hasselblad Fri, 8 Jun 2001 Volume 1 : Number 1251 In this issue: Bellows and 501CM Re: Mark's new format Re: Bellows and 501CM Re: Mark's new format lens adapters RE: lens adapters Re: lens adapters Zeiss 80/2.8 vs 100/3.5 Re: lens adapters Re: lens adapters -- thanks! Re: Zeiss 80/2.8 vs 100/3.5 Re: Bellows and 501CM Re: Bellows and 501CM Re: Mark's new format Re: lens adapters Re: lens adapters Re: lens adapters I: exposure evaluation in darkroom fs: 6-7-01 fs: hasselblad 6-8-01 FS: APO EL Nikkor Enlarging lens ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 03:55:23 EDT From: Gdoces@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Bellows and 501CM Message-ID: <9d.1683d0ea.28508d6b@aol.com> I<< The problem is the new style release button. It is too wide. You can solve the problem by first attaching the 16 mm extension tube to the camera, and then attach the bellows to the tube. >> You are right! The new style release button is the problem. I wonder why Hasselblad has no mention of this in any literature that they put out with the 501CM. Even Richard Nordin did not mention this fact in his "Hasselblad System Compendium." Only question I have regarding your suggestion is how can you focus the 135mm macro lens on the bellows to infinity with the 16mm extension tube in place? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 01:57:28 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Mark's new format Message-ID: <3B1F41F9.7C94309D@rabiner.cncoffice.com> I ran my two rolls of film today from my 16S back i just got for 120 bucks. I love the format. Have the framelines to look around like on a Leica. But I'm getting a light leak on just about every shot coming from the left of the camera. I'm assuming it's just the old sealing foam needing to be replaced and sometime soon I'll the pamphlet our member on this has has come out with so i can fix it myself. But I've got a feeling I'm going to spend another hundred bucks having this thing tuned up. That brings the price of it up to $220 instead of $120. Think it's still worth it? Backs are a grand now and this one appears to be from the mid to late 60's and in a way made better than my other backs made in the 70's 80's and 90's. I don't' know what they go for these old ones though normally. Should i try to squeeze down the price from the pro photo store i got it from? I think they had it there on consignment. I guess tomorrow I'll bring it into the repair place that i've been going to for 25 years and get a quote and probably just get it fixed. I am getting a scratch on the base side of one of my 120 back. And the spacing of one of my 220 backs is spread out too much. These backs are quite a maintenance item! I have 8 of them! I sure got them cheap enough. All new untill this one: A12 Back 1987 $336 A12 Back 1990 $450 A16 Back 1985 $300 16S Back 2001 $120 A24 Back 1979 $300 A24 Back 1993 $650 70 Back 1983 $460 100 Polarioid Back 1979 $180 Mark R. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:15:55 +0200 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: Subject: Re: Bellows and 501CM Message-ID: <000d01c0ef32$78fca380$b4dbf1c3@qnu350> Gdoces@aol.com wrote: > You are right! The new style release button is the problem. I wonder why > Hasselblad has no mention of this in any literature that they put out with > the 501CM. They must think everybody immediately dumped their old bellows, and bought the automatic type the moment it was introduced? Anyhow, that is what they surely want us to do. ;-) > Even Richard Nordin did not mention this fact in his "Hasselblad > System Compendium." He must keep something in reserve to put in a second edition... ;-)) > Only question I have regarding your suggestion is how > can you focus the 135mm macro lens on the bellows to infinity with the 16mm > extension tube in place? You simply can't. You could try and find a variable extension tube if you want to use this lens on your 501 CM focussing beyond 50 - 60 cm. Or get the new automatic bellows... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:32:05 -0400 From: "Peter Klosky" To: Subject: Re: Mark's new format Message-ID: <001101c0ef56$3e9741e0$230a210a@dulles> Mark, The dark slide seal is pretty obvious. I'd suggest removing the cover plate screws on the back around the outside of the frame to get a look at it, right away. This should build confidence that it is an easy job. That said, I still buy the service done. