Peter Peterson --part1_99.146c93d4.2828c3c1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just bought a A16 back and it was cheap and the insert does not match, but
no big deal to me. My question of the group is this, I have a 1964 A16 back
and the rollers measure 2 3/4" from top to bottom, on my A32 backs they
measure 2 1/2", plus  my 1994 A16 also measures 2 1/2". So what's going on?
Did Hassy in the early days of the 16 back just use the insert from the 6x6
backs? The guy I bought the back from does have the matching shell to my
mismatched insert, this dates to 1969, and this insert measures 2 3/4". Of
course I think he may have a problem if using a 645 insert that measures 2
1/2" in a 6x6 back.
Peter Peterson --part1_99.146c93d4.2828c3c1_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 23:45:41 -0400 From: "Austin Franklin" To: Subject: RE: A16 Backs Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C0D74F.D3344420 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If it was made in 1964, it would not be an "A" back... Anyway, I don't believe the insert should matter...the spacing is taken care of by the gearing in the side. -----Original Message----- From: BLADHASS@aol.com [mailto:BLADHASS@aol.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 11:37 PM To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: A16 Backs I just bought a A16 back and it was cheap and the insert does not match, but no big deal to me. My question of the group is this, I have a 1964 A16 back and the rollers measure 2 3/4" from top to bottom, on my A32 backs they measure 2 1/2", plus my 1994 A16 also measures 2 1/2". So what's going on? Did Hassy in the early days of the 16 back just use the insert from the 6x6 backs? The guy I bought the back from does have the matching shell to my mismatched insert, this dates to 1969, and this insert measures 2 3/4". Of course I think he may have a problem if using a 645 insert that measures 2 1/2" in a 6x6 back. Peter Peterson ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C0D74F.D3344420 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If it=20 was made in 1964, it would not be an "A" back...
 
Anyway, I don't believe the insert should matter...the spacing = is taken=20 care of by the gearing in the side.
-----Original Message-----
From: BLADHASS@aol.com=20 [mailto:BLADHASS@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 11:37=20 PM
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: A16=20 Backs

I just=20 bought a A16 back and it was cheap and the insert does not match, but =
no=20 big deal to me. My question of the group is this, I have a 1964 A16 = back=20
and the rollers measure 2 3/4" from top to bottom, on my A32 backs = they=20
measure 2 1/2", plus  my 1994 A16 also measures 2 1/2". So = what's=20 going on?
Did Hassy in the early days of the 16 back just use the = insert=20 from the 6x6
backs? The guy I bought the back from does have the = matching=20 shell to my
mismatched insert, this dates to 1969, and this insert = measures 2 3/4". Of
course I think he may have a problem if using = a 645=20 insert that measures 2
1/2" in a 6x6 back.
Peter = Peterson=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C0D74F.D3344420-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 21:18:23 -0700 From: "bradley hanson" To: , Subject: RE: The 120 Makro's Message-ID: Hi Mark- Despite several exceptions, that theory is usually correct, however the 120 Makro is optimized for close distances, and it's resolution seems to drop off the closer it gets to infinity. FWIW, the MTF numbers on photodo (http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html) bear this out, as the 120 Makro gets a 2.7, while the 180 Sonnar gets a respectable 3.7. (These tests are made at infinity). As a point of reference, the Contax Zeiss 120 gets a 4.0. How the formula from Contax to Hasselblad could change so drastically is surprising to me. b r a d l e y h a n s o n Seattle, WA http://www.hansonphotography.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Rabiner [mailto:mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 6:36 PM > To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > Subject: Re: The 120 Makro's > > > > In a message dated 5/7/01 5:32:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > bradley.hanson@home.com writes: > > > > > > > When I compare the results from my 120 and my 180, the 180 is clearly > > > sharper, especially at longer distances. The 120 Makro is stunning at > > > minimum focus (or near it), but anything over 6 feet looks > comparatively > > > soft to me, at least compared to the 180 Sonnar. > > > > > > b r a d l e y h a n s o n > > > Seattle, WA > > > > > > > It seems that my 180mm looks better then my 100mm. But I > consider myself > > lucky to own both great lens. Of course I cannot afford film now. > > Peter > > > Harder to believe though as the longer a lens is the harder it is > to make sharp. > My money still goes to the 100 for my sharpness and general imaging vote! > > > Mark Rabiner > > Portland, Oregon > USA > > http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of > Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its > content. This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor > Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates. > > Please turn off HTML mail features prior to posting to this list. > Use text mode only. > > To change your subscription status, go to: http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad Digest archives are stored at http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 02:02:51 EDT From: BLADHASS@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: A16 Backs Message-ID: --part1_d2.6428d00.2828e60b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/7/01 9:32:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, darkroom@ix.netcom.com writes: > If it was made in 1964, it would not be an "A" back... > > Anyway, I don't believe the insert should matter...the spacing is taken > care of by the gearing in the side. > Austin My shell is a 1994 model, so thats why I would like too find a newer insert. I guess I need to run some tests. Peter --part1_d2.6428d00.2828e60b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/7/01 9:32:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
darkroom@ix.netcom.com writes:


If it was made in 1964, it would not be an "A" back...

Anyway, I don't believe the insert should matter...the spacing is taken
care of by the gearing in the side.


Austin
My shell is a 1994 model, so thats why I would like too find a newer insert.
I guess I need to run some tests.
Peter --part1_d2.6428d00.2828e60b_boundary-- ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #1220 ************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content. This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates. Please turn off HTML mail features prior to posting to this list. Use text mode only. To change your subscription status, go to: http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad Digest archives are stored at http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html