hasselblad Thu, 13 Nov 1997 Volume 1 : Number 8 In this issue: Re: 400 Delta Re: Calculation of actual exposure with extension tube HUG: Code key Re: HUG: Code key Re: 400 Delta To Hassy or not to Hassy, that is my question Let them pop....... Re: HUG/ Extension Tubes Re: Let them pop....... Re: HUG: Code key Re: HUG/ Extension Tubes softar Tony Corbell - Seminar on Lighting Lost subscribers Re: Tony Corbell - Seminar on Lighting Hasselblad Serial Numbers Digest option of List Re: To Hassy or not to Hassy, that is my question Re: HUG: Code key Re: HUG: Code key Re: Digest option of List Re: softar Re: 400 Delta Re: To Hassy or not to Hassy, that is my question Re: 400 Delta Re: To Hassy or not to Hassy, that is my question Re: 400 Delta Hassy CB lenses - latest info Re: To Hassy or not to Hassy, that is my question Re: To Hassy or not to Hassy, that is my question Re: 400 Delta Re: 220 B&W films? Re: Hassy CB lenses - latest info ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:35:18 +0000 From: "Henk Thijs" To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 400 Delta Message-ID: <9711120835.ZM14097@ir6mws28.mas.eurocontrol.be> Hi Marc, you wrote : >A side note: you will not note any loss of sharpness. 400 Delta is a >grand film and lacks all of T-Max 400's 'in your face' darkroom attitude. >All in all, this is a grand emulsion. What about the base, just curious. For me, the big advantage from the T-Max was the fact that I could use the negatives directly in the enlarger, without 4 possible extra nightmares concerning dust et al. The TRI-X, FP4 & HP5 does not allow that. Henk ps By the way :what means 'in your face' darkroom attitude ? -- Henk Thijs tel: +31-(0)43-3661249 Eurocontrol Maastricht UAC fax: +31-(0)43-3661300 Horsterweg 11 email: henk.thijs@eurocontrol.be NL-6191 RX Beek(l) T h e N e t h e r l a n d s ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:25:16 +0100 From: "Lennart Rydström" To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Calculation of actual exposure with extension tube Message-ID: <3469AE3B.792732DD@algonet.se> Adrian Seah wrote: > > Well here is how to calculate the actual exposure with extension tube : [snip] > The second way of calculation is as follows : > > Example 1 > Actual measure reading for exposure is F16, extension tube 50mm, lens 80mm > > Increase in exposure needed = ( (50+80) / 80) square > = 2.6 stops Hi Adrian Thank you. This is indeed very useful. I just have to make some remarks to the last formula: The resulting 2.6, is it not a multiplication factor? Not stops. BTW, just curious what the ".sg" in your email address stand for? Cheers, -Lennart Rydström ".se" =Sweden ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:34:18 +0100 From: "Lennart Rydström" To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: HUG: Code key Message-ID: <3469BE69.603CC063@algonet.se> Hi guys. A couple of years ago I heard of a key to the "two letter" code found on all Hasselblad camera bodies etc. It is the one engraved close to the serial no. [xx 1234567] As it is said to be a code for the manufacturing year, it would be interesting to decode it. Does anybody have the key? Cheers, -Lennart Rydström ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:46:42 +0000 From: "Henk Thijs" To: clrphoto@algonet.se, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: HUG: Code key Message-ID: <9711121446.ZM11389@ir6mws28.mas.eurocontrol.be> Lennart asks: >A couple of years ago I heard of a key to the "two letter" code >found on all Hasselblad camera bodies etc. It is the one engraved >close to the serial no. [xx 1234567] The key is: vh pictures 12 34567890 So my camera bears the number RV1263050 means : from '81 number............. Regards Henk -- Henk Thijs tel: +31-(0)43-3661249 Eurocontrol Maastricht UAC fax: +31-(0)43-3661300 Horsterweg 11 email: henk.thijs@eurocontrol.be NL-6191 RX Beek(l) T h e N e t h e r l a n d s ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:59:45 -0500 From: Tom Campbell To: Henk.Thijs@eurocontrol.be Cc: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 400 Delta Message-ID: <3469C461.41D8@bellsouth.net> Henk--I don't understand what you mean by "use negatives directly in enlarger"--unless you refer to a glass carrier you use with some films and not others. Could you clarify? Tom Campbell tcphoto@bellsouth.net Henk Thijs wrote: > What about the base, just curious. For me, the big advantage from the T-Max was > the fact that I could use the negatives directly in the enlarger, without 4 > possible extra nightmares concerning dust et al. > The TRI-X, FP4 & HP5 does not allow that. > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:48:36 -0800 From: Brian Durell To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: To Hassy or not to Hassy, that is my question Message-ID: <3469FA03.6AE@oise.utoronto.ca> Folks -- I have just joined this list within to last week, so I hope you will forgive some very basic questions. I have just started into the medium format arena and am using an old Mamiya 645 which a friend has for sale. FWIW, it is a very basic camera without interchangeable backs (which I want very much), and a top shutter speed (focal plane shutter which I don't like -- leaf shutters are my goal) of 1/500 second so it is not even an M645 1000. It has 80mm f/2.8 and 150mm f/4 lenses (good starters for me) and a non-metered prism finder (I don't really need metering in the prism.) Not a bad kit to start with except for the two problem areas noted. However, I was originally told that