hasselblad Mon, 28 May 2001 Volume 1 : Number 1240 In this issue: RE: Lens angle of view table Long dimension Re: Lens angle of view table Long dimension ultrawide brownie? Re: FAQ: 120 vs. 220 Tradeoffs (& 35mm backs) Re: FAQ: 120 vs. 220 Tradeoffs (& 35mm backs) Re: FAQ: 120 vs. 220 Tradeoffs (& 35mm backs) Re: 35mm backs Re: 35mm backs Re: 35mm backs Re: 35mm backs RE: 35mm backs Re: 35mm backs Re: batteries in Europe Re: 35mm backs RE: 35mm backs Re: 35mm backs Re: 35mm backs Re: 35mm backs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 11:46:31 -0400 From: "Austin Franklin" To: , Subject: RE: Lens angle of view table Long dimension Message-ID: > > I didn't believe AOV was directly related to focal length...that it was > > loosely related, but that different lense designs, of the same > focal length, > > would have different AOVs... > > > A fisheye would not follow the formula they said. That's why I said it was also related to lense design... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 20:08:35 +0200 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: Subject: Re: Lens angle of view table Long dimension Message-ID: <000401c0e6d8$113b5780$c7f6f1c3@qnu350> Austin Franklin wrote: > > A fisheye would not follow the formula they said. > > That's why I said it was also related to lense design... Fisheyes however are the only exception. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 11:54:38 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: ultrawide brownie? Message-ID: <3B114D6F.CC058B8A@rabiner.cncoffice.com> "Q.G. de Bakker" wrote: > > Austin Franklin wrote: > > > > A fisheye would not follow the formula they said. > > > > That's why I said it was also related to lense design... > > Fisheyes however are the only exception. > Fisheyes not included it seems there is a big gap in the photo world. A Medium format ultrawide gap. In 35mm photography a 16 or 15mm lens gets you a 97 or 100 degree angle of view on the long dimension of the format. These lenses have long been out there for us. You can now get that same 100 degree angle in large format with the new lenses they've got out now from Schneider and Rodenstock. 47mm for 104 degrees or 35mm for even more. That 35mm Rodenstock apo Grandagon however may not really cover 4x5 and may really be optimized for 6x12 use so you could call that roll film. But otherwise i cant find an 100 degree Lens angle of view long dimension lens for medium format roll film photography!! Have I mist one? You've got to go out an buy a smaller or larger camera. A glitch? why would this be the case if it really is one I wonder? Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 15:11:54 -0700 From: David Gerhardt To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: FAQ: 120 vs. 220 Tradeoffs (& 35mm backs) Message-ID: <200105272211.SAA21415@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> --Apple-Mail-1050861404-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii I thought I remembered seeing some references to a Hasselblad 35mm back, and so I went thru promotional material, and price lists from '69 thru the present (not ALL material, but a reasonable sampling). What I found was the following: 1. No reference to ANY 35mm format prior to 85/86 Product Catalog ('69- 85/86). The only thing that came close was the "16S" back, (which is a square "superslide" format on 120 film, that can be mounted in slide mounts & projected in a 35mm projector); and the 70mm film, and film cassette (that "looks" like the 35mm equivalent if you squint, but is a much larger magazine). 2. 1985/86 Product Catalog: In the special applications section, under "Special Film Magazines" they refer to "several different modifications have been made on Hasselblad film magazines for type 120, 220, 70mm, and 35mm film". No other data/pictures were given. 3. 1987/88 Product Catalog: Again, in the very back of the catalog in a special applications area, reference is made to: 63073 Film Magazine A2035 (black) Produces at least 19, 1x2 1/8 (24x55mm) frames on 135-36 film 4. 1994 Catalog: Reference is made to (again, in the back of the catalog): Magazine A2035 - for film 135 (19 frames size 24x55) 5. 1996 Catalog: Reference, in back of catalog to (note: the "35" may be a typo): 63073 Magazine A2035 (black) For type film 135 (19 frames, size 24x35mm) A point of interest is that the 35mm magazine was NEVER referred to in the main catalog... it was always hidden away as a footnote or embedded in text. One might guess that all of them were special order. Hopefully this information may be of use to those who may want to run one of these magazines down. At least you now have a part number! -David Gerhardt (davidgerhardt@mindspring.com) On Friday, May 25, 2001, at 03:58 AM, Q.G. de Bakker wrote: > bradley hanson wrote: > >> Coincidentally, the new issue of Hasselblad FORUM shows an old >> prototype >> back that held 35mm for vertical panoramas. The entire issue is >> dedicated > to >> the Hasselblad XPAN. > > This 35 mm back has been