hasselblad                     Tue, 5 Jun 2001          Volume 1 : Number 1248

In this issue:

        RE: 150, 160 or 180 for wedding candids?
        Re: Hand metering..... Boo
        Re: 150, 160 or 180 for wedding candids?
        Re: The Wedding Principle
        Re: The Wedding Principle
        220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
        RE: 220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
        Re:  220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
        Re: 220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
        Re: 150, 160 or 180 for wedding candids?
        RE: 220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
        Re: 220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
        RE: 220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
        Re: 150, 160 or 180 for wedding candids?
        Re: 150, 160 or 180 for wedding candids?


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 08:23:38 -0700
From: "bradley hanson" <bradley.hanson@home.com>
To: <hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: RE: 150, 160 or 180 for wedding candids?
Message-ID: <NDBBKIFIIMEFGFDHGFGHGEJPDLAA.bradley.hanson@home.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Rabiner [mailto:mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:29 PM
> To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
> Subject: Re: 150, 160 or 180 for wedding candids?
>
>
>
>
> ><Snip>
> >
> > In short, I still prefer the 50 and 80 for candids, although
> anything from
> > 50 to 180 can easily be used. I guess I always prefer to be too wide, as
> > it's really frustrating to see a shot happen and miss it because you
> > couldn't back up fast enough (or there isn't time or room to back up).
> >
> > -Bradley
> >
> > b r a d l e y  h a n s o n
> > Seattle, WA
> >><Snip>
>
> Do you avoid getting full lengths of people with the 50 though
> because they are
> crumpled into midgets? I do. People did compain being made any
> shorter than they
> already are. I try getting them from the waist or knees up even
> if I'm using the
> 50 and that doesnt happen. In very cramped spaces.
> I wonder if that would happen with the 60 which i don't have yet?

I haven't had a single person mention it, although I usually shoot waist up
with the 50 or any other lens. I use the 180 for portraits of 1 or 2 people,
and for shots from the rear of the church if I can't be up front. The 50 is
nice for shots from the rear of the church to show the atmosphere and
guests.

> A little formalization goes a long way I'd think i just don't
> feel right doing
> too much wedding of event shots from across the room if i can avoid it.

It does feel a *bit* odd. Yesterday was my first time when I had the space
(outside) to shoot candids with the 180. I felt like a sniper, especially
since the 180 is so long with that lens hood!!! The situations when you can
shoot from far away are few and frustrating. Frequently, another guest with
a camera or videocamera will get in front of me without knowing it. With
shorter lenses, this never happens.

-Bradley

> 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, 04 Jun 2001 11:27:50 -0400
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video <henryp@bhphotovideo.com>
To: <hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: Hand metering..... Boo
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010604112718.00b1b820@bnhpop1.bhphotovideo.com>

At 03:07 AM 06/02/2001, you wrote:
>It's called the Hand Meter Exposure Book. It's written by Jim Zuckerman, Bob
>Shell and Martin Silverman.

See 
<http://www01.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___218970___SAHEMB___REG___CatID=1075___>

Martin passed away last February, by the way.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 11:30:29 -0400
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video <henryp@bhphotovideo.com>
To: <hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: 150, 160 or 180 for wedding candids?
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010604112947.051208b0@bnhpop1.bhphotovideo.com>

At 03:08 AM 06/03/2001, you wrote:
>I'll be shooting some wedding candids this summer at several weddings and
>I am probably going to rent either a 150, 160 or 180 lens for the 501cm,
>with a PM45 finder.

The guy I shoot weddings with routinely switches to a wide angle lens for 
95% of the reception candids.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:29:59 -0400
From: "Peter Klosky" <peter.klosky@marcgs.com>
To: <hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: The Wedding Principle
Message-ID: <003c01c0ed13$999d2c70$230a210a@dulles>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C0ECF2.123C0CE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

  > Never trust horses or vintage cars, particularly do not trust =
vintage British cars ...

  The logic of using a 65 year old rental car to get to an important =
event escapes me, too.  In general, cars for individual use have a =
service life of about ten years, after which they require more major =
maintenance and are subject to more frequent breakdown.  In fleet =
service, such as taxi, limo and police applications, the service life is =
more like three years.  There have been significant technology =
improvements in cars since the 1930s.  I completely agree that vintage =
British cars are not a good choice for reliable service.