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Rabiner" To: Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 4:57 AM Subject: Re: Mark's new format > I ran my two rolls of film today from my 16S back i just got for 120 bucks. > I love the format. Have the framelines to look around like on a Leica. > But I'm getting a light leak on just about every shot coming from the left of > the camera. > > I'm assuming it's just the old sealing foam needing to be replaced and sometime > soon I'll the pamphlet our member on this has has come out with so i can fix it myself. > > But I've got a feeling I'm going to spend another hundred bucks having this > thing tuned up. > That brings the price of it up to $220 instead of $120. > Think it's still worth it? > > Backs are a grand now and this one appears to be from the mid to late 60's and > in a way made better than my other backs made in the 70's 80's and 90's. > > I don't' know what they go for these old ones though normally. > > Should i try to squeeze down the price from the pro photo store i got it from? > > I think they had it there on consignment. > > I guess tomorrow I'll bring it into the repair place that i've been going to for > 25 years and get a quote and probably just get it fixed. > > I am getting a scratch on the base side of one of my 120 back. > > And the spacing of one of my 220 backs is spread out too much. > > These backs are quite a maintenance item! I have 8 of them! > > I sure got them cheap enough. All new untill this one: > > A12 Back 1987 $336 > A12 Back 1990 $450 > A16 Back 1985 $300 > 16S Back 2001 $120 > A24 Back 1979 $300 > A24 Back 1993 $650 > 70 Back 1983 $460 > 100 Polarioid Back 1979 $180 > > > Mark R. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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, 7 Jun 2001 10:06:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Moore To: Subject: lens adapters Message-ID: When using a medium format lens on a 35mm body via an adapter, a given MF focal length will appear to have a slightly longer focal length because the film format uses a smaller area of the image circle. An 80mm MF lens would look more like a mid-tele in 35mm format. What's the formula that tells me this "effective focal length" for a specified MF focal length? --Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:23:48 -0400 From: "Austin Franklin" To: Subject: RE: lens adapters Message-ID: > When using a medium format lens on a 35mm body via an adapter, a given MF > focal length will appear to have a slightly longer focal length because > the film format uses a smaller area of the image circle. An 80mm MF lens > would look more like a mid-tele in 35mm format. > > What's the formula that tells me this "effective focal length" for a > specified MF focal length? As a note, typically, the resolution of MF lenses is lower than that of 35mm lenses, simply because the optical formula for MF lenses was made to cover a larger film area. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:27:41 -0400 From: "Peter Klosky" To: Subject: Re: lens adapters Message-ID: <004b01c0ef5e$02a75960$230a210a@dulles> Andrew, It is certainly true that an 80mm "normal" lens for MF does become a mid-range telephoto on a 35mm camera, as the prints are produced from a smaller area of the image circle (24mm x 36mm area vs. 56mm x 56mm area.) However, my understanding of the theory is that an 80mm lens is an 80mm lens, in terms of its view angles, regardless of the size of the image circle it produces. In other words, to calculate the view angles, one doesn't make any modifications to the view angles for the image circle, provided the image circle is large enough to cover the film format. Like others, I have a C language view angle calculator program, which has been extensively checked, and it treats all 80mm lenses the same. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Moore" To: Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:06 AM Subject: lens adapters > > When using a medium format lens on a 35mm body via an adapter, a given MF > focal length will appear to have a slightly longer focal length because > the film format uses a smaller area of the image circle. An 80mm MF lens > would look more like a mid-tele in 35mm format. > > What's the formula that tells me this "effective focal length" for a > specified MF focal length? > > --Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:38:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Moore To: Subject: Zeiss 80/2.8 vs 100/3.5 Message-ID: The archives didn't reveal much on this subject. Aside from differences such as resolution, cost, weight and brightness of viewing screen, what other differences might one consider when using either of these (current generation) as a standard lens? The lenses seem to be of the same basic design, so I'd expect them to be similar in most other respects. Does one lens offer more even performance (all image qualities) across all focusing distances than the other? I'm particularly interested in subjects from around 1 to 5 meters. I assume each lens is optimized for infinity, at least the 100 with its emphasis on arial applications. --Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 16:42:20 +0200 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: Subject: Re: lens adapters Message-ID: <000d01c0ef60$12b93380$74d2f1c3@qnu350> Andrew Moore wrote: > When using a medium format lens on a 35mm body via an adapter, a given MF > focal length will appear to have a slightly longer focal