the selling price would be under $1000 (Canadian -- about $700 US at current exchange rates.) I recently got the actual price of $1200 CDN. I'm wondering if this is a wise use of money. I doubt very much that I would ever get that much back from it although I suppose I could keep it as a back-up system. This long preamble leads me to my position on which I would appreciate advice: Should I pass up that system and move to something else? The only something elses that are available are Bronica (interchangeable backs and leaf-shutter lenses) and, of course, Hasselblad. I have already seen on this list posts about the way Hasselblad equipment holds its value. I doubt that Bronica would perform in that manner. However, we can get Bronica equipment in Canada at B&H US price levels, but pay for them with Canadian dollars -- about a 30% discount. The same does not seem to be true for Hasselblad. The prices of Hasselblad equipment is astronomical. Is it really worth it? For instance, a used CF 150 mm lens runs around $2700 Cdn in Toronto. I could get a new Bronica 150 (645) lens for about $1200. I doubt that the new CB lenses will be a solution for me since it will be a long time before there is a used market in them. One other comparison point in all this, a new A12 back in Toronto will cost me about the same as what my friend wants for the whole Mamiya system. While I believe that Hasselblad systems are rugged and of superb optical quality (my portraiture mentor, Hugh Jacob, is a committed Hasselblad user), some aspects of the systems seem primitive to me. This is particularly true with regard to multiple exposures, mirror lockup, and being sure that both lenses and body are cocked (to avoid jams). As I understand it (mainly from reading Wildi), on a 500-501 body if I put the mirror up, but then wanted it down again to check framing before making the exposure (something I do quite a bit shooting horses and riders -- horses have a tendency to move after everything is looking good) I would have to release the back and wind the crank to get the mirror back down. Even on the ancient Mamiya all I have to do is flip the mirror lever to put it back down. This is much too long already. What I'd like to know from some of you experienced Hasselblad users is: Do I understand correctly some of the Hasselblad limitations? Do they actually matter to you in your operation of the cameras? If you were starting over and looking for a system for fairly heavy professional use, would you go with Hasselblad today given the hefty prices? Any advice or comments appreciated. Perhaps, due to the elementary level of my concerns, direct replies to me off the list would be more appropriate. -- Brian Brian Durell bdurell@oise.utoronto.ca Cheltenham, ON ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:44:11 +0000 From: "Henk Thijs" To: tcphoto@bellsouth.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Let them pop....... Message-ID: <9711121544.ZM11946@ir6mws28.mas.eurocontrol.be> Tom asked: >Henk--I don't understand what you mean by "use negatives directly in >enlarger"--unless you refer to a glass carrier you use with some films >and not others. Could you clarify? Yes , that is correct , the Tmax thick emulsion layers can be used without glass carrier, but to avoid popping I use the glass carriers for other films , but............I think Marc is right: >Shucks, Henk. I use a Beseler 23C with glassless plates and, occasionally, >have problems with popping negatives. But they're like popping slides: >let 'em pop, then refocus. Once they've popped, they stay that way.> Henk -- Henk Thijs tel: +31-(0)43-3661249 Eurocontrol Maastricht UAC fax: +31-(0)43-3661300 Horsterweg 11 email: henk.thijs@eurocontrol.be NL-6191 RX Beek(l) T h e N e t h e r l a n d s ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:18:59 +0100 From: unb702@ibm.rhrz.uni-Bonn.de (Christoph Esch) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: HUG/ Extension Tubes Message-ID: >This sounds like an interesting device but I've never seen one. >But I'm curious about the numbers you give. In general, a >magnification of 1:1 needs 2 stops more exposure. Why does your >list give 2.5 ev's instead?? > Hi Roy I really do not know. but it is true and for the 250mm lens they give 3.0 EVs for 1:1. Of course if I try to imagine that using a 250mm lens for 1:1 you need a total extension of 2x 250mm that is half a meter between film and the center of the lens, so there must be more light lost than using a 80mm lens with 160mm extension. But I have a How to book for sinar cameras explaining these stuff. May be I will find some time to check this. I hope ciao Chris ################################################################## # Christoph B. Esch # # ZOOLOGISCHES FORSCHUNGSINSTITUT UND MUSEUM ALEXANDER KOENIG # # Scientific Documentation # # # # Adenauerallee 160 Fon: +49-(0)228/9122-298, -296 # # D-53113 BONN Fax: +49-(0)228/9122-296 # # Germany E-mail: Ch.Esch.ZFMK@uni-bonn.de # ################################################################## Sometimes - often in science and always in art - one does not know what the problems were till after they have been solved. Bateson (1972) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:56:04 -0500 From: Tom Campbell To: Henk.Thijs@eurocontrol.be Cc: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Let them pop....... Message-ID: <3469DFA4.1922@bellsouth.net> Henk- I *thought* that was what you meant! Back when I still used condensers, I used to wait for the pop and then focussed. Worked fine, but the other drawbacks of condensers made me switch to cold light. Even sold the condenser head in '81 and without regrets...no more "post-focus" pops...better prints too, IMO. Thanks for clearing it up, as I was wondering how I could put my negatives in "abnormally". Hey, I'll try any non-fatal thing once . Tom Henk Thijs wrote: > > Yes , that is correct , the Tmax thick emulsion layers can be used without > glass carrier, but to avoid popping I use the glass carriers for other films , > but............I think Marc is right: ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:19:47 -0500 (EST) From: SPYDERS@aol.com To: clrphoto@algonet.se, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: HUG: Code key Message-ID: <971112121946_220216468@mrin44.