  On the topic of wedding reception candids, I use a 60mm 90% of the =
time for dancing and general social conversation shots, the 50mm for =
table shots in tight spaces, and the 80mm sometimes tight dancing and/or =
cake shots.  I find that folks don't complain about "small feet" with =
the 60mm.  Often folks are talking and/or dancing in a circle, and one =
must enter the circle to have any chance of catching a view of their =
frontside.  Myself, I find that some folks have an idea that a good =
wedding photo is one taken from a distance behind the person, so it =
shows the person's broad backside.  I find I prefer the front side, and =
need to move close to the subject.  For example, on a packed dance floor =
with the couple at the center, the view from outside the dance floor =
does not easily include the couple.  This is also a "performance =
anxiety" issue, as some photographers are less comfortable with being =
seen on the dance floor.

  Peter

------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C0ECF2.123C0CE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&gt; Never trust horses or vintage =
cars,=20
  particularly do not trust vintage British cars ...</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The logic of using a 65 year old =
rental car to=20
  get to an important event escapes me, too.&nbsp; In general, cars for=20
  individual use have a service life of about ten years, after which =
they=20
  require more major maintenance and are subject to more frequent=20
  breakdown.&nbsp; In fleet service, such as taxi, limo and police =
applications,=20
  the service life is more like three years.&nbsp; There have been =
significant=20
  technology improvements in cars since the 1930s.&nbsp; I completely =
agree that=20
  vintage British cars are not a good choice for reliable =
service.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>On the topic of wedding reception =
candids, I use=20
  a 60mm 90% of the time for dancing and general social conversation =
shots, the=20
  50mm for table shots in tight spaces, and the 80mm&nbsp;sometimes =
tight=20
  dancing and/or cake shots.&nbsp; I find that folks don't complain =
about "small=20
  feet" with the 60mm.&nbsp; Often folks are talking and/or dancing in a =
circle,=20
  and one must enter the circle to have any chance of catching a view of =
their=20
  frontside.&nbsp; Myself, I find that some folks have an idea that a =
good=20
  wedding photo is one taken from a distance behind the person, so it =
shows the=20
  person's broad backside.&nbsp; I find I prefer the front side, and =
need to=20
  move close to the subject.&nbsp; For example, on a packed dance floor =
with the=20
  couple at the center, the view from outside the dance floor does not =
easily=20
  include the couple.&nbsp; This is also a "performance anxiety" issue, =
as some=20
  photographers are less comfortable with being seen on the dance=20
  floor.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Peter</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C0ECF2.123C0CE0--

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:14:42 -0700
From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: The Wedding Principle
Message-ID: <3B1BDE23.AE65B0B4@rabiner.cncoffice.com>

>   > Never trust horses or vintage cars, particularly do not trust vintage British cars ...
> 
>   The logic of using a 65 year old rental car to get to an important event escapes me, too.  In general, cars for individual use have a service life of about ten years, after which they require more major maintenance and are subject to more frequent breakdown.  In fleet service, such as taxi, limo and police applications, the service life is more like three years.  There have been significant technology improvements in cars since the 1930s.  I completely agree that vintage British cars are not a good choice for reliable service.
> 
>   On the topic of wedding reception candids, I use a 60mm 90% of the time for dancing and general social conversation shots, the 50mm for table shots in tight spaces, and the 80mm sometimes tight dancing and/or cake shots.  I find that folks don't complain about "small feet" with the 60mm.  Often folks are talking and/or dancing in a circle, and one must enter the circle to have any chance of catching a view of their frontside.  Myself, I find that some folks have an idea that a good wedding photo is one taken from a distance behind the person, so it shows the person's broad backside.  I find I prefer the front side, and need to move close to the subject.  For example, on a packed dance floor with the couple at the center, the view from outside the dance floor does not easily include the couple.  This is also a "performance anxiety" issue, as some photographers are less comfortable with being seen on the dance floor.
> 
>   Peter
> 

My new car i got last year was a silver 94 Volvo station wagon.
Boy is it new! Oops last year was not 94!!
In a couple of years i guess i should sell it i cant trust it anymore!!
The only reason why i sold it is because my wife smashed my 74 blue Volvo
station wagon last year
If she was driving most of the other cars out there she would have not walked
away from that accident.
My other is a 64 Renault Caravelle!!.
I'm very careful about the way i drive that one!
I got it as a wedding present in 77. it had been on blocks.
Bad luck to sell it at this point!
goes great down hill!