length because > the film format uses a smaller area of the image circle. An 80mm MF lens > would look more like a mid-tele in 35mm format. > > What's the formula that tells me this "effective focal length" for a > specified MF focal length? When putting your MF 150 mm lens on a 35 mm camera, it will give the exact same image a 35 mm format 150 m lens will. The "effective focal length" of any lens on any format is equal to no more or no less than the focal length itself. So there is no formula. You don't need a formula. When comparing lenses on different formats, it is the angle of view that varies while focal lengths remain the same. Now if we would assume that the standard 80 mm lens has the same angle of view a standard 50 mm lens on 35 mm format has, you can calculate the focal length of a MF lens that has the same angle of view as any 35 mm format lens on 35 mm format by multiplying the 35 mm format lens' focal length by 80/50, or 1.6. Or, conversely, divide the MF lens' focal length by the same amount. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:50:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Moore To: Subject: Re: lens adapters -- thanks! Message-ID: > When putting your MF 150 mm lens on a 35 mm camera, it will give the exact > same image a 35 mm format 150 m lens will. The "effective focal length" of > any lens on any format is equal to no more or no less than the focal length > itself. So there is no formula. You don't need a formula. Thanks for the clarification. Easier than I thought. --Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 08:10:55 -0700 From: Jim Brick To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, Subject: Re: Zeiss 80/2.8 vs 100/3.5 Message-ID: <4.1.20010607080812.03f03ed0@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com> At 10:38 AM 6/7/01 -0400, Andrew Moore wrote: > >The archives didn't reveal much on this subject. > >Aside from differences such as resolution, cost, weight and brightness of >viewing screen, what other differences might one consider when using >either of these (current generation) as a standard lens? The lenses seem >to be of the same basic design, so I'd expect them to be similar in most >other respects. > >Does one lens offer more even performance (all image qualities) across >all focusing distances than the other? I'm particularly interested in >subjects from around 1 to 5 meters. I assume each lens is optimized for >infinity, at least the 100 with its emphasis on arial applications. > >--Andrew The 100mm lens is one of Hasselblad/Zeiss's darlings. The 80mm has been bandied about as not being a stellar performer. I have both the 80 CFE and 100 CFi. It is true that the 100 is a landmark lens. And I find no fault with the 80. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:59:19 -0600 From: Richard Chandler To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Bellows and 501CM Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20010607095919.01114320@mail.hainc.com> No, it won't. It's not a big deal for me, but it might be a problem for you. I had exactly the same problem with my manual bellows and my 503 CW. I called Hasselblad to fuss at them about the release button collar that gets in the way. They (I don't remember who I talked to, but it was some guy in the service department) said that they were aware of the problem but didn't think many people would try to use the older bellows with the newer bodies. I tried to insert a shim between the bellows rear standard and the rear bayonet, but gave up and bought the 16 mm tube. At 03:55 AM 6/7/01 EDT, you wrote: Only question I have regarding your suggestion is how >can you focus the 135mm macro lens on the bellows to infinity with the 16mm >extension tube in place? >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >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, 7 Jun 2001 20:13:33 +0200 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" To: Subject: Re: Bellows and 501CM Message-ID: <000a01c0ef7d$922320a0$d9e2f1c3@qnu350> Richard Chandler wrote: > I had exactly the same problem with my manual bellows and my 503 CW. I > called Hasselblad to fuss at them about the release button collar that gets > in the way. They (I don't remember who I talked to, but it was some guy in > the service department) said that they were aware of the problem but didn't > think many people would try to use the older bellows with the newer bodies. Oh, but it isn't just with newer bodies that this problem occurs. It is with us for more than 20 years now: the non-automatic bellows will not fit the 2000-series cameras directly for exactly the same reason. I always use the 16 mm tube with my 2000 FCW and this bellows. But then, i never owned a 135 mm lens. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 11:26:34 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Mark's new format Message-ID: <3B1FC75A.146AAD97@rabiner.cncoffice.com> Peter Klosky wrote: > > Mark, > > The dark slide seal is pretty obvious. I'd suggest removing the cover plate > screws on the back around the outside of the frame to get a look at it, > right away. This should build confidence that it is an easy job. That > said, I still buy the service done. > > Peter > The grove in the whole back on that side i saw last night had a pice of grit in it which might have made it not made good enough contact, good enough of a seal. So i just cleaned out the square groove on the outside of the back and I'll finish this roll that's in it before i bring it in to Paul. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 11:35:17 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: lens adapters Message-ID: <3B1FC966.254EAD7F@rabiner.cncoffice.com> Andrew Moore wrote: > > When using a medium format lens on a 35mm body via an adapter, a given MF > focal length will appear to have a slightly longer focal length because > the film format uses a smaller area of the image circle. An 80mm MF lens > would look more like a mid-tele in 35mm format. > > What's the formula that tells me this "effective focal length" for a > specified MF focal length? > > --Andrew > An 80 gives you a horizontal angle of 39 degrees at six centimeters or 55 millimeters the Hassy format. At 36 mm it will be only around 25 degrees. My wife will send the formula in a minute. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 11:38:49 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: lens adapters Message-ID: <3B1FCA3A.C0500870@rabiner.cncoffice.com> Peter Klosky wrote: > > Andrew, > > It is certainly true that an 80mm "normal" lens for MF does become a > mid-range telephoto on a 35mm camera, as the prints are produced from a > smaller area of the image circle (24mm x 36mm area vs. 56mm x 56mm area.) > > However, my understanding of the theory is that an 80mm lens is an 80mm > lens, in terms of its view angles, regardless of the size of the image > circle it produces. In other words, to calculate the view angles, one > doesn't make any modifications to the view angles for the image circle, > provided the image circle is large enough to cover the film format. Like > others, I have a C language view angle calculator program, which has been > extensively checked, and it treats all 80mm lenses the same. > > Peter > I believe what you say is true. An 80 is an 80. Use a Hassy 80 on a Nikon and you are going to get a whole lot more coverage than you need unless you've got some kind of shifty thing worked up. But i would be an 80 just like if you bought one for the 35mm format. And you even with Hassy are not going to get the resolution you would with a lens that only had to cover that smaller image circle. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 11:53:42 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: lens adapters Message-ID: <3B1FCDB6.26380C75@rabiner.cncoffice.com> Andrew Moore wrote: > > When using a medium format lens on a 35mm body via an adapter, a given MF > focal length will appear to have a slightly longer focal length because > the film format uses a smaller area of the image circle. An 80mm MF lens > would look more like a mid-tele in 35mm format. > > What's the formula that tells me this "effective focal length" for a > specified MF focal length? > > --Andrew > Here is the formula that I have used for lens angle of view. Angle of View = 2 x arctan ( (W/2)/L ) where W = long side of the film in mm L = lens length in mm Example: You want the angle of view for a 50mm lens on 35mm film. For 35mm film the negative is 24mm x 36mm, so W = 36mm. And the lens L = 50mm Angle if View = 2 x arctan ( (36/2)/ 50 ) = 2 x arctan (.36) = 2 x 19.80 = 39.6 degrees Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:13:51 +0200 From: "piero cavigliasso" To: Subject: I: exposure evaluation in darkroom Message-ID: <002f01c0ef8e$5f6939e0$2301a8c0@polial.polito.it> > Hi all, > I have recently started again some darkroom activity. > After 13 years in which I have not printed anything, the exposure meter that > I used before doesn't work anymore and I wonder if I can use my normal > Sekonic 328 exposure meter in some way... > I tried already, I had the feeling that it is very precise... > for instance, setting a ISO value at 1200 I got exposure values of 5 to 8EV > on the same negative... but how can I transform this value into > diaphram+time combinations? > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:52:44 -0700 From: "Anthony Ferraro" To: "Hasselblad Usenet" Subject: fs: 6-7-01 Message-ID: ------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C0EFA4.90716740 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 501CM kit in mint condition/80CB, A12, W.L. kiev spot meter prism Vivatar 2x extender 55mm extension tube Bay 60 tiffen UV filter Will sell for $2500 ------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C0EFA4.90716740 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
501CM kit in m= int condition/80CB, A12, W.L.