taken beyond the prototype stage. It was > offered > for sale during the 80s, featuring in several Product Catalogues. > It probably still is available from Hasselblad. --Apple-Mail-1050861404-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=us-ascii ArialI thought I remembered seeing some references to a Hasselblad 35mm back, and so I went thru promotional material, and price lists from '69 thru the present (not ALL material, but a reasonable sampling). What I found was the following: 1. No reference to ANY 35mm format prior to 85/86 Product Catalog ('69- 85/86). The only thing that came close was the "16S" back, (which is a square "superslide" format on 120 film, that can be mounted in slide mounts & projected in a 35mm projector); and the 70mm film, and film cassette (that "looks" like the 35mm equivalent if you squint, but is a much larger magazine). 2. 1985/86 Product Catalog: In the special applications section, under "Special Film Magazines" they refer to "several different modifications have been made on Hasselblad film magazines for type 120, 220, 70mm, and 35mm film". No other data/pictures were given. 3. 1987/88 Product Catalog: Again, in the very back of the catalog in a special applications area, reference is made to: 63073 Film Magazine A2035 (black) Produces at least 19, 1x2 1/8 (24x55mm) frames on 135-36 film 4. 1994 Catalog: Reference is made to (again, in the back of the catalog): Magazine A2035 - for film 135 (19 frames size 24x55) 5. 1996 Catalog: Reference, in back of catalog to (note: the "35" may be a typo): 63073 Magazine A2035 (black) For type film 135 (19 frames, size 24x35mm) A point of interest is that the 35mm magazine was NEVER referred to in the main catalog... it was always hidden away as a footnote or embedded in text. One might guess that all of them were special order. Hopefully this information may be of use to those who may want to run one of these magazines down. At least you now have a part number! Gill Sans 3535,4747,8787-David = Gerhardt American = Typewriter(davidgerhardt@mindspring.com) On Friday, May 25, 2001, at 03:58 AM, Q.G. de Bakker wrote: bradley hanson wrote: Coincidentally, the new issue of Hasselblad FORUM shows an old prototype back that held 35mm for vertical panoramas. The entire issue is dedicated to the Hasselblad XPAN. This 35 mm back has been taken beyond the prototype stage. It was offered for sale during the 80s, featuring in several Product Catalogues. It probably still is available from Hasselblad. = --Apple-Mail-1050861404-2-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:35:54 +0200 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: Subject: Re: FAQ: 120 vs. 220 Tradeoffs (& 35mm backs) Message-ID: <01a501c0e6fd$65867980$c7f6f1c3@qnu350> David Gerhardt wrote: >> I thought I remembered seeing some references to a Hasselblad 35mm back, and so I went thru promotional material, and price lists from '69 thru the present (not ALL material, but a reasonable sampling). What I found was the following: [snip] << Wildi includes illustrated instructions on how to load the magazine in his third edition (1986). No further mention was ever made in later editions. He mentions that you get 21 exposures on a 36-exposures cassette, only 13 on a 20-exposures cassette. Have you noticed how, though this back is officially called A2035, itself is marked 21-35? The mention of 24x35 mm frame size in the 1996 catalogue indeed is a typo. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 16:17:20 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: "Q.G. de Bakker" Cc: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: FAQ: 120 vs. 220 Tradeoffs (& 35mm backs) Message-ID: <3B118B01.9AF77463@rabiner.cncoffice.com> "Q.G. de Bakker" wrote: > > David Gerhardt wrote: > > >> I thought I remembered seeing some references to a Hasselblad 35mm back, > and so I went thru promotional material, and price lists from '69 thru the > present (not ALL material, but a reasonable sampling). What I found was the > following: [snip] << > > Wildi includes illustrated instructions on how to load the magazine in his > third edition (1986). No further mention was ever made in later editions. He > mentions that you get 21 exposures on a 36-exposures cassette, only 13 on a > 20-exposures cassette. > Have you noticed how, though this back is officially called A2035, itself is > marked 21-35? > > The mention of 24x35 mm frame size in the 1996 catalogue indeed is a typo. > what was the frame size? 24x55? Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 18:04:34 -0700 From: Jim Brick To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35mm backs Message-ID: <200105280107.SAA14853@spoon.alink.net> Can someone please enlighten me as to the desirability of a 35mm back for a Hasselblad. In my case, the large film size of the Hasselblad is the very reason I use it over my 35mm cameras. 