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 11/12/97 9:40:44 AM, Lennart wrote: >A couple of years ago I heard of a key to the "two letter" code > >found on all Hasselblad camera bodies etc. It is the one engraved > >close to the serial no. [xx 1234567] > > > >As it is said to be a code for the manufacturing year, it would be interesting > >to decode it. > > > >Does anybody have the key? I learned it as: V H P I C T U R E S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 There's also a W, but I can only guess it stands for Wide, as I have only seen it on my SWC's serial #. Any other SWC users see that? pat ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:31:02 -0700 From: Roy Harrington To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: HUG/ Extension Tubes Message-ID: <346A03F4.6D2C@harrington.com> Christoph Esch wrote: > > >This sounds like an interesting device but I've never seen one. > >But I'm curious about the numbers you give. In general, a > >magnification of 1:1 needs 2 stops more exposure. Why does your > >list give 2.5 ev's instead?? > > > > Hi Roy > I really do not know. > but it is true and for the 250mm lens they give 3.0 EVs for 1:1. > Of course if I try to imagine that using a 250mm lens for 1:1 you need a > total extension of 2x 250mm that is half a meter between film and the > center of the lens, so there must be more light lost than using a 80mm lens > with 160mm extension. > But I have a How to book for sinar cameras explaining these stuff. May be I > will find some time to check this. > > I hope > ciao > Chris One point: the extension of one focal length is already built into the lens so you need just one more focal length of extension to get to 1:1. So an 80mm lens just needs 80mm more for 1:1. Roy -- Roy Harrington roy@harrington.com Black & White Photography Gallery http://www.harrington.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:33:10 -0600 From: "Rich Lim" To: Subject: softar Message-ID: Hello and thank you in advance to the members of the blad list! Can someone give me a brief summary of the Softar filters and their appropriate usage. I have been shooting my 501c for a year now, primarily architectural and landscape, but am doing more portrait work. Are these filters essential? How do the different Softars compare? Rich ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 97 16:10:00 EST From: "Lassiter, Paul" To: Hasselblad Request Subject: Tony Corbell - Seminar on Lighting Message-ID: <3469D58A@pubstaff.commerce.state.nc.us> Last night, I attended a 3 hour seminar given by Hasselblad/Tony Corbell in Greensboro, North Carolina, on lighting and lighting controls. Tony talked lighting for the first half of the seminar and then spent the second half setting up lights to illustrate his lighting theories with the help of a local model. He approached the shoot by setting up one light at a time and then introducing another, setting it up, and then another. In between he took Polaroid shots to show us what difference each light made and shared a bunch of tips. I thoroughly enjoyed the seminar and highly recommend it if this seminar comes your way. The cost was $20. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:23:18 -0500 From: "Dan Cardish" To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Lost subscribers Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971112162318.00885db0@kelvin.net> I am having some problems accounting for a few lost subscribers to the list, so for the next few days I will be moderating any unsubscriptions, meaning that I will receive an email, and will have to take action, in order for you to remove your name from the list. I will do this without question; I only want to see what is happening to those few who seem to keep disappearing from the list without their knowledge. Dan Cardish ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:00:00 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Armstrong To: Hasselblad Request Subject: Re: Tony Corbell - Seminar on Lighting Message-ID: I took this same seminar in San Francisco and Adolph Gasser's about two weeks ago. very similar format, and we had the added benefit of a slide presentation that covered the same subject matter afterwards -- the slides clearly illustrated all the things Tony talked about in the 'workshop' portion of the presentation. I echo Paul's suggestion that you attend this seminar if it comes your way. -Eric on a side note, perhaps Hasselblad would be interested to know of the existence of this listserv. Anybody have any thoughts in this regard? On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Lassiter, Paul wrote: > > Last night, I attended a 3 hour seminar given by Hasselblad/Tony Corbell in > Greensboro, North Carolina, on lighting and lighting controls. Tony talked > lighting for the first half of the seminar and then spent the second half > setting up lights to illustrate his lighting theories with the help of a > local model. He approached the shoot by setting up one light at a time and > then introducing another, setting it up, and then another. In between he > took Polaroid shots to show us what difference each light made and shared a > bunch of tips. > > I thoroughly enjoyed the seminar and highly recommend it if this seminar > comes your way. The cost was $20. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Armstrong e-mail: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:51:13 -0500 From: Marc James Small To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Hasselblad Serial Numbers Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971112165113.00707f94@roanoke.infi.net> Per Rick Nordin in his IMPENDING Hasselblad Compendium: The code has two letter only save for the following: A 'C' was added in 1977 only to all 500CM bodies and backs An 'F' was added in 1977 only to all 2000FC bodies (the backs had 'C' added in that year, of course, the F and C cameras using identical backs) An 'E' was added to all EL and ELM bodies to late 1978 or so A 'W' was added to all Superwide and later bodies to 1979 Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:25:38 -0500 From: "Dan Cardish" To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Digest option of List Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971112172538.008923c0@kelvin.net> Just a reminder-If you feel that you are getting too many posts from this List, you may wish to consider getting the Digest form. The Digest is sent out once per day and contains all of the post from the previous 24 hours. The same content, but all in one convenient email. First unsubscribe, and then resubscribe by sending (in the body of the message) subscribe hasselblad digest to: majordomo@kelvin.net Dan C. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:32:09 -0500 From: Adrienne_Moumin@usccmail.lehman.com (Adrienne Moumin) To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: To Hassy or not to Hassy, that is my question Message-ID: <0032408D.1576@usccmail.lehman.com> Brian Durell wrote: What I'd like to know from some of you experienced Hasselblad users is: Do I understand correctly some of the Hasselblad limitations? Do they actually matter to you in your operation of the cameras? If you were starting over and looking for a system for fairly heavy professional use, would you go with Hasselblad today given the hefty prices? Any advice or comments appreciated. Perhaps, due to the elementary level of my concerns, direct replies to me off the list would be more appropriate. If those replying wouldn't mind, please either post to the list or cc:me on your replies; as a complete MF naif, I would benefit greatly from this information. Thank you. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:56:07 -0400 From: Gene Woolridge To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: HUG: Code key Message-ID: <346A25F5.29FF@erols.com> SPYDERS@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 11/12/97 9:40:44 AM, Lennart wrote: > > >A couple of years ago I heard of a key to the "two letter" code > > > >found on all Hasselblad camera bodies etc. It is the one engraved > > > >close to the serial no. [xx 1234567] > > > > > > > >As it is said to be a code for the manufacturing year, it would be > interesting > > > >to decode it. > > > > > > > >Does anybody have the key? > > I learned it as: > > V H P I C T U R E S > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 > > There's also a W, but I can only guess it stands for Wide, as I have only > seen it on my SWC's serial #. Any other SWC users see that? > > pat Don't want to throw the wrench it the works BUT- have SWC with normal UR 123456 no "W" have also new SWC-E (motor drive on 903) ser# 61LG 12345 Anybody have anyfurther suggestions? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:14:42 -0500 From: Marc James Small To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: HUG: Code key Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971112181442.00709a4c@roanoke.infi.net> At 05:56 PM 11/12/97 -0400, Gene Woolridge wrote: >have SWC with normal UR 123456 no "W" They quit using the W during 1978. I'd guess yours is a late-year model. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:40:33 -0700 From: "Roger Beamon" To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Digest option of List Message-ID: <199711122342.QAA20160@usr01.primenet.com> On 12 Nov 97, Dan Cardish wrote: > Just a reminder-If you feel that you are getting too many posts from > this List, you may wish to consider getting the Digest form. One addition, if you reply to the digest, please change the subject to something germane to your reply. Otherwise it comes through with a generic subject giving the reader no clue as to what the post is about. Thanks, -- Roger Beamon Naturalist & Photographer mailto:beamon@primenet.com If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy. -- Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:05:12 -0500 From: Tom Campbell To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: softar Message-ID: <346A441E.54F2@bellsouth.net> Rich Unless you have a particularly immaculate, or particularly unselfconscious clientele, I think the Softars are a must for portrait work, at least headshots. This is, of course, referring to salable, commercial work....I often use the Zeiss lenses straight for personal work, even portraits. I normally use a Softar I as "standard" on a 150mm. At times I also use a Softar III. The nice thing about the Softar design is that they cost (almost) nothing in the way of sharpness, just smooth out the ravages of time. Another advantage is that their actions are not dependent on aperture, so you don't have to worry about f/stop from this point of view anyway. For some reason, I've never felt the need for a "II". It always seems if a "I" isn't enough, it's going to take a "III" to make everyone happy. Tom Campbell tcphoto@bellsouth.net ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 97 18:30:49 -0500 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9 Jean Q?