Mark Rabiner

Portland, Oregon
USA

http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 13:25:43 -0700
From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: 220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
Message-ID: <3B1BEEC8.DB2C4A2D@rabiner.cncoffice.com>

My order for a brick of 220 Delta 400 did not go through because it is no longer made.
I am bummed as i used to extensively use it in 35mm as well and it's nice to
have the same film in both formats. But i can live without that thrill.

I've got to go back to 220 Tri x pro for my events but in Xtol it should be nicer.
I'll go back to 220 plus x as well. They never made delta 100 in 220 anyway.

But i would use the Delta 400 in Xtol instead of plus x and it was comparative.
Except for speed.
But i have not done 220 plus x in Xtol either and i anticipate that coming out
even better.
Not that it's bad in Rodinal or MQ developers.


Mark Rabiner

Portland, Oregon
USA

http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:38:59 -0700
From: "bradley hanson" <bradley.hanson@home.com>
To: <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>,
	<hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: RE: 220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
Message-ID: <NDBBKIFIIMEFGFDHGFGHGEKEDLAA.bradley.hanson@home.com>

That sucks. I like Delta 400, too.

If you like Tri-X in 35mm, you should note (if you don't already know this)
that TXP is not the same as the TX that comes in 35mm and 120 only. TXP
comes in 120 and 220, but it's a lower contrast version of the same film. TX
is 120 only for MF, and looks great in XTOL.

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, June 04, 2001 1:26 PM
> To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
> Subject: 220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
>
>
> My order for a brick of 220 Delta 400 did not go through because
> it is no longer made.
> I am bummed as i used to extensively use it in 35mm as well and
> it's nice to
> have the same film in both formats. But i can live without that thrill.
>
> I've got to go back to 220 Tri x pro for my events but in Xtol it
> should be nicer.
> I'll go back to 220 plus x as well. They never made delta 100 in
> 220 anyway.
>
> But i would use the Delta 400 in Xtol instead of plus x and it
> was comparative.
> Except for speed.
> But i have not done 220 plus x in Xtol either and i anticipate
> that coming out
> even better.
> Not that it's bad in Rodinal or MQ developers.
>
>
> 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, 4 Jun 2001 16:40:34 EDT
From: ShadCat11@aol.com
To: mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re:  220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
Message-ID: <10c.e8bda2.284d4c42@aol.com>

Same experience.  OTOH, HP5+ comes in 220.  Have you tried that, yet?  I just 
got a 5 pack for a trial run.

Allen Zak 

In a message dated 06/04/2001 4:24:12 PM, you wrote:

<<My order for a brick of 220 Delta 400 did not go through because it is no 
longer made.
I am bummed as i used to extensively use it in 35mm as well and it's nice to
have the same film in both formats. But i can live without that thrill.

I've got to go back to 220 Tri x pro for my events but in Xtol it should be 
nicer.
I'll go back to 220 plus x as well. They never made delta 100 in 220 anyway.

But i would use the Delta 400 in Xtol instead of plus x and it was 
comparative.
Except for speed.
But i have not done 220 plus x in Xtol either and i anticipate that coming out
even better.
Not that it's bad in Rodinal or MQ developers.
>>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 14:14:14 -0700
From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
To: bradley.hanson@home.com
Cc: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: 220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
Message-ID: <3B1BFA27.C5DE5059@rabiner.cncoffice.com>

bradley hanson wrote:
> 
> That sucks. I like Delta 400, too.
> 
> If you like Tri-X in 35mm, you should note (if you don't already know this)
> that TXP is not the same as the TX that comes in 35mm and 120 only. TXP
> comes in 120 and 220, but it's a lower contrast version of the same film. TX
> is 120 only for MF, and looks great in XTOL.
> 
> b r a d l e y  h a n s o n
> Seattle, WA
> http://www.hansonphotography.com
> 
I opt for regular Tri x 400 in 120 instead of the 320 pro which should not have
the name Tri x on the package at all there is not resemblance. Check the curves.
But the pro is ok and I'm betting that Xtol will get me more excited about it.