35mm cameras do a very good job of using 35mm film and taking 35mm photographs. Hasselblads do a very good job of using 120/220 film. 4x5 cameras do a very good job of using 4x5 sheet film. Etc... So why in the world would someone want to use a Hasselblad, to take a non standard size 35mm frame, vertical only (without gymnastics), in a camera optimized to use 120/220 roll film. Is there any wonder why Hasselblad did not continue the project? If I am missing something here, will someone please enlighten me... :) Many thanks, Jim >"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote: >> >> Wildi includes illustrated instructions on how to load the magazine in his >> third edition (1986). No further mention was ever made in later editions. He >> mentions that you get 21 exposures on a 36-exposures cassette, only 13 on a >> 20-exposures cassette. >> Have you noticed how, though this back is officially called A2035, itself is >> marked 21-35? >> >> The mention of 24x35 mm frame size in the 1996 catalogue indeed is a typo. >> At 04:17 PM 5/27/01 -0700, Mark Rabiner wrote: >what was the frame size? > >24x55? > > >Mark Rabiner ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 18:47:36 -0700 From: "Joe Codispoti" To: Subject: Re: 35mm backs Message-ID: <013c01c0e718$2c81f680$d2d9efd1@joe> There you go again Jim, trying to be logical. Probably for the same reason that people spend thousands of dollars to customize their car, others try hard to modify the standard formats in photography. Years ago Nikon made an adapter called Speed Magny which turned a 35 body into a 4x5. Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Brick" To: Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 6:04 PM Subject: Re: 35mm backs > Can someone please enlighten me as to the desirability of a 35mm back for a > Hasselblad. In my case, the large film size of the Hasselblad is the very > reason I use it over my 35mm cameras. > > 35mm cameras do a very good job of using 35mm film and taking 35mm > photographs. Hasselblads do a very good job of using 120/220 film. 4x5 > cameras do a very good job of using 4x5 sheet film. Etc... > > So why in the world would someone want to use a Hasselblad, to take a non > standard size 35mm frame, vertical only (without gymnastics), in a camera > optimized to use 120/220 roll film. > > Is there any wonder why Hasselblad did not continue the project? > > If I am missing something here, will someone please enlighten me... :) > > Many thanks, > > Jim > > > >"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote: > >> > >> Wildi includes illustrated instructions on how to load the magazine in his > >> third edition (1986). No further mention was ever made in later > editions. He > >> mentions that you get 21 exposures on a 36-exposures cassette, only 13 on a > >> 20-exposures cassette. > >> Have you noticed how, though this back is officially called A2035, > itself is > >> marked 21-35? > >> > >> The mention of 24x35 mm frame size in the 1996 catalogue indeed is a typo. > >> > > At 04:17 PM 5/27/01 -0700, Mark Rabiner wrote: > >what was the frame size? > > > >24x55? > > > > > >Mark Rabiner > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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: Sun, 27 May 2001 21:23:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Monaghan To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35mm backs Message-ID: Hi Jim, I thought Hasselblad _did_ continue the project, they adopted a Fuji 35mm camera and put it under the Hasselblad name as the Hasselblad XPAN for Hasselblad owners who wanted to use 35mm film in standard or panoramic formats, right? ;-) ;-) They not only built/adapted the back, they built a whole camera and lens system for 35mm panoramic shots ;-) re: films with many film stocks only available in 35mm, and not in 120 or 220, esp. oddball films (like Polaroid instant slide film, IR, etc.), I would think a 35mm back would have its uses with those needing specialty films or that special look? You could use a 35mm camera, but there are benefits to leaf shutter lenses and other medium format options not found on 35mm SLRs. The popularity of 35mm film adapters for Rollei TLRs, and the dual format 35mm and 6x6cm Yashica TLRs suggest that there is a modest interest/demand. As noted, other brands like bronica and mamiya offer 35mm panoramic backs. Re: Hassy alternatives Does anyone know if the film adapter insert for the Mamiya 7/7II which mounts a 35mm film cassette into their cameras can be used in place of the 120/220 film (See http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=24) under mamiya 7 accessories - 35mm panoramic adapter) in other backs (hassy?) It looks pretty big, but if you could use the adapter in place of 120 roll, it might be an alternative solution? rather pricey, though... I have also assumed that you could use the hasselblad 70mm backs with a bit of puttering about to shoot 35mm bulk or respooled film (in darkroom or changing bag?) onto the 70mm spools, and simply use 35mm film centered in the film channel? Anybody tried this theory out? ;-) You can often use 120 film respooled onto 616# oldie film