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?UINTAL?=" To: Henk.Thijs@eurocontrol.be, hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 400 Delta Message-ID: Hi! I don't know much about T-Max. I very seldom use B&W. Everything I've seen "T-Max" never met MY expectations. To me, T-Max means burn-out highlights, and a contrast curve I'd never buy. So, ... I would really appreciate if someone reading this would direct me to Internet sites where there are interesting T-Max First Grade photos, any subject. I'd like, though, to see available light photos and studio controlled lighting photos to gain a better perspective. To date, the best B&W work I've seen "live" are old Kodak Plus-X and Kodak Panatomic-X Point-Of-Sale display enlargements. Most of the ISO 400 stuff I have seen to date is "off the mark of excellence". It may have only been advertising materials, but I will never forget three "swatches" of AGFA / Kodak / Ilford enlargement papers "demos" done both in warm-tone and cold-tone: God, was that ever beautiful lab work... I sure wish I get to see, "live", in a very well lit environment, enlargements actually done by such masters as Ansell Adams or the older Life magazine and Harper's Bazaar magazine "staff" (!!!!!) photographers, let alone original prints from such portraitists as Karsh (not in books, ACTUAL original prints...) or more recent work by Paul Huf or Richard Avedon or Lemarchelier. I truly can appreciate many dimensions of B&W photography, but I feel I'm missing something, relative to color photography. Yet, there only ONE lab I have access to that does color prints I can "live" with, (color balance, sharpness, grain, "luminosit=E9" (don't know the Englisk word for that), consistent and predictable quality) otherwise I have to "revert" to slides to get any thrill and not start criticizing... You have, a few of this mailing list people, been discussing film emulsions. But, today more than ever before, can we not say that there are specific emulsion/photochemistry "couples" that really "come through" better than anything ever did before ? Since I am but an amateur, very much transparency oriented, what would be, in YOUR opinion VERY GOOD, technically up-to-date, matches for outstanding results in B&W (I really will never go back to a lab myself: the slightest dust speck kills all the pleasure...). I mean, for example, T-Max 400 with X or Y or Z photochemistry printed on type "?" paper, contrast grade "?" (wether variable contrast or not), in such and such photochemistry, is a definitive winner, given adequate lab technique, VERSUS Ilford Delta 100 (400) or the HP films VERSUS Kodak Plus-X (Tri-X) VERSUS Agfa APX-100 (400)... and the surprisingly wide selection of B&W photo papers and B&W photochemistry still available, expanding even, in a Fujilab and Sears Studio dominated universe... In other words, all told, I'd like to get info on today's ZONE SYSTEM winning equation. If THAT doesn't start a heated debate, nothing ever will!!! :=3D>) Andr=E9 Jean Quintal & Theodor Kreuznach, the krazzie puppet. PS 01: This afternoon even, I was at a local college-level library where there was a photo class exhibition. It was B&W 16" x 20" blow-ups from 35mm, mainly. But I couldn't help but be SORRY that there was so little TEXTURE to the skin of the otherwise quite interesting subjects... that would have been fantastic in color... Not to tease anyone, just a hopeful comment. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:25:01 -0800 From: Michael Tiemann To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: To Hassy or not to Hassy, that is my question Message-ID: <199711130125.RAA17906@cygint.cygnus.com> Adrienne Moumin wrote: What I'd like to know from some of you experienced Hasselblad users is: Do I understand correctly some of the Hasselblad limitations? Do they actually matter to you in your operation of the cameras? If you were starting over and looking for a system for fairly heavy professional use, would you go with Hasselblad today given the hefty prices? I'm new to MF, having shot 35mm for (gasp) over 15 years. I narrowed the choice down to Hasselblad and Rollei, and things have played out pretty much as expected. Namely, there are features you can get with a Rollei that are not available in the Hasselblad line...features that enable a long-time 35mm to transfer a lot of skills into the MF world. You might wonder "why would I need 1/3rd f-stop shutter-speed and aperature settings?" or "why would I want a choice of spot, center, or multi-spot metering?" or "why would I need an integrated 2.5 fps motor drive when a 1.3 fps winder is available at extra cost and weight?" or "why would I ever need a choice Schneider-Kreuznach lenses in addition to Carl Zeiss's finest?". If you don't wonder any of these things, you don't