kiev spot meter prism
Vivatar 2x extender
55mm extension tube
Bay 60 tif= fen UV filter
 
 
Will sell fo= r $2500
 


 
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C0EFA4.90716740-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 01:51:00 EDT From: Photovilla@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, RichP@aol.com Subject: fs: hasselblad 6-8-01 Message-ID: <2b.168e4f78.2851c1c4@aol.com> I am an authorized Hasselblad USA dealer in midtown Manhattan and I offer the best commission deal in the business to HUG/RUG/LUG/LEG list members. I will sell your gear on consignment for a 10% commission. This is 1/2 what most dealers charge. ------------------------------------------ NEW HASSELBLAD SERVICE DEPARTMENT: We are proud to announce that we have now added to our services a factory trained Hasselblad repair technician. Our technician, Brad Sherman, has worked for Hasselblad USA and several camera stores in New York City. All our parts are authentic Hasselblad USA! Please check my site, photovillage.com for rates. ------------------------------------------ Hasselblad Xpan kit, with 45mm lens, (rebate = get a FREE center filter worth $237) $2075 Hasselblad Xpan kit 2nd rebate = buy the kit + one lens and get the center filter + Xpan leather bag. Hasselblad Xpan 30mmf5.6 lens, Mint/boxed $2200 Hasselblad Xpan 90mm lensf4.0 New, USA $599 Hasselblad Xpan 90mm lens, Mint $505 Hasselblad Xpan leather carry bag, nice with room for two bodies $99 Filters for all Xpan lenses (center and B&W contrast filters) ...IN STOCK. Hasselblad Rebate = buy any New, USA Hassy body, lens and back, get a free PME45 prism! or Buy a qualifying CFi, CFE or CB lens and get a free A12 back. Hasselblad 903 SWC New, USA $5445 Hasselblad 205 FCC, New, USA $7340 Hasselblad 203 FE, near Mint/boxed $2499 ***this week's web special*** Hasselblad 553 ELX, "AA" batteries, with speed grip, now only $1495 Hasselblad 503CW New, USA demo $inquire Hasselblad 501cm kit, complete, New, USA $3179 Hasselblad 501cm kit, with 80mm CFE, A12 back, unused, demo, complete was $2495, ***this week $2445*** Hasselblad 503 CW winder (not body, winder only) with remote, Mint $750 Hasselblad 500c/m, Exc++ $795 Hasselblad Arc Body kits - please inquire Hasselblad D40 flash, New, USA $481 (only a few left!) Hasselblad Rebate = Buy a qualified New, USA Hasselblad lens, get a free A12 back from Hasselblad. (worth $759!!!) Hasselblad 50mm CF, previous to FLE model, Mint glass, Exc++, caps $1395 Hasselblad 60mm CFi, New USA (with a free A12 back) $2267 Hasselblad 80mm CFE, New USA, $1775 Hasselblad 150mm CFT* caps, Mint glass, Exc++ $1745 Hasselblad 120mm CFi, (with a free A12 back) $2775 Hasselblad 180mm CFi, New USA, $best price + an A12 back. Hasselblad 250mm CFT* Super Achromat, As New/boxed, never used $4295 Hasselblad 350mm CFT* Super Achromat, Like New, low price $inquire Hasselblad 500mm C lens, and oldie but goodie, Exc/Exc+ $1500 Hasselblad Digital Backs $inquire Hasselblad A12, New, USA $759 Hasselblad A12, New, demo$689 Hasselblad A12, Exc++/Mint-, black $545 Hasselblad A12, Exc++/Mint-, chrome $545 Hasselblad #12 back, Exc++ $225 Hasselblad A24, New, USA $868 Hasselblad A24, New, demo $775 Visatech Lighting through Hasselblad USA $available Books: Nordin, Richard, The Hasselblad Compendium, the authoritative work that compiles and describes all of Hasselblad's gear (and some history) like never done before. Nice pics. too! New, USA $59.95 Wildi Hasselblad Books: In Stock I am a one man camera store, so please leave a message at (212) 398-0402 and I'll call back...or email and I will get back to you quickly. If you wish to visit my showroom on 39th Street & 5th in NYC, please just let me know when you'd like to meet and I'll arrange a private showing. thanks! Rich photovillage.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:13:41 -0700 From: "Frank Filippone" To: Subject: FS: APO EL Nikkor Enlarging lens Message-ID: <002a01c0efe2$2a49c960$0201a8c0@Workgroup> 105mm F5.6 APO EL Nikkor Enlarging Lens..... yes, THAT lens of Ctein reputation!.... Details on request.... $800. Image circle is 100mm at F8. 80mm at F5.6. The best there is for any 35 or 6x6 user. ( Last Nikon list price was $3600 !) Frank Filippone red735i@earthlink.net ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #1251 ************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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