format cameras, so why not 35mm? ;-) grins bobm * Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 rmonagha@mail.smu.edu * * Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/index.html * * Medium Format Cameras: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/index.html megasite* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:39:35 -0400 From: "Eugene A. Pallat" To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35mm backs Message-ID: <3B11BA67.352176D8@apk.net> Joe Codispoti wrote: > There you go again Jim, trying to be logical. > > Probably for the same reason that people spend thousands of dollars to > customize their car, others try hard to modify the standard formats in > photography. Years ago Nikon made an adapter called Speed Magny which turned > a 35 body into a 4x5. That used 4x5 Polaroid. A Nikon 50mm f/2.8 EL Nikkor enlarging lens was used as a field lens with 2 front surface mirrors to enlarge the image. Gene Pallat Orion Forensics Orion Data Systems ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:53:34 -0400 From: "Austin Franklin" To: Subject: RE: 35mm backs Message-ID: > Can someone please enlighten me as to the desirability of a 35mm > back for a > Hasselblad. If you actually expose 6cm of film, I could see a "desire", but I don't know if the 35mm back did that... If it used a standard 35mm film gate aperture...then only for the different films available in 35, or even just for pure convenience of not having to bring two camera bodies/lenses... Obviously there was SOME demand, but obviously it wasn't that great either ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 20:29:15 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35mm backs Message-ID: <3B11C60B.4104706F@rabiner.cncoffice.com> > > > If I am missing something here, will someone please enlighten me... :) > > Many thanks, > > Jim > A 36x24 back to make slides of your black and white prints for slide shows. And other copy work. When Hasselblad went into the slide projector biz and stopped making the superslides back so 35mm slide projectors would not needed to be used that was that. But now we're back as they are out of that business. As it is vertical panoramics are out. I hadn't thought of that. Not the case in other modular medium format systems? They load from left to right? Or they have you flip the camera over? Some photographer have little use for a 35mm system. A back for their Hassy might do what little needed to be done. I'd guess mainly slides for projection. And copy work at that. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:17:24 -0400 From: "Peter Klosky" To: "Q.G. de Bakker" , Subject: Re: batteries in Europe Message-ID: <001001c0e72d$19f9a6b0$230a210a@dulles> In many cases you don't need a voltage adapter. Years ago, many devices had a 120/240 mode switch. Now, many simply accept either one and require only the correct connector, which is even less expensive than a voltage adapter, in the range of $10 USD. For example, laptops are like this. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 7:05 PM Subject: Re: batteries in Europe > Joe Codispoti wrote: > > > All EU countries have adapted an electrical standard of 220-240V. > > In order to recharge your flash/camera/shaver batteries, you will need a > > voltage converter from 230V to 115V which, I presume, is the voltage of > your > > recharging unit. > > The voltage converter is available as a kit, along with the appropriate > plug > > converters in the travel section of several department store. > > I have such a kit and have used it in several European countries with no > > problems. > > And should you forget to bring one, they are readily available in Europe > too. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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, 28 May 2001 00:37:45 EDT From: BLADHASS@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35mm backs Message-ID: <102.3d66c59.28433019@aol.com> --part1_102.3d66c59.28433019_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/27/01 6:08:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jim@brick.org writes: > Can someone please enlighten me as to the desirability of a 35mm back for a > Hasselblad. In my case, the large film size of the Hasselblad is the very > In my case the need for a 35mm back would be a real blessing. I photograph school and league sports. My company now wants to photograph the individuals on 35mm and the teams on medium format. If we can use only one camera for both think of the savings on the photographer not having to carry all that extra gear. Other then that I guess just something to play around with. Peter Peterson --part1_102.3d66c59.28433019_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/27/01 6:08:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jim@brick.org
writes:


Can someone please enlighten me as to the desirability of a 35mm back for a
Hasselblad. In my case, the large film size of the Hasselblad is the very
reason I use it over my 35mm cameras.