need to think about Rollei. I decided to look at what I wanted to do, not what the cameras would let me do. I wanted to carry gear on trips. I wanted to be able to buy and sell gear as my needs/interests changed. I wanted to be able to rent stuff whereever I went. For my money, a 4-lens Hasselblad system weighs about the same as a 3-lens Rollei system and costs many $$ less. Moreover, there's lots of good Hasselblad gear available on the used market--some of which I've bought, and some of which I've already sold. With Rollei, I'd need to wait a dog's lifetime to afford new or buy used the system I have today with Hasselblad. Of course, I could have an RZ67 and lots of $$ left over, but again, the Hasselblad wins over the RZ67 on size and weight considerations--considerations that mattered to me. As I mentioned in a Usenet post a few weeks ago, if I were infinitely rich and strong, I'd have gone with Rollei. As it is, I'm very satisfied with my Hasselblad, and looking forward to buying/trading more stuff as time goes on. Michael P.S. Anybody want to sell a 350 FE ? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:52:14 -0500 From: Tom Campbell To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 400 Delta Message-ID: <346A5D4E.5A85@bellsouth.net> Andre-- While professional work requires a lot of different things, I don't really like the T-Max stuff I've seen either. While I haven't done any sensitometry on them myself, those I have spoken with say the curve is a full "straight line" with no shoulder or toe. This is why I think the prints just seem to lack "life". I use the 3200 for night sports and things like that, but for personal B&W I have yet to find anything that beats Tri-X, in HC-110 "B" printed on good paper (I use Brilliant VCII and Ilford Warm-Tone Multigrade now) with cold light. This is the preference for all formats from 35 to 8x10. I use a lot of other stuff, both regular and special-purpose emulsions, but when I go out for me, that's what I use unless there's a very good reason for something else. If you treat Tri-X right (expose at EI 160 to 200 and forget Kodak's inane development time suggestions, keep temps within 1/4 F, including wash, and don't overagitate) it looks like a much slower film in the hands of the careless. Now, I must add that I'm not a fan of large prints--I've never made anything larger than a 16x20 and usually stick with around 8x10 or 8x8, so if you like murals, the Tri-X might get a little grainy at high enlargements. But maybe not. Not trying to brag, just to show the potential, I have had people think 35 Tri-X printed 6x9 was shot on 4x5. If you're careful, it can be that good a film. FP4 Plus at EI 32 comes in a distant second. I also process this in HC-110 "B". Except for Infrared (D-76), TMZ3200 (TMax with water bath) and Pan-F Plus (Perceptol 1:3) I use HC-110 "B" for everything. I do sometimes use a 1:64 dilution when in really contrasty situations, but that seems to be about once a year, so I don't count that. You really *have* opened a can of worms Andre! Tom Campbell tcphoto@bellsouth.net Andr=E9 Jean Q UINTAL wrote: > = > In other words, all told, I'd like to get info on today's ZONE = SYSTEM > winning equation. If THAT doesn't start a heated debate, nothing ever > will!!! :=3D>) > = > = > = > = > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:05:37 -0600 From: Russ Rosener To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: To Hassy or not to Hassy, that is my question Message-ID: >As I mentioned in a Usenet post a few weeks ago, if I were infinitely >rich and strong, I'd have gone with Rollei. As it is, I'm very >satisfied with my Hasselblad, and looking forward to buying/trading more >stuff as time goes on. > >Michael > >P.S. Anybody want to sell a 350 FE ? One thing you can't tell from a camera brochure or from casual handling of equipment is RELIABILITY. In that sector the Hasselblad wins hands down. I know someone with a Rollei system who has two bodies so he can keep shooting when one is in the shop! Very poor reliability and expensive to repair. The old Rollei TLR was a great camera, but the new SLRs are not up to the same mechanical standards of reliability. And now that Rollei has been bought by Samsung, the situation can only get worse. Russ Rosener Washington University, St. Louis. http://ascc.artsci.wustl.edu/~rrosener/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:02:47 -0600 From: Jack & Christine Hamilton To: tcphoto@bellsouth.net Cc: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 400 Delta Message-ID: <346A5FC7.34E4@earth.execpc.com> Tom Campbell wrote: >=20 > Andre-- >=20 > While professional work requires a lot of different things, I don't > really like the T-Max stuff I've seen either. While I haven't done any > sensitometry on them myself, those I have spoken with say the curve is = a > full "straight line" with no shoulder or toe. This is why I think the > prints just seem to lack "life". I use the 3200 for night sports and > things like that, but for personal B&W I have yet to find anything that > beats Tri-X, in HC-110 "B" printed on good paper (I use Brilliant VCII > and Ilford Warm-Tone Multigrade now) with cold light. This is the > preference for all formats from 35 to 8x10. I use a lot of other stuff= , > both regular and special-purpose emulsions, but when I go out for me, > that's what I use unless there's a very good reason for something else. > If you treat Tri-X right (expose at EI 160 to 200 and forget Kodak's > inane development time suggestions, keep temps