hasselblad Thu, 24 May 2001 Volume 1 : Number 1236 In this issue: test A "BIG warning Re: A "BIG warning RE: A "BIG warning FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs Re: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs Re: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs RE: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs Re: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs RE: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs Re: A "BIG warning RE: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs Re: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs RE: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs frame spacing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:16:46 +0200 From: "Eduard Crombie" To: "Hasselblad" Subject: test Message-ID: test sent on 23/05/01 at 20:17 I'm having mail server problems. Just checking if services are acting. Sorry. Eduard Crombie Dendermonde, Belgium. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:08:24 -0700 From: helenadick@worldnet.att.net To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: A "BIG warning Message-ID: <3B0C50F8.6A56A0FB@worldnet.att.net> Del Hegland has done it again. He went bankrupt a couple of years ago and took me for several thousand dollars. I was warned ahead of time, but I told the person that Del could not do that to me in that I have more or less financed his business. In that, I mean that bills that were due in 30 days, I had to call and beg to get payment in 6 months. Well, yesterday, I got another notice that he is going bankrupt. I ask each and every member of this group to not send him any money in any way whatsoever, as it will be gone. Del likes to play the bight, and have all kinds of employees, a super store, and advertise in Shutterbug. Then he likes to work off other peoples money, like a pyramid scheme. Again, A BIG WARNING, DO NOT SEND ANY MONEY TO DEL'S CAMERA, as it will be lost in the bankruptcy. -- _______________________________ Dick Werner 112 South Brighton St. Burbank, Ca., 91506 (818) 845-4667 helenadick@worldnet.att.net http://home.att.net/~blackbird711/manual.txt _______________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:58:55 -0700 From: Jim Brick To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Cc: helenadick@worldnet.att.net Subject: Re: A "BIG warning Message-ID: <4.1.20010523175759.021fd570@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com> At 05:08 PM 5/23/01 -0700, helenadick@worldnet.att.net wrote: > >Again, A BIG WARNING, DO NOT SEND ANY MONEY TO DEL'S CAMERA, as it will >be lost in the bankruptcy. >-- >_______________________________ > Dick Werner Many thanks Dick... :) Jim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 21:03:49 -0400 From: "Austin Franklin" To: Subject: RE: A "BIG warning Message-ID: At 05:08 PM 5/23/01 -0700, helenadick@worldnet.att.net wrote: > >Again, A BIG WARNING, DO NOT SEND ANY MONEY TO DEL'S CAMERA, as it will >be lost in the bankruptcy. >-- >_______________________________ > Dick Werner AGAIN? This happened before some number of years ago! Luckily I used an American Express, and American Express refunded my money in full...but I believe Dell, him self, knew he was going under, and took my credit card and ran it through literally the day they declared bankruptcy! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 21:22:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Moore To: Subject: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs Message-ID: What are the tradeoffs involved in shooting 120 vs. 220 film, besides obvious things such as per-roll costs and the convenience of being able to shoot more frames between changing rolls? --andrew ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 18:25:49 -0700 From: Jim Brick To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, Subject: Re: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs Message-ID: <200105240128.SAA08460@spoon.alink.net> At 09:22 PM 5/23/01 -0400, Andrew Moore wrote: > >What are the tradeoffs involved in shooting 120 vs. 220 film, besides >obvious things such as per-roll costs and the convenience of being able to >shoot more frames between changing rolls? > >--andrew 220 means you are loading film half as often. Twelve frames in a nuisance. A couple of shots with a bracket or two and you are done. Always reloading film. 24 is a nice number. Breathing room. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 21:29:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Moore To: Subject: Re: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs Message-ID: > What are the tradeoffs involved in shooting 120 vs. 220 film, besides > obvious things such as per-roll costs and the convenience of being able to > shoot more frames between changing rolls? (specifically with regard to A12 vs. A24 backs) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 18:45:51 -0700 From: "bradley hanson" To: Subject: RE: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs Message-ID: Hi Andrew- If I could, I'd shoot nothing but 220. Changing film in the heat of battle is a drag, and additional magazines are expensive. Unfortunately, one of the films I rely on for shooting low light hand-held wedding candids, Ilford Delta 3200, is only available in 120. If it weren't for that film, I'd have no use for 120. Almost everything else comes in 220, although Agfa doesn't put much value on 220 either. I currently use 2 A24 backs and 2 A12 backs. Most companies seem to price 220 exactly double what they charge for 120, so no real savings there. It's really just the convenience of not changing film as often, the penalty being the slightly more limited choice of films with 220. Kodak anf Fuji offer nearly everything in 220, and Ilford supports FP4, HP5, Delta 400, etc. The real mystery to me is why the A24 back costs noticably more than the A12 back. It's essentially the identical back with a different film counter and the pressure plate in a slightly different location... b r a d l e y h a n s o n Seattle, WA http://www.hansonphotography.