In my case the need for a 35mm back would be a real blessing. I photograph
school and league sports. My company now wants to photograph the individuals
on 35mm and the teams on medium format. If we can use only one camera for
both think of the savings on the photographer not having to carry all that
extra gear. Other then that I guess just something to play around with.
Peter Peterson --part1_102.3d66c59.28433019_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:03:14 -0700 From: "Frank Filippone" To: Subject: RE: 35mm backs Message-ID: <005e01c0e733$80279540$0201a8c0@Workgroup> It's the films..... there are some emulsions that are not available and never were available in 120 format.... 35 only..... Or,,,, the NSA wanted one, and they paid the tab..... Frank Filippone red735i@earthlink.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 01:24:10 EDT From: BobR38@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35mm backs Message-ID: --part1_cc.1591f5e8.28433afa_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>> ....flip the camera over. <<<< A good Ball Head and 90-Degree Viewfinder is the answer to incorporating the 35mm Back with the Hasselblad Camera. Bob R. --part1_cc.1591f5e8.28433afa_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>> ....flip the camera over. <<<<

A good Ball Head and 90-Degree Viewfinder is the answer to incorporating the
35mm Back with the Hasselblad Camera.
Bob R. --part1_cc.1591f5e8.28433afa_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 01:43:01 EDT From: BLADHASS@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35mm backs Message-ID: --part1_c9.107b65b9.28433f65_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/27/01 10:24:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, BobR38@aol.com writes: > A good Ball Head and 90-Degree Viewfinder is the answer to incorporating the > 35mm Back with the Hasselblad Camera. > Bob R. Hello Bob I must admit that I use 645 backs for 90% of my work and have always used the PM45 finders. I find them very easy to use after getting used to the 45 degree sideways tilt. I did buy a 90 degree finder thinking that I would prefer them over the 45 but could not get used to it, plus they only have a 2x magnifier while the 45 have a 3x. Peter PS I e-mailed Hasselblad Sweden and asked them what it would cost to build a 35mm back, I will guess $1700. --part1_c9.107b65b9.28433f65_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/27/01 10:24:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, BobR38@aol.com
writes:


A good Ball Head and 90-Degree Viewfinder is the answer to incorporating the
35mm Back with the Hasselblad Camera.
Bob R.


Hello Bob
I must admit that I use 645 backs for 90% of my work and have always used the
PM45 finders. I find them very easy to use after getting used to the 45
degree sideways tilt. I did buy a 90 degree finder thinking that I would
prefer them over the 45 but could not get used to it, plus they only have a
2x magnifier while the 45 have a 3x.
Peter
PS I e-mailed Hasselblad Sweden and asked them what it would cost to build a
35mm back, I will guess $1700. --part1_c9.107b65b9.28433f65_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:55:15 -0500 From: Bradley Martin To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 35mm backs Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20010528005439.021ba5f0@pop.ipa.net> An A16s or an 16s would fill the bill quite nicely and could have choice of vertical or horizontal . At 08:29 PM 5/27/2001 -0700, you wrote: > > > > > > If I am missing something here, will someone please enlighten me... :) > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Jim > > >A 36x24 back to make slides of your black and white prints for slide shows. > And other copy work. >When Hasselblad went into the slide projector biz and stopped making the >superslides back so 35mm slide projectors would not needed to be used that was >that. But now we're back as they are out of that business. >As it is vertical panoramics are out. I hadn't thought of that. >Not the case in other modular medium format systems? >They load from left to right? >Or they have you flip the camera over? > >Some photographer have little use for a 35mm system. >A back for their Hassy might do what little needed to be done. >I'd guess mainly slides for projection. And copy work at that. > > >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 ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #1240 ************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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