Mark Rabiner

Portland, Oregon
USA

http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 18:07:58 -0400
From: "Eugene A. Pallat" <eapallat@apk.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: 150, 160 or 180 for wedding candids?
Message-ID: <3B1C06BE.529A6A5F@apk.net>

At a Hasselblad seminar in Cleveland, Ohio a couple of years ago, one guy who specialized in weddings had an interesting take.  If someone wanted to shoot for him, that person was required to buy a Blad with a 60mm lens.  A second
body and lens would be bought for the photographer as a backup.  Most of the pictures were done with the 60.

Gene Pallat

Orion Forensics
Orion Data Systems

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:31:44 -0400
From: "rboggio5" <rboggio5@bellsouth.net>
To: <hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: RE: 220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
Message-ID: <NBBBJPGEPBMHMOJGKPFFIELDCAAA.rboggio5@bellsouth.net>

I tried some 120 Delta 100.  I don't do my own processing, but use a
professional processing company.  All of my shots came out extremely
contrasty.  Almost no gray tones.  Is this normal for this film or was it
possibly processed in the wrong developer?  I have had much nicer results
from Plus X and TMax 100.  Should I speak to the lab people or just stick to
Delta when I want high contrast?

Thanks for any help you can give me.

Bob B.


bradley hanson wrote:
>
> That sucks. I like Delta 400, too.
>
> If you like Tri-X in 35mm, you should note (if you don't already know
this)
> that TXP is not the same as the TX that comes in 35mm and 120 only. TXP
> comes in 120 and 220, but it's a lower contrast version of the same film.
TX
> is 120 only for MF, and looks great in XTOL.
>
> b r a d l e y  h a n s o n
> Seattle, WA
> http://www.hansonphotography.com
>
I opt for regular Tri x 400 in 120 instead of the 320 pro which should not
have
the name Tri x on the package at all there is not resemblance. Check the
curves.
But the pro is ok and I'm betting that Xtol will get me more excited about
it.


Mark Rabiner

Portland, Oregon
USA

http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 19:30:54 -0700
From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: 220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
Message-ID: <3B1C445E.12EE268@rabiner.cncoffice.com>

rboggio5 wrote:
> 
> I tried some 120 Delta 100.  I don't do my own processing, but use a
> professional processing company.  All of my shots came out extremely
> contrasty.  Almost no gray tones.  Is this normal for this film or was it
> possibly processed in the wrong developer?  I have had much nicer results
> from Plus X and TMax 100.  Should I speak to the lab people or just stick to
> Delta when I want high contrast?
> 
> Thanks for any help you can give me.
> 
> Bob B.
> 
No.
It's awful hard to get good black and white processing in many places.
Believer me there are just as many grey tones in delta 100 as in Plus x.
If your lab people want to try harder to come up with a better (shorter) time
for their delta 100 run and not throw it in with the other stuff then you'd be ok.
I use Delta 100 in Xtol for what i used to use APX25 in Rodinal or Panatomic or
pan F for.
My high res stuff. Large format emulation. Pulling out all the stops. Take no prisoners.
Plus x is gorgeous film for people. Avedons favorite. I'm probably going to
start using it again.
It's grain is not that much better than Tri x. Its res a step better. But it's
tonality for fleshtones makes it the Kodachrome of black and white films as far
as i go.


Mark Rabiner

Portland, Oregon
USA

http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:28:45 -0700
From: "bradley hanson" <bradley.hanson@home.com>
To: <hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: RE: 220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
Message-ID: <NDBBKIFIIMEFGFDHGFGHOEKHDLAA.bradley.hanson@home.com>

Allen-

Until I found regular Tri-X in 120, I tried HP5+ in 220, which looks
(strangely) more like "real" Tri-X than TXP 220 does. Mark's right; TXP
isn't the Tri-X it's aficionados have come to love and trust. It's label is
identical aside from the difference of TX and TXP on the end of the box.