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Moore [mailto:dmm@bronze.lcs.mit.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 6:22 PM > To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > Subject: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs > > > > What are the tradeoffs involved in shooting 120 vs. 220 film, besides > obvious things such as per-roll costs and the convenience of being able to > shoot more frames between changing rolls? > > --andrew > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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: Wed, 23 May 2001 22:23:15 -0400 From: "Peter Klosky" To: , Subject: Re: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs Message-ID: <000801c0e3f8$7dd29080$230a210a@dulles> Bradley, I agree with you 100%. A pair of 220 backs kept loaded makes a fine combination to keep up with a hectic job. To get the same ability to shoot a number of exposures without stopping to handle film, you need about five 120 backs. The only comment I'd add is that Fuji makes a nice 100 speed color neg film, but dropped the 220 version, sadly. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "bradley hanson" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 9:45 PM Subject: RE: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs > Hi Andrew- > > If I could, I'd shoot nothing but 220. Changing film in the heat of battle > is a drag, and additional magazines are expensive. Unfortunately, one of the > films I rely on for shooting low light hand-held wedding candids, Ilford > Delta 3200, is only available in 120. If it weren't for that film, I'd have > no use for 120. Almost everything else comes in 220, although Agfa doesn't > put much value on 220 either. I currently use 2 A24 backs and 2 A12 backs. > > Most companies seem to price 220 exactly double what they charge for 120, so > no real savings there. It's really just the convenience of not changing film > as often, the penalty being the slightly more limited choice of films with > 220. Kodak anf Fuji offer nearly everything in 220, and Ilford supports FP4, > HP5, Delta 400, etc. > > The real mystery to me is why the A24 back costs noticably more than the A12 > back. It's essentially the identical back with a different film counter and > the pressure plate in a slightly different location... > > b r a d l e y h a n s o n > Seattle, WA > http://www.hansonphotography.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andrew Moore [mailto:dmm@bronze.lcs.mit.edu] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 6:22 PM > > To: hasselblad@kelvin.net > > Subject: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs > > > > > > > > What are the tradeoffs involved in shooting 120 vs. 220 film, besides > > obvious things such as per-roll costs and the convenience of being able to > > shoot more frames between changing rolls? > > > > --andrew > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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: Wed, 23 May 2001 23:05:52 -0400 From: "Austin Franklin" To: Subject: RE: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs Message-ID: > > What are the tradeoffs involved in shooting 120 vs. 220 film, besides > > obvious things such as per-roll costs and the convenience of > being able to > > shoot more frames between changing rolls? > > (specifically with regard to A12 vs. A24 backs) More film types are available in 120. 220 typically is flatter. For me, I like 120 simply because I can buzz off a roll in nothing flat...but when I shoot 220, I always end up with a roll in the back, and I'd prefer to leave film in a Hasselblad back, it tends to form to the rollers, and one frame can get "distorted". It depends on what I'm shooting...and if I'm using development compensation or not too...since you have to shoot the entire roll with the same compensation. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:12:58 -0700 From: "Joe Codispoti" To: Subject: Re: A "BIG warning Message-ID: <036b01c0e3ff$6fe57c10$68d9efd1@joe> Several years ago I had left a Hasselblad on consignment with Del. He sold it but did not notify me for months. Finally I paid him a visit and demanded to be paid my share of the sale. He hedged, hammed and hawed, scraped and snorted but did pay me by check. A week later I received a letter from his attorney that he had declared bankrupcy and would I be patient for a few months until he could pay me.............. Del moved to smaller and less palatial quarters but his financial woes continued. Del's main problem is that his prices are not competitive. Joe Codispoti ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 23:19:05 -0400 From: "Austin Franklin" To: , Subject: RE: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs Message-ID: > The real mystery to me is why the A24 back costs noticably more > than the A12 > back. It's essentially the identical back with a different film > counter and > the pressure plate in a slightly different location... I believe the main reason is because they sell less of them. Also, the A24 pressure plate is a different part number than the A12 pressure plate...what the actual difference is, I do not know. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:40:02 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs Message-ID: <3B0C8293.FCACF216@rabiner.cncoffice.com> > > 220 means you are loading film half as often. Twelve frames in a nuisance. > A couple of shots with a bracket or two and you are done. Always reloading > film. 24 is a nice number. Breathing room. > > Jim I love 220. My first back was a 220 back. I have 2 now. and 2 120's which i use much less. If you are shooting people and you knock out 9 quick shots you don't' feel quite a free to shoot with only 3 in the camera. 220 you can crank and crank like in 35mm. You are saving chemistry and when you unwind that reel to let your negs dry it looks like you've done a lot of work! 2 contacts worth! my 4 reel 2 liter tanks hold 96 shots! 96 shots is a lot of shots! A lot more then 48! A disadvantage is that delta 100 does not come in 220. Or Agfa films. Plus x is great but no Tri x 400. Only Tri x pro 320 which is not Tri x if you ask me. An advantage is that with certain cameras you can use vacuum backs for better flatness. And it might be flatter even without the vacuum back. A pro pack of 220 in my caerma bag and i can shoot anything! Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 22:18:58 -0700 From: "Rod Leavitt" To: , Subject: RE: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs Message-ID: Can 220 be shot with a 120 back? I'm told the 120 film has a back-up paper that isn't found on the 220, thus the only difference is the thickness of the backup paper: i.e., a very slight difference in thickness to the pressure plate, which is not noticeable unless the photo is blown up beyond 8 x 10. If it's possible, what effect does the counter have beyond 12? -----Original Message----- From: Mark Rabiner [mailto:mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 8:40 PM To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: FAQ?: 120 vs. 220 tradeoffs > > 220 means you are loading film half as often. Twelve frames in a nuisance. > A couple of shots with a bracket or two and you are done. Always reloading > film. 24 is a nice number. Breathing room. > > Jim I love 220. My first back was a 220 back. I have 2 now. and 2 120's which i use much less. If you are shooting people and you knock out 9 quick shots you don't' feel quite a free to shoot with only 3 in the camera. 220 you can crank and crank like in 35mm. You are saving chemistry and when you unwind that reel to let your negs dry it looks like you've done a lot of work! 2 contacts worth! my 4 reel 2 liter tanks hold 96 shots! 96 shots is a lot of shots! A lot more then 48! A disadvantage is that delta 100 does not come in 220. Or Agfa films. Plus x is great but no Tri x 400. Only Tri x pro 320 which is not Tri x if you ask me. An advantage is that with certain cameras you can use vacuum backs for better flatness. And it might be flatter even without the vacuum back. A pro pack of 220 in my caerma bag and i can shoot anything! 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: Thu, 24 May 2001 00:31:30 -0500 From: "Ken Hurst" To: Subject: frame spacing Message-ID: <004701c0e412$ca16a5c0$a230080a@pavilion> I hope someone on the list can give me some idea of what may be wrong with my back. From what I've gathered by reading old posts and articles, Hasselblad backs can gradually develop spacing problems. Is this correct? Forgive me because I'm a bit new to Hasselblad. The first few rolls I ran through my system (new 503CW with used A24 back) showed no problems with the prints and the spacing seemed OK but recently I had severe frame overlap on a roll beginning somewhere around frame 15 and affecting about 5 frames - and then the last frame was OK. Weird. The next roll after this one had spacing very far apart with the last frame or frames missing. The film was not wound tightly when it was removed and had light leaks. It's possible I didn't load the film just right on both instances - maybe I didn't wind it on tightly when I loaded the back. I then had a test roll developed and there were no problems. Now I've run a couple of rolls through the camera without the lens on and marked the beginning and end of each frame with a pen. There doesn't seem to be an overlap problem now (and I've been very careful to load correctly and keep the film tight on the take-up spool) but I'm not sure just how much variation in spacing from frame to frame is within acceptable limits. Should there be any variation? And if so, how much? The spacing variation I've measured has been from 5mm to 10mm between frames. Is this an indicator of a problem developing that will eventually cause frame overlap like I had before? Thanks for any input. The back is used and is still under warranty by the store that sold it to me (a local store luckily) and will inevitably take it in for them to check it out. Ken Hurst ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #1236 ************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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