within 1/4 F, including > wash, and don't overagitate) it looks like a much slower film in the > hands of the careless. Now, I must add that I'm not a fan of large > prints--I've never made anything larger than a 16x20 and usually stick > with around 8x10 or 8x8, so if you like murals, the Tri-X might get a > little grainy at high enlargements. But maybe not. Not trying to brag= , > just to show the potential, I have had people think 35 Tri-X printed 6x= 9 > was shot on 4x5. If you're careful, it can be that good a film. >=20 > FP4 Plus at EI 32 comes in a distant second. I also process this in > HC-110 "B". Except for Infrared (D-76), TMZ3200 (TMax with water bath) > and Pan-F Plus (Perceptol 1:3) I use HC-110 "B" for everything. I do > sometimes use a 1:64 dilution when in really contrasty situations, but > that seems to be about once a year, so I don't count that. >=20 > You really *have* opened a can of worms Andre! >=20 > Tom Campbell tcphoto@bellsouth.net >=20 > Andr=E9 Jean Q UINTAL wrote: > > > > In other words, all told, I'd like to get info on today's ZON= E SYSTEM > > winning equation. If THAT doesn't start a heated debate, nothing ever > > will!!! :=3D>) > > > > > > > > > > Not to add to the war here...but look up the work of Nick Vedros, a commercial photographer from Kansas City, who uses a LOT OF TMAX in his Hassies. He does a lot of ad work for some big national clients. Great Yellow Father has published a lot of his stuff as samples of what T-Max can do. I've seen his stuff, heard him speak, and personally spoken with him. The t-max films will do it IF YOU CAN.=20 For myself, I still do a lot of B&W work in the stock photo illustration field. I guess the pendulum is swinging back. In fact, now I'm starting to get Photo CD's made from my tmax negs. The gray scale and the middle tones of the t-max films are just fantastic for photo/mechanical reproduction. Course, you have to handle the processing more critically than, say, Tri-X. When I switched over, years ago, I found that I had gotten sloppy (haven't we all?). Also, I discovered that using the 75 degree processing time instead of 68 degrees made A FANTASTIC DIFFERENCE in the way that the intermediate tones were displayed. THIS COULD BE THE CAUSE OF YOUR BLOCKED-UP HIGHLIGHTS THAT YOU MENTIONED. At any rate, just my two cents worth... Cordially, Jack Hamilton Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:35:38 PST From: Dave Munroe To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Hassy CB lenses - latest info Message-ID: <199711130235.SAA21636@hpvclmn2.vcd.hp.com> My contact on things Hasselblad had lunch last week with a representative and actually got to _touch_ (!) a CB lens (oh, joy...). So, in addition to what we already know, this is what she found out: - The rear of the lens is machined as a single piece, rather than four pieces as on the current CF lenses. - The front of the lens, where you mount the filter, is made out of carbon fiber rather than aluminium. - There is no F setting, nor is there an EV interlock as on the CF lenses. - Use of the flash contact and depth of field lever is improved over that of CF lenses. - The 501C is discontinued, now having been replaced by the 501CM. The `C' lens that was originally sold with the 501C (and the first 501CMs) is also discontinued, now being replaced by the 80/2.8 CB lens. She priced a 160mm CB lens for me and it was about $300-$400 less than the 180mm CF. Also, I believe the warranty period on the CB lenses are 1-year rather than 3-year. This is all second-hand information, so do not treat it as gospel. -Dave -- The latest release of the Hasselblad Lens Guide is now on the web at: http://www.cs.cuhk.edu.hk/~phwl/hassylens.txt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:37:21 -0500 From: Marc James Small To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: To Hassy or not to Hassy, that is my question Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971112213721.0070a570@roanoke.infi.net> At 08:05 PM 11/12/97 -0600, Russ Rosener wrote: >One thing you can't tell from a camera brochure or from casual handling of >equipment is RELIABILITY. In that sector the Hasselblad wins hands down. I >know someone with a Rollei system who has two bodies so he can keep >shooting when one is in the shop! Very poor reliability and expensive to >repair. The old Rollei TLR was a great camera, but the new SLRs are not up >to the same mechanical standards of reliability. And now that Rollei has >been bought by Samsung, the situation can only get worse. This is foolish one-up-manship. My "old" (1989) 2.8GX is quite reliable, thank you, as is my 1962 2.8F and my Hasselblad 2000FC/M, and my Leicas and, for that matter, my Contarex, Rollei SL35E, und so weiter. The current Rolleiflex 600x family are different cameras than are Hasselblads. They fill different niches and do so by different means. But, within their natures, they are both reliable. The purchase of Rollei should have no effect, at all, on the reliability of the camera. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:27:19 PST From: Dave Munroe To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: To Hassy or not to Hassy, that is my question Message-ID: <199711130327.TAA21722@hpvclmn2.vcd.hp.com> > As I understand it (mainly from reading Wildi), on a 500-501 body if I > put the mirror up, but then wanted it down again to check framing before > making the exposure [...] I would have to release the back and wind the > crank to get the mirror back down. You'd have to remove the back, release the shutter, then wind the crank to bring the mirror down. If you liked what you saw, you could then remount the back and make the exposure. Yes, once the mirror and auxiliary shutter have been pre-released, it is awkward if you want to bring the mirror down again without making an exposure. Just for convenience, some people would just make the exposure as-is and then wind on in order to bring the mirror down. That might be impractical with an A12 back, but might be viable with an A24 or 70mm back. It would be nice if the pre-release lever could be "moved down", so to speak, in order to undo the actions of pre-releasing. However, consider what happens just in the normal release sequence: 0. initial conditions: the camera is cocked, the leaf shutter is open, the aperture is wide open, the mirror is down, the auxiliary shutter is closed, the dark slide is withdrawn 1. user presses the shutter-release 2. the leaf shutter closes completely, the aperture closes to the selected value, the mirror swings up (I am not sure of the order within this step, but these events all occur before step 3) 3. the auxiliary shutter opens 4. the leaf shutter opens for the selected exposure interval, then closes completely 5. the aperture returns to wide-open (the leaf shutter stays closed and the mirror stays up) 6. user eases up on the shutter-release 7. the auxiliary shutter closes Only when the camera is cocked again does the leaf shutter open and the mirror come down. So, if we do a pre-release at step 1, this causes actions 2 and 3 to occur (in that state, pressing the release after step 3 will cause steps 4 through 7 to occur). Anyway, to "undo" the effects of the pre-release would require: - the auxiliary shutter to re-close - the mirror to come down - the aperture to open back up - the leaf shutter to reopen Not impossible, to be sure, but it's amazing just how much is going on. -Dave -- The lastest version of the Hasselblad Lens Guide is now available on the web at: http://www.cs.cuhk.edu.hk/~phwl/hassylens.txt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 23:26:02 -0500 From: Tom Campbell To: Jack & Christine Hamilton Cc: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 400 Delta Message-ID: <346A815A.2468@bellsouth.net> Jack-- With the 3200 I use the 75/24 temp., though I rate at 1600 for speed and 640-800 for shadow detail. The thing that's good about that film (and probably also the reason I'm not crazy about T-Max in general, but which also explains the midtone strength you mentioned) is for available light night sports, concerts, etc. it *is* easier to adjust the density by print exposure variations without any significant contrast changes--guess that's the good side of the straight line curve. You know, it never ceases to amaze me how one photog can get wonderful stuff from one set of materials, while it turns to for another, even when both are of similar skill and work to high standards. That's why I figured this could be a can of worms--there's some zen here I think, and I hate to knock any combo too hard until I see the prints. Since I've heard some good stuff about the Delta films, I guess I'll have to try those, and appreciate the temp advice. I normally use 68/20 for anything under about 7-8 mins, but will try the Tgrains at a higher temp. Tom Campbell tcphoto@bellsouth.net using the 75 degree processing time instead of 68 > degrees made A FANTASTIC DIFFERENCE in the way that the intermediate > tones were displayed. THIS COULD BE THE CAUSE OF YOUR BLOCKED-UP > HIGHLIGHTS THAT YOU MENTIONED. > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 03:42:43 +0000 From: Martin Taureg To: hagu0009@student.gu.se Cc: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: 220 B&W films? Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971113034243.006927a4@ns.arc.sn> At 06:27 11.11.97 +0100, you wrote: [snip] >pan Prof, Ilford Delta pro 400. On the color negative side it's good: >one 100, two 400 and one 1000 iso.=20 Who is manufacturing the 400 and 1000 iso? Fuji also has most of their color >negative films in 220. On the color slide side it's quite good as well: >All the Kodak 100 iso films are available in 220, and so is the 200 >prof. Unfortunately there's no Kodak tungsten 220. Fuji has (at least) >its velvia and provia prof in 220. (I've not checked Agfa.) From what I checked with dealers in Germany last year, it seems that Agfa does not produce any 220 films. Looks like they have discontinued this product line years ago. Cheers, Martin Martin Taureg Photo Archives Programme Coordinator /=20 Coordinateur du Programme des Archives Photographiques ________________________________________________________ PROGRAMME DES MUSEES DE L'AFRIQUE DE L'OUEST /=20 WEST AFRICAN MUSEUMS PROGRAMME (WAMP) 140, Rue Mouss=E9 Diop B. P. 357 Dakar, SENEGAL ________________________________________________________ Phone / T=E9l=E9phone: (++221) 822 50 57 / 823 88 48 Fax / T=E9l=E9copie: (++221) 822 12 33 E-mail / Courrier =E9lectronique: mtaureg@ns.arc.sn ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:35:05 +0000 From: dannyg1@IDT.NET To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Hassy CB lenses - latest info Message-ID: <346B7289.2C45@mail.idt.net> Dave, > She priced a 160mm CB lens for me and it was about > $300-$400 less than the 180mm CF. Too expensive, by a grand at least. Are you the author of the RPEMF published H'blad guide series? Nice work! Regards, Danny Gonzalez ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #8 ***********************