I like HP5 a lot, but I still prefer old Tri-X. Wonderful tonality and a
pleasing dirty gritty look to it that the newer sharper films don't have. My
favorite B&W lab in Seattle will run film in any developer, but it looks
great in XTOL. It also looks gorgeously snappy and creamy when shot at 1600
and processed in D-76.

Dr. Rabiner's reference to labs dropping stuff all in the same soup is often
true. Kodak and Ilford publish different contrast guides for the same films,
depending on the developer. You might find you love a certain film at one
lab, only to find it unsatisfactory at another.

-Bradley

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ShadCat11@aol.com [mailto:ShadCat11@aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 1:41 PM
> To: mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com; hasselblad@kelvin.net
> Subject: Re: 220 Delta 400 bye-bye!?!
>
>
> Same experience.  OTOH, HP5+ comes in 220.  Have you tried that,
> yet?  I just
> got a 5 pack for a trial run.
>
> Allen Zak
>
> In a message dated 06/04/2001 4:24:12 PM, you wrote:
>
> <<My order for a brick of 220 Delta 400 did not go through
> because it is no
> longer made.
> I am bummed as i used to extensively use it in 35mm as well and
> it's nice to
> have the same film in both formats. But i can live without that thrill.
>
> I've got to go back to 220 Tri x pro for my events but in Xtol it
> should be
> nicer.
> I'll go back to 220 plus x as well. They never made delta 100 in
> 220 anyway.
>
> But i would use the Delta 400 in Xtol instead of plus x and it was
> comparative.
> Except for speed.
> But i have not done 220 plus x in Xtol either and i anticipate
> that coming out
> even better.
> Not that it's bad in Rodinal or MQ developers.
> >>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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, 4 Jun 2001 09:37:10 -0700
From: Patrick Bartek <bartek@intermind.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: 150, 160 or 180 for wedding candids?
Message-ID: <01060409462601.00510@localhost.localdomain>

On Sat, 02 Jun 2001, Andrew Moore wrote:

> I'll be shooting some wedding candids this summer at several weddings and
> I am probably going to rent either a 150, 160 or 180 lens for the 501cm,
> with a PM45 finder.

I prefer the 100 for general candids from a short distance, like from 20
to 30 feet (6 to 10 meters).  I use the 150 when I have the room,
which I rarely do, but generally consider it too long for most uses,
except posed shots.

> 150 seems to be a popular length for weddings, and I'm used to 85mm in
> 35mm format for this application, but sometimes I'd like a little more
> reach such as what I'd get from the 180.  Concerns:
>
> [snip]

-- 
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@intermind.net

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:16:29 -0700
From: Patrick Bartek <bartek@intermind.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: 150, 160 or 180 for wedding candids?
Message-ID: <01060409364900.00510@localhost.localdomain>

On Sun, 03 Jun 2001, Mark Rabiner wrote:

> ><Snip>
> >
> > In short, I still prefer the 50 and 80 for candids, although anything from
> > 50 to 180 can easily be used. I guess I always prefer to be too wide, as
> > it's really frustrating to see a shot happen and miss it because you
> > couldn't back up fast enough (or there isn't time or room to back up).
>
> 
> Do you avoid getting full lengths of people with the 50 though because they are
> crumpled into midgets? I do. People did compain being made any shorter than they
> already are. I try getting them from the waist or knees up even if I'm using the
> 50 and that doesnt happen. In very cramped spaces. 
> I wonder if that would happen with the 60 which i don't have yet? 

When I shoot weddings, which I rarely do anymore, the 60 makes a
perfect "normal" lens for general use, full and 3/4 lengths, as well as
group shots -- no wide angle distortion at all, if you keep the lens
more or less level.

Also for those "walking-down-the-aisle"  shots, I get nice full lengths
from about 8' to 10' away with the 60.  That distance gives me more than
enough time to step out of the way and back into the aisle for the next
group in the procession without interferring with the rhythm of the
ceremony.

> [snip]
> 
> Mark Rabiner

--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@intermind.net

------------------------------

End of hasselblad V1 #1248
**************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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